Lessons from Liberty Jail

Each of us, at some time or another will have to spend some time in Liberty Jail. This is the message of Elder Jeffery R. Holland in his recent CES fireside address, "Lessons from Liberty Jail." (Sept 09 Ensign) Just like the Prophet Joseph Smith and his companions, who endured the cold winter months of 1838-39 in what could only be described as a miserable dungeon for crimes they didn't commit, each of us will face things that seem unfair and unjust. How I personally handle them and what lessons I learn from these experiences depends greatly on how I choose to endure them.

While the conditions were bleak, it was during this time period that some of the most sublime passages of modern scripture were revealed to the prophet. It was during this time of desperation that Joseph pleaded with the Lord (see D&C 121:1-3). In response, the Lord replied that the purpose of our afflictions and the blessings we can obtain if we but endure (see verses 7-8). It was also during this time in what Church historian B.H Roberts calls "the prison temple"—noting the refining elements of the experience—that some of our most sacred spiritual instruction, including the Lord's teaching that "many are called but few are chosen" and the proper characteristics for exercising power in the priesthood, is set fourth (see verses 34-43).

Speaking of enduring and learning, Elder Holland promises: "You can have sacred, revelatory, profoundly instructive experience with the Lord in the most miserable experiences of your life-in the worst settings, while enduring the most painful injustices, when facing the most insurmountable odds and oppositions you have ever faced."

While personally I would never pray for bad things to happen in my life, I know I need to be prepared to face them. Elder Holland gives three keys to doing this: first, realize that everyone faces trying times; secondly, that even the worthy will suffer; and third, remain calm, patient, charitable and forgiving at all times. Finally, he concludes that we need to face all things with a cheerful spirit.

For me there are times when I've felt almost overwhelmed by my personal struggles; times when I've felt unfairly judged by others; and worse, times when I've felt used and abandoned by the very people whom I loved and viewed as a friend. At times, I've wondered, "Why me Lord? I'm doing what you asked me to do!" But as Elder Holland points out, "Why not me?" The scriptures and Church history are full of people who have suffered and endured things that they clearly didn't deserve. The atonement is the supreme example of this. According to Elder Holland, our trials put us in good company.

Ironically, the times when I feel the furthest from the Lord are the very moments when I am the closet to Him if I but reach for Him. This is one of the lessons of Liberty Jail. Sometimes these bad days are those humbling moments that I need to remind me that the same things I'm enduring now also happened to the Savior of the world as part of the great atonement—that when I plead, "Lord, how much worse can it get?", the answer is simple: "I died for you so that it won't get worse. I am with thee."

Gossip

There are a few things in life I have control over. One of these are my actions. There are also a few things that I don't have control over and that's the things people say about me. I would rather people talk about how wonderfully talented I am or my keen sense of style and whatever but sadly not everyone does. I'd like to be viewed as good friend, as someone who cares and who love but again I'm not always. I would love to be sought after as a friend, but sadly that isn't always the case. Fair? Justified? No. Reality? Yes. I was once told that I can't control what people think about me, but I can control what I say or do to other people.

I fear at times that sometimes a person may have a lot of good to say but that they will never be heard because of gossip spread about them by others. Sometimes this is even second or third generation gossip that has evolved into something completely not true but that has lingered on to haunt that person. I've also found through my own experiences that at times the very people who should understand how hard it is will often be the most cruel, the most hurtful. The ones who give you the cold shoulder. This could be because I remind them of what they are trying hard themselves to overcome or perhaps they feel some sort of fear based on "what so and so has told them." But at the same time I don't think we ever progress along the path of salvation by climbing over another person and forcing them under. I hope and pray that I never do that to another person or that my actions never make another person feel that way.

We can be the greatest support to others who struggle with SGA because we know what it's like. We can also be the ones who make it worse for others when we do as you said and let gossip or other shallow things prevent us from reaching out.

It takes a very brave person to stand up to a friend we love who may be doing this and say "I've heard that." It takes an even braver friend to take it a step further and say, "Why do you think that is the way it is?" or "Have you actually talked to that person and know that that is the truth?" Challenging them to step back, to take a walk in the others shoes.

Joseph Smith taught that if we have an issue with someone, we should take it up with them personally and in such a way that we resolve it. We do this so that we don't become stumbling blocks to each other. Often times I know from experience that I may have slighted someone or done something to them in the past. I may have since then moved forward and have tried very hard to live the gospel. However, my past actions will always cloud that persons opinion of me and my new good actions may even come off as hypocritical, unless I take the time to make peace with that person and try to resolve things. And yes, I realize that that clouding could be the result of the other persons pride or whatever or maybe its easier to vilify me then to make amends.

There are times when no matter how hard you try to resolve those things, that person may never ever want to and before jumping to whatever conclusions we can come up with we should consider maybe there is something within their own space that prevents them from being able to do that. Once we have apologized sincerely in such a way that it should mean something to that person and not just makes us feel better we should consider walking away but as my grandma once said, leave the door open to them.

Yes, I do believe there are times when it is needed to reach out to warn another person if you feel that they may be getting involved with something or someone that we may know isn't going to be good with them. But there are ways to do that that are uplifting and that may even build up that person you think is dangerous so that they may become someone we don't fear. Why not try to reach out to them and build them up? Again going to that person personally, seeing them as a child of God first and foremost. We need to be careful that we do this out of love for that person. And yes maybe sometimes our fear are justified and we do need to stay clear of them. But I think those times are few and far between. Our motives need to be well meaning and not to tear down. Understanding why a person may be motivated to act or think a certain way goes a long way to developing empathy for them.

If people were less judgmental of each other over stupid things that don't matter, or if we were to let go of second or third generation gossip that we often cling to in order to justify the boundaries we throw up around ourselves, we may soon find that there are a lot of good people out there. Boundaries are there to help protect ourselves not to hurt others. I have found more times then any that there are a lot of human people out there, a lot of imperfect people. And a lot of people just like myself.

Highjacking a victims memory

It also rubs me the wrong way the way these so called "LDS," gay affirming groups evoke the name of Stuart Matis to play their "political card" in their efforts to lobby the church to change doctrine so that acting on homosexuality is no longer considered a sin.

This is just my opinion, but I don't know and I don't think anyone can really know what was going through Stuarts mind when he made that final tragic decision to end his life. For anyone to say they do is out of place. Yes, he may have left letters, but I don't think anyone can fully understand the thoughts that drove him to it. The closet thing that I can say is that I can relate to the frustration he felt as he struggled to live his life in a way that he believed pleased Heavenly Father, weighed against feelings and attractions that are real, but if acted on conflict with those beliefs. Many of us have been in that same desperate moment, but I think its also an individual experience. To say he did it because of Prop. 22 or anything else I think is really speculation or subjecture on the part of those who are trying to use him to lobby support for their own cause.

It is out of place on many facets. First, because now its between him and Heavenly Father and the Savior, who is the only one who can fully understand him. Secondly, I think that it is really cruel to his family when his name is shanghai-ed by people who never met him or who have only had limited contact with him but claim to be close friends with him. I personally believe that common decency would dictate that it is inappropriate for these groups to post suicide notes and letters as a means to "fight for a cause" when one would wonders if he would really have supported them in the first place, but who have used him as a means to evoke sympathy for their cause.

In addition, for these same groups to use the actions of a small misguided group of church members who do act inappropriately out of intolerance to judge the doctrine and main body of the church as intolerant is rather like judging every gay person by the sick displays of debauchery seen at many pride events.

Yes, I do believe that the Prophet was speaking on behalf of the Lord when in both cases he asked us to give our time, talents and best efforts to support Prop. 22 and in Prop. 8. Just because it may make me uncomfortable because it hits a personal cord in me, doesn't make the voice of the Prophet any less real or valid. But I also do believe that in so doing we also needed to show forth as much love and compassion for those who do struggle and not to be motivated by hatred and intolerance for people who do choose to use their agency in a way that goes against what we have been taught by the Lord through the Prophet to be correct.

I don't think anyone who struggles with SGA was happy that the church was involved in Prop. 22 or Prop. 8. in California. I'm not happy that the church has to get involved in anti-pornography campaigns or in programs that promote adoptions over abortions, but I also understand that sometimes it is necessary for the church to get involved in moral issues that do effect society as a whole and marriage is just that.

The Storm Over the Mormons

It looks like the LDS Church has found itself in the pages of Time Magazine again. Enjoy!
The Storm Over the Mormons

Some Inspired Words Concerning Prop 8

Concerning Prop. 8 in California, here are a few quotes from church leaders.

First Presidency Letter read to all congregations in California on 29 June 2008 reads in part:

"The Church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage.

"We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage."

Elder Neal A. Maxwell speaking before an audience at Brigham Young University said:

"Discipleship includes good citizenship; and in this connection, if you are careful students of the statements of the modern prophets, you will have noticed that with rare exceptions–especially when the First Presidency has spoken out–the concerns expressed have been over moral issues, not issues between political parties. The declarations are about principles, not people, and causes, not candidates.

"But make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters; in the months and years ahead, events will require of each member that he or she decide whether or not he or she will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions (see 1 Kings 18:21)

"President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he had “never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional, or political life” (CR, April 1941, p. 123). This is a hard doctrine, but it is a particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ.

"We are now entering a period of incredible ironies. Let us cite but one of these ironies which is yet in its subtle stages: we shall see in our time a maximum if indirect effort made to establish irreligion as the state religion. It is actually a new form of paganism that uses the carefully preserved and cultivated freedoms of Western civilization to shrink freedom even as it rejects the value essence of our rich Judeo-Christian heritage.

"This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain of people’s opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions. Resistance to abortion will soon be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened."

President Gordon B. Hinckley said in his conference talk “Loyalty:”

“Now may I say a word concerning loyalty to the Church. We see much indifference. There are those who say, ‘The Church won’t dictate to me how to think about this, that, or the other, or how to live my life.’

"No, I reply, the Church will not dictate to any man how he should think or what he should do. The Church will point out the way and invite every member to live the gospel and enjoy the blessings that come of such living. The Church will not dictate to any man, but it will counsel, it will persuade, it will urge, and it will expect loyalty from those who profess membership therein.

"When I was a university student, I said to my father on one occasion that I felt the General Authorities had overstepped their prerogatives when they advocated a certain thing. He was a very wise and good man. He said, ‘The President of the Church has instructed us, and I sustain him as prophet, seer, and revelator and intend to follow his counsel.’

"I have now served in the general councils of this Church for 45 years. I have served as an Assistant to the Twelve, as a member of the Twelve, as a Counselor in the First Presidency, and now for eight years as President. I want to give you my testimony that although I have sat in literally thousands of meetings where Church policies and programs have been discussed, I have never been in one where the guidance of the Lord was not sought nor where there was any desire on the part of anyone present to advocate or do anything which would be injurious or coercive to anyone.

"The book of Revelation declares: ‘I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. ‘So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth’ (Rev. 3:15–16).

“I make you a promise, my dear brethren, that while I am serving in my present responsibility I will never consent to nor advocate any policy, any program, any doctrine which will be otherwise than beneficial to the membership of this, the Lord’s Church.

“This is His work. He established it. He has revealed its doctrine. He has outlined its practices. He created its government. It is His work and His kingdom, and He has said, ‘They who are not for me are against me’ (2 Ne. 10:16).

“In 1933 there was a movement in the United States to overturn the law which prohibited commerce in alcoholic beverages. When it came to a vote, Utah was the deciding state.

“I was on a mission, working in London, England, when I read the newspaper headlines that screamed, “Utah Kills Prohibition. President Heber J. Grant, then President of this Church, had pleaded with our people against voting to nullify Prohibition. It broke his heart when so many members of the Church in this state disregarded his counsel.

"On this occasion I am going to talk of uncompromising loyalty to the Church. Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing."

From http://www.divideasunder.org/2008/12/proposition-8/

The Proposition 8 Ruling: What It Means

What did the court decide?
The court ruled against opponents of Proposition 8 and upheld traditional marriage. The key issue before the court was whether Proposition 8 was an amendment or a revision to the state constitution.

A revision is a fundamental alteration of California's governmental structure. A revision requires a 2/3 approval by the legislature before heading to voters. The court agreed with Proposition 8 supporters that the ballot measure was a valid amendment, not a revision. The simple 14-word insertion of the traditional decision of marriage does not fundamentally change the structure of government.

This ruling was a victory for the democratic process and the people's ability to change our governing documents. While Proposition 8 was upheld, it was also subverted by the ruling. In recognizing the 18,000 same-sex unions performed last year, the court undercut the constitution, which clearly states that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

What about the same-sex marriages performed last summer?
Last May the California Supreme Court overturned Proposition 22, declaring it unconstitutional. Since Proposition 22 was not placed in the constitution, but simply in state law, the court contended that it violated the state's ultimate law, the constitution. Six months later, voters approved Proposition 8, which placed the true definition of marriage in the state constitution, thus superseding the court's ruling. In that six month window, an estimated 18,000 same-sex unions were performed in the state.

The court placed itself in the untenable position of upholding the people's ability to defend traditional marriage and extending marriage rights to same-sex couples. In the end, the court reluctantly agreed Proposition 8 was a valid constitutional amendment, but it held to its social engineering by validating the marriages performed last summer.

The court ruled that Proposition 8 did not contain a "retroactivity provision" and therefore any marriages performed before it took effect were valid. The ruling held that voters did not intend to invalidate existing same-sex marriages, and neither Proposition 8's language nor any voter guide information would lead voters to believe that existing same-sex marriages would be invalidated should Proposition 8 pass. This is an attempt by the court to find a legal loophole in order to placate those they wronged last year by impatiently and imprudently declaring same-sex marriage legal before voters had their say on Proposition 8.

Will same-sex marriages outside of California be recognized?
In the last footnote of the majority opinion, the court indicates it is open to hearing a case on whether same-sex marriages performed outside the state during the six-month window last summer may also be recognized in California. It is doubtful that such marriages would be recognized, especially not until such a legal challenge is brought forward. However, the court does seem to invite such a challenge, and based on their illogical justification for recognizing the 18,000 existing same-sex unions, justices seem amenable to the idea of recognizing out-of-state unions.

Does this mean the fight over marriage is over?
Not at all. Even before the ruling was handed by the court, homosexual activists were organizing and planning their next steps. Already, there is a movement to place a repeal of Proposition 8 on the ballot in 2010. Rallies, protests and demonstrations are scheduled all across the state as opponents of Proposition 8 express their anger.
The day after the ruling was handed down, two lawyers announced they had filed a federal challenge to Proposition 8. Former Solicitor General (under President George W. Bush) Ted Olson and David Boies, who were opponents in the historic Bush v. Gore case of 2000, jointly filed the lawsuit. The suit alleges Proposition 8 violates the United States Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment guarantees of equal protection and due process. On behalf of an Alameda lesbian couple and Los Angeles gay couple, the suit requests an immediate injunction to stop the enforcement of Proposition 8.

There does seem to be some division amongst homosexual groups, as several have denounced the lawsuit, preferring instead to try the issue at the ballot box again. Homosexual advocacy organization Equality California is already laying the groundwork for a statewide ballot initiative to make same-sex marriage legal. If it qualifies, such a measure could appear on the 2010 or 2012 ballot.

We must remain vigilant because the battle for marriage has just begun.

Capital Resource Institute 2009

LDS Church Response to CA Supreme Court Decision on Prop. 8

SALT LAKE CITY - Today’s decision by the California Supreme Court is welcome. The issue the court decided was whether California citizens validly exercised their right to amend their own constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The court has overwhelmingly affirmed their action.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recognizes the deeply held feelings on both sides, but strongly affirms its belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. The bedrock institution of marriage between a man and a woman has profound implications for our society. These implications range from what our children are taught in schools to individual and collective freedom of religious expression and practice.

Accordingly, the Church stands firmly for what it believes is right for the health and well-being of society as a whole. In doing so, it once again affirms that all of us are children of God, and all deserve to be treated with respect. The Church believes that serious discussion of these issues is not helped when extreme elements on both sides of the debate demonize the other.