Preface
I miss FireTag. His death deprived me of someone I had many meaningful conversations with, and it was thinking on those (and realizing that I have several interviews that are running behind schedule) that led me to this post.
Introduction
I tend to take the Eleventh Article of Faith and feel it can be appropriate to substitute “marriage” for “worship” when marriage issues are debated, so that if the Methodist congregation down the street wants to marry three men together or two women or some other combination, that should be their right.
I very much feel that we should be ministering Christ to all, and not excluding people or making the LDS Church an unsafe place for children or others who do not fit in.
Those are all “micro” issues — one person to one person, how I feel I should live my life.
But, on the other hand, I’m very aware of the macro issues. Consider this quote from one of FireTag’s old posts:
In case you are wondering, that is the Communities of Christ (the Reorganized Church) dealing with marriage equality in areas outside the United States.
The Issue
You would think that as the progressive side of the various churches that came out of Joseph Smith’s ministry, the Communities of Christ could deliver what progressives want.
They seem to have been able to deliver a female head of their quorum of the twelve apostles (starting up a revival of the tradition of Junia). They endorsed marriage equality in the American Conference.
But world wide? Much of their growth is in Africa (I know, everyone thinks of them as in massive decline [“the latest report showed contributions had plunged to the point that they would have to rise by 70% over target for the remainder of the fiscal year for budgets to be made.”, but they have had substantial growth in some areas).
In Africa, even a discussion of marriage equality can trigger danger to members and church leaders. Or why, FireTag explained to me, there have been times they have not had all of their twelve apostles listed clearly on their web page.
In Africa, Russia and other areas, marriage equality can get you classified as non-Christian, not part of the “people of the book” and subject to being enslaved or worse. It can get your Church decertified, your missionaries ejected and your members arrested and their property confiscated.
It is worse than the Asian delegate who remarked “that will never happen in my country” as to some progressive issues. Not only “never happen” but “dangerous to even propose or talk about.”
In connection with other issues about supporting indigenous peoples against exploitation, FireTag would discuss the macro issues involved about making it possible to have a church continue in countries where certain doctrines or policies or even policy statements would result in ferocious consequences — basically the end of the church in those countries.
Decisions
I think it is simple on a micro level. We act with love, we promote freedom, we do our best to create safe spaces.
But on an institutional level, it is easy to say to members of a Church in Russia that they should be willing to be jailed and have the Church expelled there in favor of policies that we favor here. To say to members in Africa that they should run the risk of enslavement and other consequences in support of policy changes here.
After all, it would benefit those we know at the expense of those we do not. Of course to them it looks as if we are saying that they should be glad we are sacrificing their safety and freedom for our benefit.
I don’t know the answers on a macro level.
And/But
I do know that the answer on a micro level is always to have patience, love and faith. To seek Christ and to do his works.
As nicely put, we need to be driven instead by our charity, the pure love of Christ for all God’s children that will cause our would-be critics to confess with awe: “Look how they love one another!”
We embrace allowing others freedom. We act in love with each other and towards all.
Regardless of how the macro issues work out, in our own microcosms we can choose the pure love of Christ.
I think that FireTag could approve of that — that regardless of the larger environment, in our lives we should seek the pure love of Christ.
For someone else’s perspective:
https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2019/11/general-counsel-and-outliers/
Questions:
- How do you feel we should resolve big picture issues when we don’t have all the facts?
- Was there a reason Christ gave two commandments (love God and love others) and said all the law and prophets were built on those two things?
- If to love God is to keep his commandments does that mean we start keeping the commandments by following them in order?
- When should we not abide by the eleventh article of faith?
Wheat & Tares 
How true. I consider myself to have gone through a faith crisis and then into an on-going faith transition. I had a while in my faith crisis where I really was angry at the top church leaders. I certainly still have huge issues, but I also have gained quite a bit of sympathy for trying to corral a church with 5 or 6 million different people in all parts of the world. That has got to be HARD.
But with this transition I have also had a dramatic change how I look at others. I can’t think of anything more important than, “And the second is like unto it, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” It has felt to me to have become easier to do this.
We shouldn’t try to resolve big picture issues when we don’t have all the facts. But often we are guilty of thinking we already have all the facts or thinking that there are no other facts to be had even when we are in no position to have or know all the facts.
When should we not abide by the eleventh article of faith? Are you asking when should we not claim the privilege of worshiping God according to our own conscience? Such as when worshiping according to our own conscience would have dire consequences for others like in the example you gave with the CoC?
Do we see trees or do we see the forest? Are we responsible for caring for the trees around us or managing and protecting the entire forest? As individuals, we are responsible for caring for the individuals around us. We cannot see and not know the issues and concerns facing the entire forest. Let’s let those responsible for the entire forest, and who should know the issues and concerns facing the entire forest, manage the forest while we tend to the trees around us that we see and know.
Inasmuch as TCOJCOLDS is not a democracy, I need only worry about me; my behavior and decisions and how these things relate to friend, family, neighbors, co-workers and strangers I meet. Actual democracies tend to drift as minority activists exert disproportional influence on institutional decision making.
Do we really believe in allowing others to believe what they want? Or do we try to impose our beliefs on others? Thinking abortion, gay marriage, for a start. And our obsession is counter productive for us and our victims. Many mormons voted Trump to make abortion illegal. The church even allows abortions for some reasons for members. Are those who want to make abortion just virtue signalling or do they want to reduce abortion to a minimum? Because making it illegal actually increases it.
I do not understand what you think the problem is or would be in Russia or Africa?
Should the leaders do what is right, or be swayed by the world?
I think members understand love your neighbour differently, depending on how heavily invested they are in obedience. If obedience overrules love you think it is loving to expect obedience to earn love.