On Immorality

When I was growing up I remember a particularly poignant family scripture study when we read the verse in the Isaiah chapters of the Book of Mormon where Isaiah says that in the last days good will be called evil and evil will be called good. We discussed that verse for a minute and talked about how the Church has been demonized in the past and how we need to stay true to our morals. Over the years, I've had lots of conversations about the legalization of gay marriage with Church members, and especially during the Proposition 8 campaign in 2008 when this verse of scripture has been mentioned in reference to the way Church members are sometimes treated for their views on the matter and for the Church's support of the Proposition. I've felt lately that in some areas, this prophecy applies more to the Church than to the people outside of it.

It's important to define immorality: to define good and evil. The other day when I was talking to my dad after coming out to him, he became very emotional and said he was "sick" of this "love one another crap" and there had to be a clear, defining line between good and evil, and that we needed stick to it. I couldn't agree with him more, and I couldn't agree with him less. I agree in that there is a clear, defining line between good and evil. And I absolutely disagree in his definition. I believe that all of the most heinous, evil deeds of human history were born of hatred and dehumanization. Whether it's the Jews slaughtering the Canaanites, or Romans and their gladiators, or the slaughter of the Incas by the Spanish, or the countless inhumanities of colonization in Africa,  the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, the Cambodian genocide, the Rwandan genocide, or the genocide in Darfur, the deepest sin is the same: it's when one human being looks at another as different and as unworthy to live. It's when we fail to appreciate and legitimize our shared experience of life. Because in the end, it's our shared experience of life that makes life worthwhile.

What brought this to mind was stumbling upon a disturbing teaching in the October 1927 session of General Conference as I was searching for doctrines related to race relations and slavery for my research project. President Anthony W. Ivins, second counselor in the First Presidency under Heber J. Grant taught the following:

"I appeal to you to teach and practice righteousness and purity of life. Do you know what those Indians to whom I have referred would do with a woman who violated the law of chastity? They would split her ears, and cut her hair in a manner that she would be recognized for what she is, wherever she went. They would never allow her to marry in the tribe again, and the man who would be guilty of offences such as are almost daily committed in our communities, would be put to death. It may have been a barbarous law, but it kept those people free from the sin of immorality, until they were corrupted by the white man who came among them and introduced his more civilized mode of life."

I'm fascinated by his definition of sin. To kill a man and maim a woman for sleeping together is not sin, but to break the law of chastity is immoral (and I am in no way advocating breaking the law of chastity). This seems in such opposition to what Christ taught. And it is in opposition to my moral compass, as well. 

So why is this important to talk about? It's important because while the issues have changed (none but the most radical would treat the above quote seriously), attitudes have not. The "fate worse than death" mentality that I talked about a few posts ago is still alive and well, at least here in Utah. We need to question our perceptions of good and evil, and not just accept everything that comes down from the pulpit, lest we begin to believe such as the above quote. That quote seems ridiculous now. But things people say now will probably also seem ridiculous in fifty or a hundred years. Our ultimate value needs to be human life and compassion for all living beings, because "the end of the law is this: that you love your neighbor as yourself"; "in this hangs all the law and the prophets: that you love your neighbor as yourself"; "he that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love"; "if you have not charity, you are nothing, for charity never faileth." I would venture to guess that a society that legalizes gay marriage in respect for LGBT people, their experiences, and their happiness, is more in line with the eternal principles of goodness than one that stones an adulteress or splits the ears of a woman found to break the law of chastity. Oftentimes, it seems to me to be those in the Church that are guilty of calling good, evil and evil, good.

I love the Church, and I'm grateful for my continued experiences in it. I don't mean to say that the people aren't loving. I've never met people so willing to go out of their way to help others (though to be fair, I've spent my whole life in Mormonism, and so haven't had much of a chance to meet other people at the same level). My only point is that doctrines and attitudes that belittle the life experiences of others need to end. To quote mormonsandgays.org, "we must not judge anyone for the feelings they experience" (though I would add the caveat that if they feel inclined to damage the quality or quantity of life of other people, we should probably judge...just sayin').

"Purity that demands exclusion isn't purity."

-An episode of Community... don't judge the source. It's a good quote :)