Something kept rattling through my head this week, as I considered the statements by the Church simultaneously in support of LBGTQ anti-discrimination legislation, while insisting on a religious exemption. At first, I thought, here is real progress. But then, with the Trib Talk session, I learned that the church doesn’t apologize, nor does the word “apology” appear in the LDS scriptures. In particular, I kept wondering why the two apostles talking to these points were Elders Oaks and Christofferson. Then I thought, oh wait, there is an important reason, maybe several, as to why these two.
These two apostles are extraordinarily gifted and credentialed lawyers. Oaks was acting Dean if the Univ of Chicago Law School and Utah Supreme Court Justice. Christofferson clerked for Judge Sirica during the Watergate hearings. While these two certainly are able speakers and deeply committed to mormonism as apostles, their standing in the legal field is unparalleled. If they had continued professionally, either of them could have been easily appointed to the Supreme Court.
In August 1984, just 4 months after being appointed an Apostle, Oaks wrote a legal opinion to LDS leadership about how to manage the church’s public statements and strategy amid the battle for gay rights. In it, we find the exact playbook of the LDS church on this issue for the past 30 years: the key themes of the 1995 Proclamation on the Family, the basis of the 1998 strategy in Hawaii, and of course Prop 8. What is even more amazing, is that we find the exact positioning taken this past week on LBGTQ legislation, that the church should be supportive of LBGTQ anti-discrimination on some things, but absolutely reserve the right for a religious exception. It’s all there… August 7, 1984.
The term “apology” has an interesting legal dimension. One, the actual usage of the term in greek and at the time of the KJV translation was that of “defending beliefs by making an excuse for them”. Two, Oaks is correct that the term “apology” never appears in scripture, but this is a legalistic distinction; he knows that “repentance” carries the same meaning as our modern use of “apology”, and is skirting the issue on a technicality — a common legal tactic. Three, lawyers seldom recommend to their clients to apologize before the verdict: an apology is an admission of guilt, and in American constitutional law, the defendant never is forced into self incrimination.
I have to say that I was stunned by Elder Oaks statement that the Church doesn’t apologize. Humility, compassion, and repentance are what we expect from holy men. Although the Catholic church has yet to undo their resistance to change on LBGTQ and women’s ordination issues, at least Pope Francis speaks a much better story to the public. But here’s the thing: since neither church is actually at point of changing their doctrines or practices regarding LBGTQ and women, the reality is that Oaks and Christofferson are completely honest about the agenda: the church has not moved from the strategy articulated by Oaks in 1984, and has nothing for which it needs to legally apologize.
Yet I am still stunned, but I realize that my feeling stunned is really more like when I walk out of a cave into bright sunlight. It’s painful to lose my illusory shadow world that the church was capable of introspection and inspired change and that I could walk peacefully along the Middle-Way.
The sunlight shows that the Salt Lake Church is a mighty fortress in the midst of a war on the world. Its foundations are granite: solid and immovable. Its storehouse is plentiful and full, capable of a long, protracted battle. Its bulwarks are strong and high. As I stand in “City Creek” Potemkin village outside its ramparts, looking north, I can see the white tower, the staid offices of the fifteen white men who serve as guardians of orthodoxy, and then just to the left is the Church’s armory for this war, with the words “Kirton McConkie” emblazoned upon its ramparts.
Wheat & Tares 
1984, huh???
If this strategy is as well thought out as you indicate, I wonder what thought they’ve given to how defending a religious right for exemptions from other laws will play out. My understanding is that the church gave up polygamy reluctantly — 2 manifestos were required — and only out of the necessity of complying with laws. Will the law Elder Oaks is lobbying for mean the freedom for fundamentalist sects to practice polygamy? Could the church return to polygamy since they’ve never rescinded D&C 132?
Could this be a case of be careful what you wish for?
Interesting insights Wayfarer. It’s true the church has done nothing legally wrong for which they would need to apologize.
I also think its insightful to view the church as a fortress, the General Authorities as “guardians of orthodoxy” waging a protracted war on the world. The church is NOT Christ, nor God, nor His gospel. Rather the church is the defender of priesthood authority, and the evangelizer of ordinances. Their role is actually quite narrow. The gospel itself is infinite in its potential and scope, but the church is narrow and defensive. Perhaps it must be so.
“It’s all there… August 7, 1984.”
Where? Is there a functioning link? I’ve tried tracking it down, but the Affirmation page linked elsewhere brings up an error.
Feeling weary.
Interesting thought about no apology for no change in doctrine or practice (but possibly changes in prescribed actions for some situations). But I do feel like an apology is more than just appropriate. It is needed to heal some wounds. Just like in marriage.
great article. are you the Wayfarer from NOM?
@nate: Love that comment — yes, the church has a narrow purpose, and realizing that, it puts things in perspective for me.
—–
@Hedgehog: Someone directed me to this link: http://m.imgur.com/a/zRqAP
—–
@A Happy Hubby – Our scriptures declare, “What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:38)
This is the empowering scripture for what Elder Oaks is saying. It is also one of the core scriptures of the doctrine of prophetic infallibility.
—–
@PangWitch – yes, the one and only…
Cheers! 😉
“If they had continued professionally, either of them could have been easily appointed to the Supreme Court.”
Easily? Yea right, a conservative making it into the Supreme Court? Think of Thomas. He is black and they falsely accused of sexism and fought him all the way. This was 25 years ago when Bush senior was the president. What’s more, both are Mormon and the Senators from evangelical and secular states would never allow this to happen.
Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts are all awesome, but I think they are the last of thier breed.
I think both are awesome and both would make excellent justices for our country. Fortunately, God called them to be justices for his church.
Ken, I think that whether or not Oaks and Christopherson could be justices is besides the point. They are very top notch lawyers, and in a very direct way, the church is leveraging their skills in the war they have chosen to fight.
I view the church as including the Gospel, programmes to help us live the gospel ( home teaching=love your neighbour), and a large dose of conservative culture.
I think the opposition to LGBT people comes from the conservative culture of the leaders. Just as racism did. I therefore don’t think D&C 1;38 applies. Perhaps you are aware of revelation that would show otherwise.
It comes back to when a Prophet is speaking as a prophet and when as a man. Even though Oaks ,and Christophersen were speaking as representatives of the church, were they speaking as representatives of God or their culture?
I am hoping for the day when the church can be separated from the culture, and the Gospel become the more powerful influence in how things are done.
Wayfarer,
“They are very top notch lawyers”
Fair enough on your point to thier competence.
“the church is leveraging their skills in the war they have chosen to fight”
And?
I don’t see an issue with the church defending thier position or setting a stradegy for any policy. Is that not thier job? They are, after all, religious leaders and are expected to set religious or moral policy. The real question is the source of thier stradegy. It is my faith they are guided by God.
Interesting insight. I am less familiar with Christofferson’s background as a lawyer, so thanks for that perspective. My own view is that they were chosen because they are two among the apostles with differing viewpoints. Christofferson has actual credibility from personal experience since his brother is gay. Oaks is the most passionate about the church’s anti-gay-marriage stance, and he takes a legalistic stance as you say.
I tend to think that if we’re still tackling this problem as envisioned in 1984, we should rethink that. The scientific understanding of homosexuality has completely evolved since then, which Oaks knows. At times he seems ready to acknowledge that, but something holds him back. It’s hard to change your stance when it’s been declared.
An old boss of mine used to talk about “scrumping” (stealing apples) as a boy growing up in London. One boy would throw another boy’s cap over the wall into the orchard, and then the boy would have to climb the wall to retrieve it because he was already committed. Oaks’ cap is over the wall.
Thanks for that link.
The memo refers to what public statements the church might make in the case of legislation. Even then leaders differentiated between thought and action. I actually appreciate the fact that the church’s position has been consistent.
Wayfarer,
I think you make a good point in bringing up K&M, which is core to the 30 year old statement and most recent one by Elder Oaks. The church is playing legal defense as much as it is pastoral care for some of its members. A religious exemption would mean much less worry about the myriad lawsuits that could arise over this issue. They would be more than happy to give the K&M lawyers a few easy cases that end pretty much all lawsuits after the fine points of the religious exemption are explored.
An apology could open up a huge legal can of worms. Elder Oaks knows this is a very bad idea from a legal standpoint. It is good to hear about the 30 year consistency of the church’s position.
Sure, el oso and IDIAT, consistency and defense are a value of the Church, and it may well be there is no other choice. The church is a Mighty Fortress, an anchor amidst the storms of life. The question is perhaps deeper and more conflicted to me. Living within a fortress implies a certain worldview, one which, perhaps, I no longer share.
If I view the world as a sacred place, and all of god’s children as my charge, then I would adopt a loving, inclusive, and transparent paradigm. A “pastoral” approach.
If I view the world as hostile babylon, and the inhabitants as enemies, then I would adopt a defensive, guarded, and even a plan for defense and attack. A “legal” approach.
I don’t typically employ attorneys to manage the relations between myself and my family, and if I did, it would probably be in the midst of a loss of love and trust.
Faith and trust are integral to each other. As well, faith and trust need to be mutual, one-sided faith and trust lead to abuse.
I am expected to have faith and trust in the church, that i must follow every word that proceeds forth from the mouth of the prophets, without question. Yet the church can have the best lawyers and pay for them with my tithing to enforce its will on me, and to fight battles I morally and ethically oppose.
It seems very one sided to me.
I choose a different Path, that “faith” is my free choice, and I will try to put my trust in god as i understand him or her, and refuse to put my trust in the arm of flesh. I often fall short of that Path, ever thinking that my Church will be a safe place for me to find comfort and peace among those I love and that love me. Yet the events and facts prove to me that the church is not a safe place to express my faith. I love it and the people, but I have learned another reality: the church loves compliance to its law and silent submission: it doesn’t love me. I am an object, a source of money and manpower to fulfil its needs.
A peaceful walk amidst a faithful Middle-Way is not a healthy thing to do on a battlefield. I have to live a guarded, defensive, private life, ever wary of expressing my true thoughts, lest I disturb the holy warriors’ spirit and resolve. I must be loyal in word, deed, and very thought, lest the overseers of the fortress cast me out as a filthy apostate.
I am trying to find some shred of positive in this, some aspect of “wheat” amidst the “tares” that helps me better manage my feelings. It’s not working.
In returning to the church at the end of 2011 after being “away” to India for two years, I made a bargain with my moral and ethical compass, the one that said “not this” after prop 8. The deal was this: I can stay and affirm faith in the church, provided I stand as witness for what I know the be right–and this specifically means being part of a process that undoes the incredible moral harm Prop 8 did to loved ones and to the people of the church. I don’t do enough, and feel hypocritical all the time. But when I observed that the latest “progress” is all part of a legally-defined plan arising from a 1984-worldview (in every sense of the word), and that NOTHING has changed, my moral compass is not pointing toward the path the church demands.
So I am faced with the choice to conform and stifle my feelings within the safety and comfort of the mighty fortress, or to choose exile, for the Middle Way is no longer the Way of peace. Yet the Middle-Way is still there amidst this battlefield, and while walking on it now involves greater risk, it is still an option, a Way of integrity and authenticity. The act of walking on the Middle-Way is no longer to find peace, but is an act of defiance, to stand and walk as witnesses of what is true and right (or so I hope…). ‘Tis the way of the fool, the naive idiot, who seems like a glutton for punishment.
I choose the Middle-Way.
I’m beginning to think the legal profession is overrepresented in high church leadership.
I was just thinking today it would be good to have a therapist with a few decades of experience both inside the Mormon corridor and a bit of time outside also. I do think over time we would see some different conference talks, policy, and even doctrine.
To which legal document do you refer and where can it be found?
Yes, the whole thing was really more of a cry to arms for the ‘religious conscience’ people – drawing a line in the sand, under the guise of being just so ‘tolerant’.
“I’m beginning to think the legal profession is overrepresented in high church leadership.”
(1) Yes, the Lord doesn’t call fishermen anymore. I’m not aware of any general authority who doesn’t have the professional resume to sit on a corporate board of directors. I can’t recall even having a Stake President who was a blue-collar worker. The Kingdom no longer needs to rely on “the weak things of the world, those who are unlearned and despised, to thresh the nations by the power of my Spirit.”
(2) On the other hand, Kingdom is quite average in a way. As a lawyer, I’ve litigated on behalf of the Church and against it. The Kingdom acts like any other large corporation. It’s PR department sounds like any other PR department. And, while Oaks has the background of an above-average legal scholar, he does not speak as an elder statesman of the bar; rather, he spins like any other well-educated advocate. He’s the Kingdom’s Ken Starr.
We are so easily dazzled. Yes, our apostles are no longer fishermen. But fawning over their credentials is a little silly. They are AVERAGE top-echelon lawyers. Assuming charitably that they fall in the top 1% of lawyers in the US, that’s an exclusive club of over 12,000 people.
At first,I found the statement on anti discrimination positve and hopeful, but then I found the statements made by Elder Oaks afterwords and his smug attitude to be very disconcerting and have left me quite dismayed. The church that I converted to in good faith should be above that if it is truly “the Lord’s organization”.
For a person who is supposed to be an Apostle to make such a statement as Elder Oaks’ is beyond me. Didn’t Christ’s teachings set an example of humility and proper behavior? Surely an Apostle should represent that and not the worldly attitudes of an attorney.
I am afraid that I will have to look elsewhere for inspiration in the future.