Why Socialism Is Incompatible with the Plan of Salvation

Since Sir Thomas More introduced to the world the term "Utopia" in 1516, it has been used broadly across the world as a descriptor of the ideal society. Such a society is filled with peace, equality, justice, prosperity for all, knowledge, and happiness. Certainly More was not the first to conceive of such a place. Ever since the beginning of the human race, men and women have dreamed of a perfect society; they have longed to live there and make it a reality. They do so not only because they believe it would make them and others happy, but also because it strikes a familiar chord of eternal memory within their souls. They know that place; they've seen it before, though the memory is clouded.

Each of us existed before our birth on this planet as spirit children of Heavenly Parents and we lived in their presence. During that time we witnessed that kind of society made manifest in them, in who they were, how they lived, and how they associated with each other and with us. The immense goodness of such associations was part of what motivated us to leave their presence for a time and pass through mortality, knowing that mortality was the springboard that would propel us toward being able to dwell and fully participate in that eternal society. And so, amidst the sorrow, injustice, and darkness inherent in mortality, our thoughts often stray to a place filled with light, harmony, connection, and satisfaction. It is at these times of renascent rememberence that our hearts and minds harken back to the pattern we witnessed for so long at our Heavenly Parent's side, and our souls long to be there (Alma 36:22).

Until we regain that eternal society, a homesickness for "Utopia" will forever be woven into our imaginations.

A Little History 

At various times throughout human history both secular and saint have sought to reconstitute ideal societies on earth. The modern versions of this pursuit can all be traced back to G. F. Hegel, a German philosopher born in 1770. The aspect of Hegel's thought that has arguably had greater impact on the world than any other is what has come to be known as "historicism." The basic idea of this term is that the entirety of human history has been a great story of continual progress. Endicott Peabody, an early member of the Progressive movement who influenced FDR greatly, summed up historicism in these words, "The great fact to remember is that the trend of civilization itself is forever upward, that a line drawn through the middle of the peaks and the valleys of the centuries always has an upward trend." This means that history itself is an unstoppable force that is constantly moving towards perfection. Thus, as we hear many Progressives say today, we can either choose to be on "the wrong side of history" or on the rights side; the choice is ours, but history will march on towards Utopia with or without us.

At around the same time as Hegel, many of the monarchies in Europe were undergoing a tremendous change. They were shifting away from having all the powers of government largely in the hands of the King or Queen to more parliamentary forms of government with separated powers. However, the Prussians and Germans managed to preserve a more centralized regime of concentrated powers through establishing a form of government that we know today as bureaucracy. This modern form of administration kept the kingly form of absolute power by hiding it in many different agencies or "drawers in a bureau." These administrative organizations had supralegal, extralegal, and consolidated power, or power that was above the law, outside the law, and contained all three forms of governmental power (See Phillip Hamburger's book "Is Administrative Law Unlawful?").

All of these things were occurring shortly after the Enlightenment, and everyone was still very excited about modern science and the power that it potentially gave them over nature. It wasn't long before people started thinking that, "if history is nothing but a continual process of change towards the better, why don't we use modern science together with bureaucratic administration to take control of the process of change to quicken it's speed towards a utopian society? If we did this, we could remake the world." This was the beginning of modern social engineering. From this union of Hegelian historicism, modern science, and modern bureaucratic administration you can trace communism, socialism, fascism, progressivism, and Nazism. Each of these political philosophies proposes a different application of the principles, but all of them have as their common goal and overarching doctrine the use of science and modern administration to create a perfect society. 

For Marx and Engle the change in society could not occur without a revolution and a full abolition of the traditional elements of society. Socialism and progressivism broke from communism by pursuing the end goals through constitutional means. This approach meant that the transition would be more gradual or progressive in its nature, but it would mean less resistance and bloodshed. Though brought to pass by constitutional means, both Progressives and Socialists alike knew that their objective would mean abandoning at least large portions of constitutional government, for any government that proposes to fix all things, must also control all things. Progressives differed from Socialists only in that Progressives felt that government wasn't ready yet to take on the administrative tasks that their aims required (See Woodrow Wilson's essay "Socialism and Democracy"). So, their initial focus was on getting the Government ready to administrate the social reform. 

The Plan of Salvation 

Our Father in Heaven is also interested in shaping individuals and, therefore, society into a state of perfection (Moses 1:39). However, God's approach is much different. The different political philosophies referred to above all aim to use science and the power of the state to engineer people and society through extrinsic forces into perfection. God's approach is through agency. The following are three scriptures that explain, in part, the role of agency in God's plan:

"[Men and women] are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency" (Moses 7:32). 

"1 And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying--Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.

2 But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me--Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.

3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;" (Moses 4:1-3).

"22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;

23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.

24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;

25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;

26 And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever. (Abr. 3:22-26).

From these scriptures and others, including modern revelation, we learn that Satan too sought a perfect world. His administration of the plan promised that "one soul shall not be lost." This would mean there would be no suffering, no greed, no inequality, no violence, no poverty, and no sin of any kind. God, however, in His wisdom was able to see through Satan's promises to see that this meant the loss of agency, which was a price God would not pay. In my mind, this is how Satan was able to convince a third of God's children to follow him in the war in Heaven (Rev 12:1-11). He convinced them that he could create a world in which no one would suffer, everyone would be comfortable and have their needs met, there would be no social classes, no inequality of opportunity, and no one would be lost. This kind of world sounds wonderful. Why not? Why not go down that road? The other version of the plan, the one with all the sorrow, all the violence and death, all the selfishness, the strong preying on the weak, that sounds like a terrible idea.

Satan, those that followed him, and many still today, even in the Church, did not and do not understand the essence of agency and thus were (are) able to be persuaded that centralized control through complete regulation by the governing body is better than Liberty. To them, sacrificing Liberty is worth it if it means that all of the suffering can be avoided. What they misunderstand is that without Liberty, without agency, the whole purpose of the plan is destroyed. There would be no possible way to accomplish its objective and the whole argument held in premortal councils in Heaven about mortal life would be meaningless. I will explain what I mean. 

God seeks to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of" His children (Moses 1:39) and, through that process, to give them joy (2 Nephi 2:25). Since eternal life is God's kind of life (D&C 19:4-12), we obtain that life by living the laws and principles that He lives (D&C 93). However, the mere action of keeping the law is not enough. In order to have our natures changed to be like God's nature, and thus have the capacity to receive a fullness of happiness (Alma 41:10-11), our obedience must be infused by the power of free will. A few examples will make this abundantly clear—and here I credit Larry Arnn for these specific examples, as they are ones he uses frequently to make the case for freedom, but there are myriad others.

If you charge the enemy because your government will shoot you if you don't, that's not courage. If you're moderate about pleasure because you are living in a place that doesn't allow you the opportunity for pleasure, that's not moderation. If you give all your surplus to the poor because the government will fine or jail you if you don't, that's not generosity. Thus, the objective of God's commandments is not obedience but transformation, the transformation of our natures and our desires. If they are to shape our souls, God's commandments must be followed out of our own free will and for the right reasons. If this does not occur, the act of keeping the law is meaningless, being completely devoid of power to exalt the soul. This is where Satan and his followers went wrong. Though under God's version of the plan there would be suffering in the world and some souls would be lost, it would also unlock the power to make Eternal Beings of those that choose that path.

The Incompatibility 

If we are to understand the incompatibility of socialism and the Plan of Salvation, we need to understand what socialism is. The following are the definitions of socialism from two online dictionaries compiled by a common, free dictionary app:

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved.

1. (Economics) an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels. Compare capitalism.

2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) any of various social or political theories or movements in which the common welfare is to be achieved through the establishment of a socialist economic system.

3. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (in Leninist theory) a transitional stage after the proletarian revolution in the development of a society from capitalism to communism: characterized by the distribution of income according to work rather than need.

I will not address at this time the fact that socialism was born in Marxism and Leninism as the transitional, meaning a temporary, stage in leading a society from capitalism to communism. 

Both of the definitions above state that socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production and distribution with the aim of eliminating economic inequality. In both definitions the control of the economy is placed into the hands of a centralized state. This inevitably means the economic control of some people over other people. It shifts the location of those "at the top" from being the wealthy elite to being those in the government, only now they have the full power of the state at their disposal. The individuals now in control of the economy continue to be human beings, susceptible to the same temptations as any other. Being given control over the economy "for the common welfare" does not magically make them impartial, disinterested in their own wellbeing and that of their friends and family, and not vindictive toward those they disagree with. 

Because Socialism and Progressivism are based in historicism, they are predicated upon the idea that humans have evolved or progressed to the point where they are not tempted by power; those in the government will not be a danger to the governed and they will rule with only the common good in mind. This what led Woodrow Wilson to believe that it would be okay to separate administration from politics. Scientific bureaucrats would be unbiased and only serve the public good. Some will say, What of democratic socialism? Under that system, can't we still vote them out if they misbehave? This is not the case under modern bureaucracy. When was the last time you voted out the head of the EPA? The IRS? The Fed? (More to come on this)

Once socialism is adopted, the people in control of the economy will have enormous power over the rest of the society, having the ability to control every economic decision in the land. That control will not necessarily take the form of dictating to each individual directly what to do, but it will come in the form of directing what products are allowed to be available for purchase, which path businesses and industries will take, who will get licenses to produce, and how much money will be allowed to be given as compensation for work. If you don't feel your job is paying you enough, you can't leave that company and find one that will treat you better, for they will both be under the jurisdiction of the same government dictating wages and prices. It will institute the basic principle of slavery, which is "you will work and you will get in return what I say you will get." Remember, the definitions above state that government will control the means of distribution, not just production.

The Lord taught, through the prophet Joseph Smith, that "no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life" (D&C 134:2). The right to property is left out of the lists of rights made today (See FDR's "New Bill of Rights" speech and the UN's "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights"). It is crucial to understand that all power, in terms of political institutions, has at its root property. Without property, no political power could be exercised. Thus, when all control of property is placed in the hands of the government, complete power is also placed in its hands. This is why the Socialists did not think that you needed a full revolution, like Marx and Engles promoted. Once you gain control of the economy, or in other words property, you can easily control all the rest. In order for freedom to continue, the right of property must be held inviolate. 

One thing that you notice when you study the Book of Mormon is how dependent the Plan of Salvation is on the presence of Freedom. Throughout that book is an ongoing struggle to establish and keep a free government. The Lord explains in the Doctrine and Covenants why Freedom must exist if the plan is to function fully. He stated that He established the Constitution of the United States "That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment (D&C 101:78). The larger the government and the more it controls through legislating people's choices, the less God is able to hold them accountable for their actions and the less people are able to "act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity." 

The Constitution provided the framework to reach the right balance between protecting people's rights while still giving them the greatest personal freedom possible. It gives government vigorous power to achieve its proper ends, "to secure these rights" (The Declaration of Independence), while limiting government to the enumerated powers needed to do that. Socialism and other related philosophies have and will continue to breakdown the principles of the Constitution as a necessary prerequisite to obtain the power needed to engineer an ideal society. In doing so, many of the sins committed by the people under their regime will be laid at the feet of those who are responsible for its institution and propagation.

In Conclusion 

Awhile back a friend of mine posted a video of a young man that learns the value of giving service. The video depicts the young man going through his daily routine multiple times. At various points in his routine he decides to stop and render a small act of service, either to plant, animal, or human. One of these moments comes as he encounters a poor woman and her daughter. He pulls out his wallet, looks inside and decides to give them money. After this scenario repeats multiple times, the young man again finds the woman, but she is alone. After pulling out his wallet and finding it empty, he then sees the little girl running down the sidewalk in a school uniform and a backpack, smiling brilliantly. A feeling of immense happiness then rushes over the young man, illustrating the eternal principles that giving service, giving liberally to the poor, and sacrificing for others brings true joy.

If the government under which this young man lived had passed legislation to take a significant percentage of his money directly to give to the poor, he would never have to face that moment of looking into his wallet and deciding to give. His children would also never face that choice, nor the difficulty of making that choice when their own bank account is getting low. The word "character" comes from a Greek word that means "to etch or engrave." Attributes become engraved into our character by choosing a behavior over and over and over again for the right reasons. In this case, selflessness and generosity were the attributes etched into the young man's heart. However, this would never happen if the decision were legislated for him and the money managed by a distant central government. Destroying the choice destroys the transformation and, therefore, the happiness that full agency infused obedience would have produced. 

Also, if the dispensation of funds comes from a distant, impersonal source, the young girl would never know her benefactor, never see his sacrifice, and likely never feel a debt of gratitude for the gift. Soon, she would come to expect it, think it was owed to her, and feel as though an injustice were done to her if it were to cease. She would be much less likely to see the money as a sacred representation of the sacrifice and generosity of the giver. She would also be much more likely to squander the gift and much less likely to want to provide for herself in order to get out from under the burden of eating someone else's bread. Don't worry, I'm not suggesting that there should be no government aid for the poor (more on that in the next post), but I am suggesting that adopting socialism will have enormous unintended consequences. How can you create a good society, let alone a perfect one, when the basic principles being proposed inhibit the development of the very attributes that desperately need to be prevalent in each individual citizen? 

Socialism diminishes the efficacy of the plan of salvation in people's lives. It prevents people from learning to be good stewards over their material blessings. It impedes people from learning independence and joying in the dignity and self respect that comes from it. It keeps people from loving others due to the distance it places between those who give and those who receive. It makes people selfish and secretive because the lack of secure property drives them to hold close what they have and hide their gains for fear they will be taken away. It removes the most consistent driver of productivity and innovation, the ability to keep the fruits of one's labor. And because economics is woven into everything, a socialist government can control every decision we make, from the light bulbs we can buy, to the means of transportation we can use, to the number of children we can have. All such a government would need to dictate those choices to us would be some pretext that would make them fall under the heading of "the common good." No decision to care for the environment would ever be made by individuals, because the government would make the choice for them. No choice of how much education to pursue or which school would be best to attend, as they would all be under full control of the government. The more collectivist the government the smaller the realm of individual freedom of action and, therefore, the less people are able to develop Christlike attributes through the transformative power of agency. In this way such governments keep people from learning to live an Eternal Life and they significantly limit their capacity for happiness.

I pray that such a condition will never overtake this country nor the liberty for which so many of its sons and daughters have given their precious blood on battlefields across the world.

On Love, Kindness, Inclusion, and the Kingdom of God

The following is comprised of a few thoughts I have had recently concerning the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and its stance on gay marriage. It is written out of love, though there may be some that feel otherwise. Please consider the message as a whole and not just a portion of it. Thank you.

The Problem

The difficulty inherent in the issue of how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints approaches the advent of gay marriage in the world is enormous and fraught with strong emotions and legal ramifications. Many people have struggled with this issue and many will continue to struggle with it as time goes on. They do so for many reasons; the greatest of which, in my view, is because it brings into seeming conflict two of the great pillars of Christianity. It pits love against law.

Over the past six months I have reflected a lot about the legalization of gay marriage and the ensuing actions taken by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, including helping to pass fair legislation that protects both the LGBT community and religious freedom in Utah and adding some clarifying language and policies to the Church leadership handbook. Throughout this time I have asked myself, Why do so many people come to the conclusion that the Church’s position on homosexual couples and the children that grow up in their homes is incompatible with the principles of love, kindness, and inclusion? Why can the two not coexist in the minds of many people? Often people have voiced their feelings about the matter in essentially these words, “If I am going to be for love, kindness, and inclusion, then I must reject the Church’s stance and perhaps the Church itself.” These feelings occur for many reasons, but it seems to me that, for many, it is because they do not understand the nature of God and thus misunderstand those that act in His name on the earth.

The Doctrine

The very concept of God under Christian theology has always brought these two seemingly conflicting positions together. God has always been put forward as being able to love his children perfectly and yet not being able to include all of them in everything that He would want to. During our premortal life, when one third of His children chose to support Lucifer's plan, God did not yield, though it broke His heart to see so many of his children excluded from the blessings of a second estate (Rev 12:3-4, Abraham 3:26). Jesus loved all people perfectly and invited everyone to follow Him, but He made no pretense about where He was going (Matt 5:48, 3 Nephi 12:48) and it broke His heart when people decided that they would “walk no more with him” due to the “hardness” of what He said (John 6:60-68). But he did not decide to require less of them, and that decision did not diminish His love for them.

Many people say to themselves, some in the back of their minds, “God’s commandments are His. He made them up and can surely change them or fudge on their enforcement when needed. Surely He loves us enough to adjust things when the requirement to keep his commandments makes us suffer for a time; after all, that suffering may be an entire lifetime for some people. I can’t imagine a loving God that would require that of His children.” The fundamental flaw in this kind of thinking is the idea that the commandments are merely a product of God, a set of rules He made up to govern His children on earth. They are not.

God is bound by law. He cannot do anything that He wants to and yet remain God. The Book of Mormon teaches that God cannot turn “from that which is right to that which is wrong” and that if He were to do so, He would “cease to be God” (Alma 7:20; 42:13, 22, 25; Mormon 9:19). Joseph Smith taught that God “institute[d] laws whereby [the spirits that He would send into the world] could have a privilege to advance like himself” (Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, pg. 210). President Lorenzo Snow taught that “As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be” (Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Lorenzo Snow, Ch 5).

In the Doctrine and Covenants we learn that the word “eternal” as used in the scriptures is a descriptor that means “God’s version or kind of something” (D&C 19:4-12). Thus, when God gives a mission statement like this, “this is my work and my glory--to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39), He means that He is trying to bring to pass our living His kind of life. This can only be done through the same laws that brought Him to an Eternal Life (D&C 93). It is the laws He lives that makes Him an Eternal Being. Thus, the commandments are not just rules He made up that He thought would be useful here on earth; rather, they are Eternal Laws to which He, Himself, is subject, as is any other Eternal Being and anyone who hopes to become such. Thus, you might as well ask a cow to fly from one mountain peak to another than ask God to abandon an Eternal Law, both of which would cease being what they are if they tried.

Thus, when the scriptures speak of the justice of God, they are not saying that He relishes in bringing down the heavy hand of punishment on all who would dare step out of line. They are saying that He must obey certain laws if He desires to remain an Eternal Being. And so, when one of his children yields to temptation, he must uphold the law until the conditions are met to allow Mercy to overcome the demands of Justice. And though his great heart may ache with the kind of sorrow that produced the scene that Enoch witnessed (Moses 7:28-35), He cannot ignore Eternal Law.

His Law is Love

During this time of year we often sing the Christmas song “O’ Holy Night.” One of the lines in this song that I find very significant is the line which says, “His law is love and His gospel is peace.” Our first inclination, as Christians, upon hearing that line is to think that it refers to the commandment to love others as Jesus loved us. This is not surprising, as the hallmark of Christianity is supposed to be charity for all—though people often seem to forget that Jesus taught that the commandment to love God ranks higher than the commandment to love others (Matt 22:36-40). However, another way that “His law is love” is that His commandments and the requirement to keep them is a deep and powerful manifestation of the magnitude of His love for us.

Any parent, sibling, friend, or any other loving relationship wants their child, sibling, or friend to be happy; and not just comfortable and enjoying themselves, but truly happy. They want them to grow, to improve, to succeed, to progress. God, as our Father, feels this same desire to bring to pass our happiness, likely to a greater intensity and depth than we mortal parents are able to understand. With such devotion to our achieving true joy, God will let us pursue our own desires (Alma 29:3-4), but He will always be found inviting, urging, guiding, and promoting the path that He knows will lead to real and lasting happiness. He has instituted the “plan of happiness” (Alma 42:8) for the express purpose of endowing us with joy (2 Nephi 2:25). The Book of Mormon teaches that the capacity to receive happiness is directly proportional to how much our natures are changed to be like God’s nature (Alma 41:10-11). Thus, no matter how much we want to take joy in other things (Mormon 2:13), only learning to put on God’s nature is consistent with the nature of happiness.

God’s nature is a product of His choice to obey Eternal Laws consistently over time, truly showing why “wickedness never was happiness” (Alma 41:10). Therefore, if our joy is inseparably connected with and proportional to our obedience to Eternal Law, God would do us a disservice if He did not ask us to keep those laws. Yes, God’s love for us would be far less meaningful and potent if He did not demand our full compliance to the commandments He has passed along to us from Eternity. Thus, “His law is love.” And, this is the reason why God’s prophets and the Church that is supposed to be the Kingdom of God on the earth cannot and will not yield to any social pressures whose aim is to abolish the commandments or to minimize the importance of obedience to them. Such a course, though possibly making some people more comfortable and happy for a time, will not lead them to Eternal Happiness, and it would be doing them a harm to pretend otherwise. In this way, more love is manifest by asking people to keep the commandments, than by passively letting them do as they please, not wishing to offend them or hurt their feelings. Yes, sensitivity to feelings is important when loving others, but not more than truth and the invitation to obey.

Mercy

Knowing that our obedience to the laws of Eternity would take time to perfect—maybe even eons of time—God included in His plan the means to bring into effect another Eternal Law, Mercy.

There are many blessings that God pours out on both “the just and on the unjust” (Matt 5:45) simply because of His love for them. However, God’s greatest blessings, His choicest and most valuable, are conditionally given. Forgiveness of our sins is one such blessing—and here we must not think of forgiveness as the letting go of hurt feelings, bitterness, and anger; that is mortal forgiveness, and it is not in God’s nature to harbor such feelings; rather, we must think of forgiveness strictly as restoring a person to a state of innocence before the law and freeing them from the penalty owed to justice.

The Atonement of Christ makes forgiveness a possibility, but the scriptures repeatedly teach that forgiveness can only be extended “on conditions of repentance” (Alma 42:13-15, one of many possible references). Because of Eternal Law, and God’s obligation to it, Mercy can only be brought into effect when the conditions required by that Law are met. Having an infinite atonement made through a Savior is one of those conditions (Alma 34:8-16), and the true repentance of the sinner is another—again, do not think of forgiveness and mercy in terms of love and emotions, God’s love for the sinner is ever unchanged and He harbors no ill will. When real repentance has taken place, including sincere sorrow for the sin, then mercy can hold sway.

After a person has exercised enough faith to truly repent and mercy can be exercised in their behalf, then they are offered the opportunity both to make, or renew, covenants of obedience to God—which, if they honestly strive to keep, will give them access to the companionship of the Holy Ghost (Articles of Faith 1:4, one of many possible references)—and to enter into the Kingdom of God through baptism and confirmation. And if they endure through repeated recurrence to faith, repentance, covenant ordinances, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, the development of an Eternal Life is eventually brought to pass through the grace of Christ (Moroni 10:32-33). If we understand God’s mercy in this way, we see that it is not the same thing as His love or His help or His kindness. It is simply a formal pardon from the requisite debt owed to justice and the return to a state of innocence. His love is constant and his kindness is present throughout all our lives in many ways, without condition.

However, other important blessings are also conditional upon our obedience. This conditionality is not to serve as a litmus test to earn God’s love and good graces, but it flows directly out of the nature of Eternal Laws. When they are obeyed certain positive consequences issue out of them to the person who obeys (D&C 130:20-21), a greater measure of the Spirit and an enlarged capacity for joy being common to the adherence to all Eternal Laws. When we choose not to obey and therefore do not receive the blessings, it is not because God wants to spite us. Rather, it is because He is not at liberty to bypass Eternal Law and issue the blessing without obedience, no matter how much He may want to. Blessings received upon the demonstration of certain behaviors also serves as a divine form of operant conditioning, making it more likely that we will engage in that behavior again.

Ultimate Resolution

There are many things in this life that are unfair. There are many people who suffer by no fault of their own. There are wars, dictators, diseases, and murders. There is inequality, rape, famine, and slavery. Many people have looked at a world full of injustice, as ours is, and have decided that no loving God could allow these things to happen. And, having lost their faith in God, they proceed through life with only the hope of human devices to keep the future alight—the same human nature that created the injustice in the first place always present and powerful.

In order for God to establish an environment in which our natures can be changed to become like His (Alma 41:10-11), we must be allowed to choose to act as we please. Only in this way is it possible for us to choose to do the works that will develop within us the attributes of God. True, it also means that we can choose to do that which is wrong, but God still must hold human agency inviolate if the possibility for good, and therefore, joy is to exist (2 Nephi 2:13). And so, for the time being we are to live in a world where injustice, unkindness, suffering, and sorrow abound for a time.

Very often, amidst the hardship and difficulty of life, we tend to forget that God's Justice and Mercy are not bound by time. One of the major reasons for Christ’s Atonement was for Him to experience all that we would experience, enabling Him to be a “righteous judge” (Mosiah 3:7-10) in the day of judgment. His unique understanding of the individual burdens we carry allows Him to be “filled with compassion towards” us (Mosiah 15:1-9), and that compassion will inform both His mercy and His justice and will surely impact the course of events at the day of judgment. His promise is that all things will be set right in the end; that Mercy and Justice will be done to us all in perfect balance (Mosiah 16:1) and that He will wipe away all tears (Rev 21:4). Nowhere in the scriptures, however, does He promise that the resolution of all things would happen during mortality. His promise is for ultimate resolution, requiring faith to “wait upon the Lord” for things to be made right in the future (D&C 98:1-3). We are to try to do good, to love others, to seek for justice where possible, but it is not up to us to right all wrongs. That responsibility rests with Him alone who has the power to do so.

In Conclusion

I know that God is our loving Father. As the great head of our Eternal Family, He seeks tirelessly our progression and happiness. That happiness finds its fullness under the enlarging influence of Eternal Laws. God, though never forcing us, will always be found trying to shepherd us into and along the process of learning to live these Laws until their natural fruits become etched into our souls and our natures become like His. Thus transformed, we will be endowed with the capacity for the kind of joy that God possesses, and God’s love for us will have accomplished what it set out to do.

In this process of perfecting as many of His children as will come, God is obligated to keep and sustain the Laws that govern the Eternal World. The family is one of those Laws. It is as integral a part of the Plan of Happiness as is faith, and God is just as likely to abandon the principle of the family as He is to abandon the principle of faith. All possibility of giving his children Eternal Happiness would be abolished if either were to be removed from what God requires of us. Gay marriage and homosexuality are diametrically opposed to the family and thus opposed to Eternal Life and everything for which God has worked and suffered. I know that that will be a hard thing for many to read and that there are some who will be hurt by what I just said. I assure you that it was not meant in harm.

Struggling with homosexuality, as with any other sin, does not make a person evil or of any less worth than any other soul (D&C 18:10-11). However, if it is given free reign within a person or within a society, it will lead both away from God by supplanting the natural family and its role in changing our natures to be like our Father in Heaven. And though they may experience some level of happiness for a time (Mormon 2:13), it will lead to misery as surely as the night follows the day (Alma 3:26-27, 2 Nephi 2:10-13). God’s love for those that struggle with same gender attraction will never allow Him to let their surrender to it become acceptable, and His kingdom on earth will follow the same course.

What of the changes made to the Church leadership handbook? Many feel that they surely demonstrate discrimination and hatred against the LGBT community. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints must exist under the umbrella of both divine law and human government. Inasmuch as there is a way to keep the laws of both systems of government, the Church will seek that path. Certainly the age of eighteen as the requisite age for baptism of those raised in a homosexual household was chosen for legal reasons, as well as out of a desire to give children as much solidarity as possible at home during their formative years. What about making them renounce the homosexual lifestyle before baptism? Given the discussion of the principles above and given that the Church is supposed to be the Kingdom of God on the earth, was there any other choice that the Church could make?

The Church is not saying by its policies that homosexuals and the children they raise are not welcome in the Church. Rather, the Church is saying, “Come and be with us, worship with us, learn with us, and when all of the necessary conditions are met to protect the Church under the laws of the land and to fulfill the requirements for entrance into the kingdom of God on the earth, then we will all rejoice in seeing you baptized and confirmed a member.” Some people will feel that the Church is being bigoted and exclusionary under any circumstance short of full acceptance of any lifestyle and any behavior not deemed by society as criminal. Others who are offended by the Church's stance either don't fully understand the doctrine behind it or don't want to understand it.

If homosexuality is not endorsed by God, nor in accordance with with His plan, then Why does a significant, a small but significant, portion of the population struggle with it? I don't know. Why does a portion of the population struggle with any sin? Why do some struggle with theft? Why some with alcohol? Why some with anger? And why some with promiscuity? I don’t know. But we do, and every person's circumstances are unique to them. However, we are all still under the same obligation to learn to keep Eternal Law if we hope to obtain the happiness and the Eternal life that they produce.

I will not pretend that same gender attraction is not an extremely difficult challenge to live with in a Church community and culture. The magnitude of the difficulty and sorrow they face I will likely never understand in this life. Also, I am absolutely aware that some church members do not treat those who struggle with this as they ought. Do I feel compassion for them? Certainly. Do I feel sorrow for the suffering they endure? Absolutely. Do I want them to be in Church with me, next to me on the pew, working on their sins as I am on mine? No question. But I would be ashamed of myself if I led people away from the pathway of obedience in the name of easing their suffering for a time. Such an action would be evidence of less love for them, not more. And, it would be a mistake to misinterpret my feelings of compassion and sorrow as spiritual promptings that the Church has been led astray on this matter.

I fully understand that if you have not come to know for yourself through the Holy Ghost that the principles and doctrines appealed to above are true, then this treatment of the topic is likely not to offer you any significant solace or sustaining concerning the matter. If that is the case, my purpose in writing this was to share with you some starting points to prayerfully study out in your own mind and seek a confirmation of their truth through the Spirit. If at this time you are not interested in studying out the principles for yourself, then my purpose has been to illustrate how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, it's leaders, and its members can hold the position they do and still stand for the principles of love, kindness, and inclusion. Hopefully, you have been able to see that a person, or institution, that believes these things to be true can still love a homosexual person, can still think of them in kindness, and can still want them to be around and to include them in their lives, both in and out of church.

It was not my wish to offend anyone, though that is likely not possible to do in these matters. I express my love to you and I hope this has been of some value to you. May God bless you with happiness and all the good that you seek.