Being on the wrong side of history

In the past few weeks, we have seen a major change in public sentiment on gay marriage. Notable senators such as Republican Rob Portman have come out in favor of gay marriage. In November for the first time 4 states voted in favor of gay marriage or against restricting it. Polls suggest that majorities now favor it. So many pundits have suggested that those that oppose gay marriage are on the “wrong side of history” and that 20 years from now we will be looked back on as bigots and the equivalent of those that defended slavery or segregation. 

I don’t really deny any of that. The tide of public opinion has swung dramatically. The viewpoint of traditional Christians is more and more pushed aside to the margins. I realize every time I comment against gay marriage that I am closing a door. Already, I have lost good friends because of my position and  I realize that opposing gay marriage vocally will make it harder for me to get hired in the future.

And yet, I have covenanted with God to speak out and share my faith in all times and places and ways. That is true even if it means being unpopular or going against conventional wisdom. Having only come to this position after long prayer and consideration…I simply can not do otherwise. I have written in depth about my struggling over this issue and those who know me know how conflicted I have been over this topic. Yet, I feel my conviction actually increasing as I see the tide of public opinion turn against me. 

Some things are true no matter what history writes about them. Truth will win out in the long term even if in society we see a march in the opposite direction. Marx was certain that history was on the side of communism and yet in time communism failed. More importantly, Christ was on the ‘wrong side of history’ and yet he will one day come again and every knee will bow and every tongue confess that he is in fact the Christ and savior of the world.

I do not do so out of hatred for people that have homosexual tendencies. I want deeply for them to feel loved in society. I want tolerance to prevail. And yet, I know that the recognition they seek now will damage the institution of marriage and will take away rights from believers. I know from the words of the prophets and from my own observation that the result will be oppression and hatred towards believing individuals. That I can not countenance or support. I wish for a middle ground and yet those most vocally agitating are increasingly vocal that it is their way or no way at all.

The Supreme Court is hearing the Prop 8 case today. I pray that they will have the wisdom to see a way through this culture war and to reach a result that will be equitable for all. Unfortunately, I don’t really see how. Whoever prevails, the battle will go on. And so, even though I fight reluctantly still I march onward. God and not history will ultimately be the judge of my conduct. God and not history will decide who is right.

Maestro of Dissent: Opposing gay marriage does not a bigot make

(This post shows my evolving views on gay marriage from 2009 to the present. It was also my first public statement on the topic in my very liberal university.)

Newspaper op-ed I wrote for my campus paper, The Hoot

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints on Tuesday announced its support for an anti-discrimination ordinance that would provide homosexuals with protection from housing and employment discrimination. The ordinance was ultimately approved by Salt Lake City. Although the church had issued several statements in the past declaring that it would support such measures, so long as they contained robust religious freedom protections, this was the first time the influential church actually threw its weight in favor of a specific piece of legislation.

In the wake of Proposition 8, the LDS church has acquired a reputation as homophobic and hateful. Its members have been targeted for boycotts and terminated from jobs by purportedly liberal Jewish organizations merely for being Mormon. Its meetinghouses have been subject to graffiti and protests. A no on Proposition 8 advertisement hatefully depicted caricatures of Mormon missionaries entering to a couples house and ripping up their marriage license. A large advertisement campaign in the northeast warned that the ‘Mormons were coming’ to take away rights. These hateful tactics have to some measure discredited the gay rights cause and turned some potential supporters, such as myself, away.

Indeed, the results of this city ordinance as well as the election night contrast between the successful amendment in Maine taking away gay marriage and the successful amendment in Washington State granting robust domestic partnerships reveal that current feelings towards gay rights are much more nuanced than a simple divide of the world into a pro- and anti-rights camp. Of course, there are some virulent homophobes and they do not have my sympathy, but contrary to the writings of some such as Hoot Editor Bret Matthew last week, those that voted to oppose gay marriage do not merely need to ‘grow up.’ Indeed, they have some valid fears about the decaying state of marriage in society as well as legal protections for religious groups. Gay rights movements would be more successful if they were able to understand these fears and strive to show how their cause would actually help rather than hurt the stability of marriage.

It’s been noted that those most likely to oppose gay marriage are likely to come from states with high divorce rates, single parent households or teen pregnancies. One can be cynical and use these measures as evidence of hypocrisy, or more realistically I think one can view the struggle over ‘traditional families’ as a representation of the failure between dreams and reality. Many rightfully want to stop the collapse of families and have, rightfully in my view, linked this goal with the need to return sacredness to the concept of marriage. We have become a culture where love is treated like a magic state of being rather than a spiritual relationship that requires hard work. Kids have all too often become a disposable commodity.

Somehow, voters in every state in the nation that has voted on gay marriage are convinced that changing the definition of marriage to include homosexual pairings would further dilute the meaning of marriage. It seems that they have grabbed on to this as some way to heal all of what is very wrong in reality and ‘protect the family.’ Yet, this seems to me to be a mistaken idea. Gay marriages bring no more or less stability than heterosexual marriages, but allowing them certainly does more to promote cultural values of monogamy and stability than forbidding them. Indeed, conservatives should be reminded that a generation ago the gay rights movement rooted in the free love culture of the Castro district of San Francisco mocked the pursuit of marriage as a heterosexist delusion. The desire for marriage rights is profoundly a conservative one. Indeed, the gay rights movement should in my view focus less on the individual rights aspect of gay marriage and more on this rather traditional focus on stability. Voting down gay marriage will not end the high divorce rate or lower the teen pregnancy rate. Instead, it just makes things worse.

Likewise, while some of the catastrophic legal impacts emphasized by the campaign against gay marriage are likely overstatements, it is absurd to suggest that religious expression rights will not be adversely affected at all. Churches would not be required to perform gay marriages, but they might be required to lease out space to gay couples to perform their marriages, for instance. Since legalizing gay marriage, Canada has seen many cases of arrests and law suits for actions that would clearly be considered legal under U.S. law. Yet, gay marriage is only at most a peripheral legal issue. We cannot allow, as Canada has, expansive notions of ‘hate speech,’ and political correctness to take away individual freedoms. The disturbing trend of prosecuting hate speech is rightfully viewed as an ill portend for religious individuals that hold biblical objections to gay marriage.

The broader move towards mandatory tolerance thus rightful makes individuals paranoid and less likely to compromise on matters of clear discrimination. Likewise, this is part of the reason why the distinction between civil union and marriage is treated as so significant. It seems to many that the main reason that gay marriage, rather than civil unions, is pressed is not for varying rights, but in order to force acceptance. The civil rights language of the movement rightfully gives the impression that opposition to homosexuals will soon become the equivalent of racism and carry the same legal consequences. Religious individuals fear more than anything else being told that they can no longer express their biblically based viewpoint freely in society without liability. We must make a promise and a commitment that acceptance and respect will not become mandated.

This brings me back to the referendums and Salt Lake City’s ordinance. The referendum in Washington and the vote in Salt Lake City have gained religious backing in large measure because legislatures in the state expressly worked to protect religious protections. The Maine legislation also was initially successful in passing because of attempts to do so, but fears of religious persecution were able to convince many to vote for the repeal referendum. Making it clear that religious speech and association ought to be protected is the kind of light that will disinfect some of the false rumors and allow voters to truly evaluate the costs and benefits of gay marriage. We can also see that it will take time for voters to fully evaluate these claims and come to these conclusions. Expecting instant results and change will only result in additional feeling like the goal of a whole movement is to impose its ideas and values rather than the actually conservative goal of preserving strong families.

PEW Mormon study analysis- Intolerance and room for improvement

I wrote this analysis with the northeast in mind, in particular my University Ward in Cambridge, MA, but I think what I write is equally if not more true elsewhere…

Reflection on the PEW study of members–An opportunity for Improvement
Daniel Ortner
7-26-09

In Honor of Pioneer Day, the Pew Forum has released a study entitled

A Portrait of Mormons in the U.S.

http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=427

There are some very encouraging facts about LDS members on the whole. It’s a pretty glowingly positive statistical portrait. In terms of religious attendance, faith in a personal deity, rates of in faith marriage etc., we stand above most faiths in our diligence. However, there are some negatives that i feel prudent to discuss. I write this with a special focus on applicability to the University Ward in a northeast setting. All of these findings should be tempered by the fact that members outside of Utah are less likely to be guilty of these faults.

“Geography appears to play a role in patterns of religious commitment among Mormons as well. Those who live in Utah differ from Mormons in other areas of the country in several ways. Utahans are much less likely than Mormons from other states to share their faith with others at least once a week (13% vs. 37%), they are more likely to say theirs is the one true faith (63% vs. 51%) and they more heavily favor preserving traditional beliefs and practices (77% vs. 63%). On many other core religion measures, however, there are few geographical differences.”

Additionally…

“There also are some political differences between Mormons in different geographic areas. In particular, Mormons in the western region of the U.S. are significantly more likely than Mormons from other regions to identify as Republican (68% vs. 55%). They also are more likely to say abortion should be illegal in most or all cases (72% vs. 62%; the figure among Mormons in Utah is 78%). There is no significant difference on other issues, such as the size of government and the best way to ensure peace.”

With that in mind, I still think that an exploration of some of the findings could really be beneficial in helping bring to light some of the challenges that our ward and wards in the northeast might face in regard to reaching out to potential members and ensuring that they are find fellowship and remain active once they become members.

“On most measures of religious commitment, Mormons under age 50 do not differ significantly from those aged 50 and older. The one exception is on the question of religious exclusivity. More than six-in-ten younger Mormons (62%) say theirs in the one true faith, compared with roughly half (48%) of Mormons 50 and older who say the same.”

Earlier in the study when this question first comes up, they mention that this question also included the notion that their faith was the only way to achieve salvation. I don’t like the idea that the youth is becoming more exclusive in their belief in the sole value of the LDS church. It goes against so much of what I think the beauty of the Plan of Salvation is. While we certainly hold that our faith is the most complete and the ultimate way for individuals to reach heaven ( or else we would not focus so much on missionary work), it is also vital for the value that other faiths play in the lives of their members. Those faiths do an enormous amount to build individual members up towards Jesus Christ and God. They lay a foundation upon which we later may grow. I worry that this statistic suggests that members are not approaching interfaith dialogue as an opportunity to learn from those with other views but instead approaching merely with the desire to convert.

Fortunately, members continue to participate in wonderful examples of interfaith dialogue and continue to build bridges between our faith and the faith of others. (Rachel Esplin’s words at the Personal Quests for A Purpose forum at Harvard are probably the best example of this. http://hillel.harvard.edu/media/videos/550)
More members should be encouraged to reach out with not just missionary hands

“Mormons also tend to be strict interpreters of their own religion. A majority (54%) says there is only one true way to interpret the teachings of their religion, with 43% saying there is more than one way. Among the affiliated population overall, more than two-thirds (68%) say there is more than one way.”

This measure is not discussed in Geographic terms and I assume that those living in the northeast might be more likely to disagree with this statement, considering that they are living a lifestyle (Geographic, educational) that some Utah Mormons might already consider different from their idea. Still, this is an example of pretty breathtaking and very insidious arrogance. It is true of course, that we do have General Authorities and a church of continuing revelation in order to minimize conflict and discord, but holding this views ignores the prolific disagreement even among General Authorities on many gospel questions, and presupposes error in the views of everyone else. This attitude is clearly not healthy if we look to expand and reach out to potential converts from difficult backgrounds and with divergent world views. Of course, we need to emphasize the value of certain gospel basics, but we can not expect everyone to conform in all of their peripheral beliefs as well. Moreover, when we assume that our own lifestyle is correct, we ignore opportunity to learn and to take the good from the perspective of others. We risk leaving people feeling excluded.

“Two-thirds of Mormons (68%) say homosexuality should be discouraged rather than accepted by society. This is comparable to the figure among members of evangelical Protestant churches (64%) and Muslims (61%) but significantly higher than among members of historically black Protestant churches (46%). Jehovah’s Witnesses are the most likely to say homosexuality should be discouraged, with 76% expressing this view. Among the general population, only 40% say it should be discouraged, with half saying it should be accepted.”

I hope that this does not translate into open intolerance, but I am sure that it unfortunately does. It is clear we need to do a lot more to discourage homophobic and hateful attitudes and mores among members. Those struggling with homosexual tendencies and attractions are likely to become depressed, withdrawn and inactive because of these views. Living, working and attending church in Massachusetts, the first state in the nation to allow Gay Marriage, also provides some unique challenges that I am not sure that members are properly being prepared to face. We need to determine effective ways to reach out to LGBTQ members of our community and to invite rather than condemn. Our strong stance as a church against Same Sex Marriage needs to be given context by the fact that we live in a state that has openly allowed the practice for 6 years now. How are we as members supposed to reach view the committed long term marriages entered into by those of the same sex? How do we reach out to them in a non-judgmental fashion? These seem like difficult questions where I am sure that many members ( myself included) could use a bit more direction.

“Mormons are distinctive in their views on the origins of human life. When asked about the theory of evolution, only 22% of Mormons say it is the best explanation for human life, with three-in-four (75%) disagreeing. Only among one other major religious tradition – Jehovah’s Witnesses (90%) – does a higher proportion disagree that evolution is the best explanation for human life. The general public is more evenly divided on this question, with 48% saying it is the best explanation and 45% rejecting that position.”

This might have to do with the poor wording of the question, but I was taken a bit aback by this answer I know that BYU students learn about evolution in science courses so this cynical view of evolution is quite striking. I would like to see a question reworded to suggest that evolution is a good explanation for human life rather than the best. I think many more members probably believe it played a substantial role in the formation of life but is not THE BEST explanation. When trying to reach out to University students in the liberal northeast, however, I wonder if we can’t do more to build some kind of common ground. Our focus on naturalism and our disbelief in supernatural miracles (all acts of God are manipulations of natural forces) could perhaps be emphasized? I don’t offer any answers in this regard but bring up the question as an area deserving more exploration.

This is most disturbing of all…

“Political and social views are linked with church attendance among Mormons, as among the general population. Those who attend services at least once a week are more than 30 percentage points more likely than Mormons who attend less frequently to be Republican (73% vs. 39%) and oppose legal abortion (78% vs. 44%). In fact, among those who attend church less often, majority opinion leans in the opposite direction on these two items; pluralities of those who attend church less than once a week are Democrats (40%) and favor legal abortion (49%). The same is true with regard to opinion on the size of government; among weekly attenders, 61% support a smaller government while 31% prefer a larger government, and among less-frequent attenders, just 37% prefer a smaller government while 53% prefer a bigger government.

The link between church attendance and ideology is less pronounced than with party affiliation, but it is still substantial. Two-thirds of weekly attenders (66%) say they are conservative, compared with 40% of those who attend less often. There is also a significant difference when it comes to the question of the best way to ensure peace. Nearly twice as many weekly attenders (41% vs. 24%) say a strong military is more important than good diplomacy in ensuring peace.”

I find the idea that liberal members are much more likely to be inactive and non-attenders disturbing. Of course, those that view Liberal Mormons as illegitimate members ( a view that I have unfortunately heard uttered by members time and time again) could say that this just shows that Liberals are bad Mormons, but to me this seems to be glaringly false. It seems obvious, from my many talks with liberal mormon friends, that liberal views are treated with such intolerant criticism as to make liberal members actively uncomfortable. I actually quite enjoy political discussion and so I enjoy the challenges to my faith and the need to assert that for me liberal values and mormon values are equivalent, but I wonder how many visitors, investigators and members are turned away by these displays of intolerance.

Is there some hope for change in this study? The answer is tentatively yes. In a church that is becoming more and more convert heavy, a greater tide of liberalism is possible and even probably.

“There also are some differences between Mormons depending on whether they are converts or lifelong members. While majorities of converts and nonconverts alike identify as Republican and say abortion should be illegal in most or all cases, converts are considerably less likely than nonconverts to do so (52% of converts are Republican vs. 69% of lifelong members, and 59% of converts oppose legal abortion vs. 74% of nonconverts). On other issues, such as size of government and best way to ensure peace, however, there are no significant differences between converts and lifelong Mormons.”

This is tempered by the finding that Converts are also much less likely to be active, marry in the temple etc…

“Converts to Mormonism also differ somewhat from lifelong Mormons in terms of religious commitment. Converts are less likely to attend church at least once a week compared with nonconverts (68% vs. 79%) and less likely to say theirs is the one true faith (46% vs. 61%), but are more likely to share their faith weekly (38% vs. 19%). On other measures of religious commitment converts tend to resemble non-converts.”

This study seems to me to show that as members we need to do a lot more to ensure member activity and retention among two specific subgroups. We need to ensure that we are providing fellowship for new converts. Many deal with family difficulty and opposition and if they do not feel that they have a family at church that they can be comfortable with they are more likely to fall away. We also need to ensure that church is not a hostile environment for those that hold differing political views. In the Northeast, these two goals are inexorably interlinked and this is especially true in Massachusetts one of the most partisan blue states in the country. Especially in Suffolk county ( Boston, Cambridge etc), we find an exceptionally high party affiliation index leaning towards the Democratic party ( 54.46 %!)

(http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/st_county_town_enroll_breakdown_08.pdf)

With more and more of the young generation identifying itself as Liberal as opposed to Conservative ( http://people-press.org/report/517/political-values-and-core-attitudes), and those holding especially true in our region, in order for us to have success as a ward with missionary activity, we need to begin thinking of strategies to ensure that politics does not become a stumbling stone in the lives of potential converts.

I offer these reflections and thoughts humbly in prayer and with the sincere desire that they may be of some use to the ward or the stake in coordinating, training and planning missionary activity both by members and full time missionaries. I am so thankful for the role of the gospel in my life and hope to be able to contribute in some way to helping the gospel be more efficiently in the lives of those around me. It is because I truly believe that this church is true and could be such a poignant force for good in the lives everyone, that I offer this in the name of Jesus Christ

Amen