The Prison of Other People's Opinions

A friend with whom I graduated from high school is Buddhist, and he posts regularly on Facebook about thigns for which he is grateful. I enjoy those posts greatly. 

Recently, he posted a link to a short article about being constrained by other people's opinions. It is beautiful, and I am sharing the link, without commentary, in the hope that it will resonate with those who read it and, hopefully, help someone break free from this particular prison. 

"Living in the Prison of Other People's Opinions of You" 

Same-Sex Marraige and the Recent US Supreme Court Ruling

I debated whether or not to write this post and initiate this conversation, but enough people have asked that I have decided to do so.

I am approaching this in a question and answer format, and my only request is that it be a civil conversation and not be approached as a debate. I have no desire whatsoever to argue with anyone about this, and I will not engage in that sort of dialogue. What I would like is an open discussion in which I can explain how I feel about the Supreme Court’s decision regarding same-sex marriage and the reasons I feel that way. Rather than try to list all of those reasons, I have decided to share one (perhaps the most counter-intuitive one) initially. I will respond to any other reasons, for or against, as they are given.

The primary reason I support the Supreme Court’s decision is that I believe in religious freedom, particularly when it comes to issues as sacred as marriage. 

Just as I believe my own denomination should be able to marry whomever it chooses to marry, I believe other religions and denominations should have the same right. I believe in restrictions based on consent, including the legal ability to consent, but I do not believe in legal restrictions based strictly on religious ideology. There now are multiple religions, including Christian denominations, in this country who want to be able to perform marriages for same-sex couples; thus, if I truly believe in religious freedom in the realm of marriage, and if I insist on that right for myself and my religion, I personally must support other denominations’ right to perform marriages mine does not.

I would love it if the government got out of the marriage business altogether and focused solely on civil benefits for civil unions, leaving marriage strictly as a religious practice. Lacking that ideal, which the religious majority in the United States fought for a long time, the only way for the government to provide equal civil benefits was to issue marriage licenses.

The central issue to me is not that the government is issuing marriage licenses, although I would like to see that change; the central issue to me is that religions are performing marriages that provide civil benefits. Up until now, equal civil benefits were not possible for same-sex couples under that structure. It is the tying of civil benefits (with equality under the law as the core foundation) to religious ceremonies (with their inherent and important right to be selective based on doctrine) that is the central issue for me – and if religions were unwilling to allow the government to perform civil unions for same-sex couples (which, again, was the case in the United States), the only alternative to provide civil benefits equally and fairly was to legalize same-sex marriage within the public marriage structure while maintaining the right of religions and denominations to perform and refuse to perform marriages according to their own doctrine and beliefs.

The Supreme Court ruling has done that. Religions and denominations still can refuse to marry inter-racial couples, for example, with no legal ramifications, even though inter-racial marriage has been legal for a long time; same-sex marriage is no different, in that particular respect, with this recent ruling.

Thus, the primary reason I support the Supreme Court ruling is that I believe so passionately in religious freedom.

What is "The Church"?

"The Church" is many things, depending on the application and what is meant by the person using the term.

I know that's incredibly vauge, but it has to be - since it's such a subjective, abstract, malleable term.

When I use the term, I usually try to differentiate by using "The Church" to mean the entire LDS Church - or the global church leadership - or the prevailing doctrinal viewpoint - or something like that vs. "the church" to mean the local church unit or simply the meetinghouse. However, just like I did in the last sentence, I almost always have to use disclaimers or modifiers or descriptors when I make such distinctions - since they generally aren't going to be understood on their own as isolated terms. ("The Church" vs. "the church") Therefore, my most common shorthand is "The global Church" or "the local church".

Those two entities are radically different organizations. For example, all LDS members and I share membership in the same Church, but our churches sometimes are very, very different. I have found that most members can overlook a lot of things that bother them about "The Church" to which they "belong" as long as "the church" they "attend" is a welcoming, accommodating place. I also have found that many members can overlook a lot of things that bother them about "the church" as long as they have had an experience (or experiences) with "The Church" that is transcendent in some way. When the two are aligned positively, it's Nirvana; when the two are in conflict, it's manageable (and even can be uplifting and growth-inducing); when the two are aligned negatively, it's very difficult. There is a baseline "tipping point" in this balance that varies for each individual - and those who leave generally do so, in my opinion, when NEITHER "The Church" nor "the church" provides enough growth, empowerment, peace, etc. to make the required sacrifices worthwhile to them personally.

Therefore, the initial pursuit for many who struggle is the search for a paradigm that will allow them to find balance in the force, so to speak - something positive about their interaction with "The Church" and/or their involvement in "the church" that will counteract the negative in the other. That is a good and necessary endeavor, but it isn't the foundational pursuit I believe is the best endeavor for those who don't want to leave. Fundamentally, I believe the ultimate endeavor is to figure out one's view of God and "true religion" and then to pursue THAT objective within "The Church" and/or "the church" (and it really can be one or both, depending on which one works best for each person).

So, to reiterate, "The Church" can be whatever we individually make of it - understanding that it isn't just one thing, even though it really is "something" or "some things". We really can become agents unto ourselves in how we navigate our own path within both - and that truth really can make us free.

What Is the Truth That Shall Make Us Free? A Book of Mormon Answer

John 8:31-32 says:

Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

What is the truth that shall make us free? 

In the LDS Church, we quote 2 Nephi 2:25 all the time ("Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy."), but I believe we don’t quote 2 Nephi 2:26 nearly enough. This verse is beautiful and so central to the lesson taught thoughout the chapter.  (I have described verse 25 as a "bridge" from what comes before it to the most important message in the entire chapter - verse 26.)  Verse 26 says (emphasis mine):
 

And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.

 
I read verse 26 as saying that it is the redemption that constitutes the truth that makes us free – that “justifies” the Fall (our separation from God) and gives us the insight to know good from evil. In other words, I don’t believe we know good from evil because we were removed from God’s presence (“fell”); I believe we know good from evil because a God agreed to redeem us from that separation and allowed us to be taught “truth”.

What truth?

That we actually are children of God who actually can become heirs of God and joint-heirs of Christ. That Jesus meant what he said, in so many places in the Bible, literally.  That simple “good news” makes us free to act upon hopes we can’t see (faith), act to change our very nature (repent), act to be cleansed symbolically (baptism) and act in an attempt to know God’s will (receive the Holy Ghost). It’s an acceptance of the Atonement / redemption in all its marvelous glory (not “denying the power thereof”) that constitutes the truth that makes us free to act and not be acted upon. 

Verse 26 says all of that, in my opinion – and I continually am blown away by how concisely it does so.