Saturday, June 03, 2006

Advocating righteousness: No Apologies Necessary

I have seen a surprising picture developing out of recent controversy regarding LDS Church leaders supporting the proposed constitutional marriage amendment. It would seem that there are a number of people associated with the church, who feel guilty to promote unequivocal opposition to homosexual behavior.

In fact, a whole lot of them seem downright apologetic.

And, in fact, there are a significant number who presume to criticize the church for its continuing opposition to anything resembling approval for or sanction of homosexual "lifestyle".

It is a confusing position to advocate, because many of the proponents feel justified by their understanding of principles of "compassion" or "tolerance". They seem unable to discern how temporary concessions under that "compassion" rationale ultimately compromise the quality of life for everyone involved. Every experience through the history of human existence testifies that it is never compassionate to compromise with evil.

To me this ambivalence is difficult to reconcile. In my experience the church has never offered the slightest concession to those entangled in sexual deviance. Such sinful misconduct has always been unacceptable and condemned in the strongest terms. It is my understanding that church membership is automatically severed for individuals engaged in homosexual behavior. To me, this policy seems unremarkable and consistent.

I don't expect anything to ever change in this respect. But it would seem that quite a number of church members are even hopeful that it will.

Who thinks we owe the sinners an apology for advocating repentance and righteousness?

3 comments:

Guy Murray said...

Guess you don't have any takers there Jim. Would you interpret that as a good sign?

Jim Cobabe said...

Guy, I'm not so sure.

Judging from the traffic on the Bloggernacle, there are plenty of would-be Latter-day Saints who believe it is legitimate to compromise on righteousness in order to extend charity. To me, leaving my brothers and sisters to their sins compounds the evil and is the antithesis of charity.

I speak of this as one who has been there. More than a few times in life I have found myself in "the bonds of iniquity", grieving and suffering in seemingly intolerable pain as a result. No one ever presumed to moderate the commandments in my aid. Instead, my true friends supported me in my efforts to cast off my sins and repent.

To me it is axiomatic. We cannot bring souls unto Christ by propping up their evil.

Guy Murray said...

Jim,

My question was somewhat rhetorical in that no one bothered to respond to your "rhetorical?" question. I watched for a couple of days to see if anyone would respond and then I added my 2 cents.

I agree whole heartedly with your observation about some of the comments on the 'nacle of late. Some, I think are legitimate inquiries about the Brethren's statement. Others, however, are just over the top. Clearly mercy cannot rob justice as we know.

One of the most interesting trains of thought on this over the last few days is the idea that somehow the Church, i.e., The Brethren, will evolve as they did with Blacks and the priesthood, or other similar positions. I don't see them as equal on any terms as what the Brethren have taught since the restoration, and the scriptures since time first recorded.

I think we all fall into the category to one degree or another of finding ourselves in the bonds of iniquity--albeit everyone having their own personal vices and demons.

You are right. You cannot achieve good by propping up evil. Nice blog–good reading!