Read Part 1 of this article.

Nowhere in the scriptures are we told that we should choose to doubt. In fact, we are repeatedly told that we should avoid doubt. Christ said to his disciples: “Neither be ye of doubtful mind.” (Luke 12:29. See also Matthew 21:21 and Mark 11:23.) The Lord told Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery to “Look unto me in every thought; doubt not, fear not” (Doctrine & Covenants 6:36). And Moroni counsels all of us to “Doubt not, but be believing” (Mormon 9:27). More recently, President Thomas S. Monson said,

Do not yield to Satan’s enticements; rather, stand firm for truth. . . . Vice never leads to virtue. Hate never promotes love. Cowardice never gives courage. Doubt never inspires faith.

In other words, as between doubt and faith, we should choose faith. (See also Helaman 5:49 and Mormon 9:21 & 25.)

That is not to say that we should not be inquisitive or that it is wrong to ask questions, or wonder about things. In fact, we are admonished to ask, seek and knock (3 Nephi 14: 7 & 27:29; Matthew 7:7; Doctrine & Covenants 6:5). We are to worship God not only with our heart, but also with our minds (Mark 12:30; 2 Nephi 25:29; Moroni 10:32). We are told “with all thy getting, get understanding” (Proverbs 4:7). President Dieter F. Uchtforf has said:

Inquiry is the birthplace of testimony. Some might feel embarrassed or unworthy because they have searching questions regarding the gospel, but they needn’t feel that way. Asking questions isn’t a sign of weakness; it’s a precursor of growth. …

 

Fear not; ask questions. Be curious, but doubt not! Always hold fast to faith and to the light you have already received. Because we see imperfectly in mortality, not everything is going to make sense right now. In fact, I should think that if everything did make sense to us, it would be evidence that it had all been made up by a mortal mind. Remember that God has said: “My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways. …”

We are also told that some kinds of revelation come only after we have studied things out in our minds. (See Doctrine & Covenants 9:8.) Alma taught us to use both our intellectual as well as spiritual faculties to experiment upon the word (Alma 32:27). John taught us to test the spirits to see if they are of God (1 John 4:1). Similarly, Paul taught us to “Prove all things” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). We are told to diligently teach and seek “out of the best books words of wisdom.” We are to “seek learning, even by study and also by faith.” (Doctrine & Covenants 88:118; Doctrine & Covenants 109:7 & 14.) So as we ask, seek and knock, we are to do so in a spirit of faith, not in a spirit of cynicism, bitterness or doubt (James 1:5-6).

Nourishing Your Testimony

Just as a little plant must be nourished to grow, so our testimony also must be nourished by faith.

Nevertheless, although we should try to avoid complacently accepting doubt, it is not a sin to be tempted by doubt. But thoughts and feelings of doubt do not need to be indulged. It has been said that a bird may land on your head, but you don’t need to let it build a nest there. So, like other temptations of the mind, thoughts of doubt about God and His Church may enter our heads, but there is no sin in that unless we choose to cultivate, embrace or act on those thoughts.

A helpful analogy in this regard is that of Alma’s garden in Alma 32:27-43. Alma teaches us to plant the seeds of faith in the garden of our hearts and nourish and cultivate the seeds to see if they will bear good fruit and prove themselves to be good seeds. We move from faith to knowledge as the seeds grow, enlarge our souls, enlighten our understanding and expand our minds (Alma 32:33-34).

However, bad seeds, seeds of doubt and apostasy, can also fall into our gardens. So, just as it is important to nourish the good seeds, we should avoid nourishing the bad seeds so they do not choke out the good seeds. If we cultivate seeds of faith, we will reap the fruits of faith: knowledge and eternal life. If we cultivate seeds of doubt, we will harvest the fruits of apostasy.

Elder Neal A. Maxwell similarly applied this analogy [Neal A. Maxwell, Meek and Lowly (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1987), 6.]:

Lack of intellectual humility is there among those who have deliberately cultivated their doubts in order, they think, to release themselves from their covenants. Some nurture their grievances assiduously. Were their grievances, instead, Alma’s seed of faith, they would have long ago nourished a mighty tree of testimony.

Much of the work organizations such as FairMormon do are to provide ways for people to identify the bad seeds and to give people the tools they need to pull the weeds from the gardens of their hearts.  Of course, it is not possible for FairMormon to destroy all the seeds of doubt. If it were, as Professor Terryl Givens points out, people would not be free to choose faith as they would have no options. Furthermore, while FairMormon can help give people the tools they need to remove the weeds from their gardens, a garden will still not bear fruit if no one has made an effort to plant good seeds and diligently nourish them. As Alma indicated, once the tree of testimony begins to grow, we must continue to exercise faith by nourishing the tree so that we may one day eat the fruit of the tree, which is everlasting life (Alma 32:36-43). Elder Neil L. Andersen discussed how we can strengthen our testimonies in the face of trials:

How do you remain “steadfast and immovable” during a trial of faith? You immerse yourself in the very things that helped build your core of faith: you exercise faith in Christ, you pray, you ponder the scriptures, you repent, you keep the commandments, and you serve others.

When faced with a trial of faith-whatever you do, you don’t step away from the Church! Distancing yourself from the kingdom of God during a trial of faith is like leaving the safety of a secure storm cellar just as the tornado comes into view.

Elder Quentin L. Cook further taught us what to avoid:

Many who are in a spiritual drought and lack commitment have not necessarily been involved in major sins or transgressions, but they have made unwise choices. Some are casual in their observance of sacred covenants. Others spend most of their time giving first-class devotion to lesser causes. Some allow intense cultural or political views to weaken their allegiance to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Some have immersed themselves in Internet materials that magnify, exaggerate, and, in some cases, invent shortcomings of early Church leaders. Then they draw incorrect conclusions that can affect testimony. Any who have made these choices can repent and be spiritually renewed.

Avoiding the Seeds of Doubt

Also, in trying to avoid doubt, it can be helpful to avoid those who sow the seeds of doubt. Excessive exposure to people who are bitter, cynical and angry is corrosive and has a tendency to erode faith. Elder Maxwell observed that as we read in the Section 46 of the Doctrine and Covenants, “to some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God… to others it is given to believe on their words…” The dark side of that coin, of course, is that doubts can be pooled, too, and anxieties shared with the wrong people so that this wilts such few tender sprouts of certitude as exist. The point is not that we should refuse to share our concerns, but that sincere doubters really seek for answers, while it is often the insincere doubter who wants to play “Can you top this?” in a frenzy of doubt for doubt’s sake. [Neal A. Maxwell, For the Power is In Them…(Mormon Musings) (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1970), 31.]

Of course, as we try to cast the seeds of doubt out of our lives, we should not be too quick to cast out the doubters. Some, through no fault of their own, experience doubt and ask questions more than others. Elder Maxwell described different types of doubters in the following way:

You are quite right to be lovingly concerned about doubters, who come in such various shapes and attitudinal shadings. Some doubters truly seek answers. These give the Brethren the benefit of the doubt, and, for them, doubt becomes a useful spiritual spur. There are others who doubt and hold back simply because they are so afraid of being “taken in.” There are still others who are embarrassed because of their inability to defend their faith; for these, doubt is a refuge. Yet other doubters are stubborn, because they feel God has not responded to them on their terms. There are even doubters who come to enjoy their roles and the associated attention and who set themselves up “as a golden calf for the worship” of people in the Church (Doctrine & Covenants 124:84). A variation of the latter is seen in those who are “professing and yet [are] not of God” (Doctrine & Covenants 46:27; see also Doctrine & Covenants 136:19). “He commandeth that there shall be no priestcrafts; for, behold, priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion” (2 Nephi 26:29).

 

These latter individuals have their own agendum and have apparently long since concluded that, if they can’t be a leader, then they will be a critic.

 

Absent sufficient meekness in the doubter, I am not sure that much can be done. Experience can either soften or harden doubts, depending on the person’s supply of meekness. Clearly, however, our love should include all doubters, whatever their motivation, “for ye know not but what they will… come unto me with full purpose of heart” (3 Nephi 18:32). [Neal A. Maxwell, That Ye May Believe, Kindle edition, 2026.]

As we strive to spread the gospel and build faith in others, patience and love are necessary if we are to reach those who are struggling, but have not yet surrendered to and embraced doubt. As Elder Maxwell has written:

The ability to create a climate around us in which people, as in the case of the man who approached Jesus, feel free enough to say the equivalent of “Lord, help Thou my unbelief,” is a critical skill. If we can deal with doubt effectively in its nascent stages, we can assist people by a warmth and love which frees them to share the worries that they may have, and increase the probability of dissolving their doubt. But, if we over-react to dissent or to doubt, we are apt, rather than inculcating confidence in those we serve, to exhibit what, in the eyes of the rebel, may seem to be a flaw in our inner confidence in what we say.

 

We need to relax to be effective in the process of helping people who are building testimonies. Over-reacting and pressing the panic button when doubt first makes its appearance can render us ineffective. This is one of the reasons why parents are often in a temporarily poorer tactical position to deal effectively with a rebellious son or daughter— the anxiety is too real to relax. In these circumstances, bishops, teachers, and friends can be helpful— not because they are clinically detached, for their love and concern should be honestly communicated— but rather because third parties sometimes can listen a little longer without reacting, can prescribe with a clear-headed assessment, and most of all, can be a fresh voice which conveys care and concern, a voice which has risen above similar challenges. [Neal A. Maxwell, A More Excellent Way: Essays on Leadership for Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1967), 62.]

Doubt is necessary, in the cosmic scheme of things, if we are to experience an authentic test of our true desires, retain our moral agency, and have the kind of full experience we need that will help us to become more like Christ. However, as we better come to appreciate the necessity of doubt, we should be careful to speak of doubt in its proper place. Doubt is a condition to be overcome and not a virtue to be embraced.

An unavoidable part of life is that we routinely experience doubt, confusion and uncertainty. These feelings are always troubling, but they can be especially disconcerting when they relate to our feelings about God. During those times, I like to think about two different episodes in the scriptures.

The first event involved Christ and a great number of his followers. In the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, Christ gave what has become known as “The Bread of Life Sermon” in which he stated that He is the Bread of Life and that unless we eat of his flesh and drink his blood, we cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Most of those who were listening were so upset by the notion that we must eat the flesh and blood of Christ to go to Heaven that they stopped listening then and there and left the Savior.

Only his most loyal disciples, the Twelve, remained. Christ did not run after those who left to apologize for offending them, or to try and explain that it was merely a metaphor. He merely turned to the Twelve and asked, “Will ye also go away?” (John 6:67.) It was Peter who replied. He did not say, “Of course we’re going to stay. We understand that you are only speaking metaphorically.” Instead, he said “to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life” (John 6: 68). Peter and the Twelve may have experienced the same kinds of doubts, confusion and uncertainty that were felt by those who left, but the Twelve set those feelings aside and stood by the Savior. Rather than act upon whatever doubts they may have had, they acted upon their faith. And because of this decision to act with faith, and continue following the Savior, their faith was eventually transformed into knowledge.

The second story involves a great miracle and a man of imperfect faith. The anguished man had sought a blessing from the disciples of Christ for his son, who had been afflicted with convulsions since he was a child. When the disciples were unable to heal the son, the scribes, perhaps seeing an opportunity to embarrass the disciples of Christ, started arguing with the disciples. At this point, Christ entered the scene and asked what the argument was about. The man stepped forward and explained how he had brought his son to the disciples to be healed, but they had failed. Christ told the man that “all things are possible to him that believeth” (Mark 9:23). Of course, the man had just witnessed how Christ’s disciples had fallen short and were now being challenged by critics of the Church. The conclusion the man might have drawn was that not even the disciples had sufficient faith. Under these circumstances, it would be understandable if the man gave up and surrendered to doubt. Instead, the man gathered all the faith he could, and said “Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief” (Mark 9:24). In other words, he was not certain that Christ could heal his son. But he would set aside what uncertainty he had and ask for a miracle. In doing so, his faith turned to knowledge once Christ healed the son.

Counsel for Those Wrestle with Doubts

Clearly, we can be blessed and even witness miracles even though we experience confusion and doubt. Nevertheless, we may become discouraged when we find that our leaders are imperfect. We may become upset at some difficult doctrine or find some Church historical events impossible to fathom. President Dieter F. Uchtdorf acknowledged that leaders of the Church have made mistakes and that with respect to the history of the Church, “there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question.” His counsel was to be patient while we gather more information, consider looking at things from a different perspective, and to “first doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith. We must never allow doubt to hold us prisoner and keep us from the divine love, peace, and gifts that come through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.” [See F. F. Bosworth, Christ the Healer (1924), 23.]

Yet, one does not need to spend much time on the Internet today to find people who speak of doubt as if it is something to be proud of. It seems that for some, a person is not truly thoughtful if that person does not regularly experience doubt about the Church and its leaders. For such people, doubt is a badge of honor and a symbol of intellectual maturity rather than a burden and trial to be overcome. As Elder Jeffrey R. Holland has observed,

“Sometimes we act as if an honest declaration of doubt is a higher manifestation of moral courage than is an honest declaration of faith. It is not!”

Of course, as people speak of “doubt,” it is sometimes difficult to know what they mean. The word “doubt” may be used when all that is meant is mere confusion, uncertainty or a reservation of judgment. Other times the word “doubt” may be used to describe bitterness, cynicism and distrust. One can temporarily “doubt” certain things in the first sense, and still generally see with an “eye of faith” (Alma 32:40). However, “doubt” of the second kind erodes and undermines faith. And even when doubt begins as mere questioning or uncertainty, if left unresolved, it can eventually devolve into cynicism and bitterness.

Approaching Doubts

Usually, when we speak of doubt in a religious context, it denotes a condition that is antithetical to faith. For example, when the scriptures or general authorities speak of doubt, it is almost always of the more negative variety.

So we are understandably concerned when a friend or family member admits to having “doubts.” And it can be especially confusing lately to hear so many speak of doubt as something useful or even desirable.

Whether doubts end up as a positive or negative thing for us depends to a large degree upon how we look at them and what we do about them. Elder John A. Widstoe examined the different approaches to doubt as follows:

The strong man is not afraid to say, “I do not know”; the weak man simpers and answers, “I doubt.” Doubt, unless transmuted into inquiry, has no value or worth in the world…. To take pride in being a doubter, without earnestly seeking to remove the doubt, is to reveal shallowness of thought and purpose. …

 

Doubt of the right kind— that is, honest questioning— leads to faith. Such doubt impels men to inquiry, which always opens the door to truth. The scientist in his laboratory, the explorer in distant parts, the prayerful man upon his knees— these and all inquirers like them find truth. They learn that some things are known, others are not. They cease to doubt….

 

On the other hand, the stagnant doubter, one content with himself, unwilling to make the effort, to pay the price of discovery, inevitably reaches unbelief and miry darkness. His doubts grow like poisonous mushrooms in the dim shadows of his mental and spiritual chambers. At last, blind like the mole in his burrow, he usually substitutes ridicule for reason, and indolence for labor….

 

Doubt which immediately leads to honest inquiry, and thereby removes itself, is wholesome. But that doubt which reeds and grows upon itself, and, with stubborn indolence, breeds more doubt, is evil. [John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1991), 31-33.]

Elder Holland has added:

Be as candid about your questions as you need to be; life is full of them on one subject or another. But if you and your family want to be healed, don’t let those questions stand in the way of faith working its miracle.

While it is possible, as Elder Holland suggests, to have questions, but still have faith, it is also becoming increasingly common for people to talk about doubt as being essential to faith in a way that might lead one to conclude that if one does not carefully preserve and cherish one’s doubts, one might just lose one’s faith. While it is true that experiencing and overcoming doubt can strengthen faith, God does not expect us to cling to our doubts. Ultimately, doubt is not the friend of faith, but rather its enemy. As we learn from the Lectures on Faith [Lectures on Faith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1985, p. 46.]:

Where doubt is, there faith has no power.

The Choice Between Doubt and Faith

Mormon scholar Terryl Givens, professor of religion and literature at the University of Richmond, gave a fireside presentation titled “Letter to a Doubter.” This insightful piece has had a dramatic impact on the way in which many of us view doubt and doubters. Of course, as with many ideas that garner great enthusiasm, we can begin to carry an idea to an extreme that starts to undermine the very reason for communicating the original idea.

Obviously, Professor Givens did not intend to foster greater doubt. Rather, he hoped to help build faith. Yet, if we are not careful, we may mistakenly take his arguments as justification for not only defending, but encouraging doubt. Professor Givens says that we should be grateful for our doubts. However, this is only true in the same sense that we should be grateful for our temptations, suffering and afflictions. There must be an opposition in all things (2 Nephi 2:11). It is in resisting temptation, enduring suffering and overcoming affliction that we progress and grow. It is through the test of our adversities that we manifest our true desires. We should no more seek out and celebrate doubt than we should seek out and celebrate temptation, suffering, or affliction. As Professor Givens explains:

I know I am grateful for a propensity to doubt because it gives me the capacity to freely believe…. There must be grounds for doubt as well as belief in order to render the choice more truly a choice, and therefore more deliberate and laden with more personal vulnerability and investment. An overwhelming preponderance of evidence on either side would make our choice as meaningless as would a loaded gun pointed at our heads…. What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. That is why faith, the choice to believe, is, in the final analysis, an action that is positively laden with moral significance.

So doubt is necessary for the way in which it helps to reveal our true desires. Doubt can also help us to grow, to gain experience, and to maintain our moral agency. But it is not a condition that we should seek after or complacently maintain. Just as we can choose to believe, we can also choose to doubt. Elder Neal A. Maxwell observed that for some, this is a serious temptation:

Why are a few members who somewhat resemble the ancient Athenians, so eager to hear some new doubt or criticism? (See Acts 17:21.) Just as some weak members slip across a state line to gamble, a few go out of their way to have their doubts titillated. Instead of nourishing their faith, they are gambling “offshore” with their fragile faith. To the question “Will ye also go away?” these few would reply, “Oh, no, we merely want a weekend pass in order to go to a casino for critics or a clubhouse for cloakholders.” Such easily diverted members are not disciples but fair-weather followers. Instead, true disciples are rightly described as steadfast and immovable, pressing forward with “a perfect brightness of hope.” (2 Nephi 31:20; see also Doctrine & Covenants 49:23.)

So, although we may experience feelings of doubt, and feel tempted to embrace doubt, we should vigorously resist that choice. Among our deepest desires should be one in which we long to move beyond doubt, through faith, and into the realm of knowledge.

Read Part 2 of this article.

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods (Teachings, p. 370, see also History of the Church, 6:474).

Bruce R. McConkie states concerning the Godhead:

Three glorified, exalted, and perfected personages comprise the Godhead or supreme presidency of the universe…. Though each God in the Godhead is a personage, separate and distinct from each of the others, yet they are one God (Testimony of Three Witnesses in the Book of Mormon), meaning that they are unified as one in the attributes of perfection. For instance, each has the fullness of truth, knowledge, charity, power, justice, judgment, mercy and faith. Accordingly they all think, act, speak, and are alike in all things; and yet they are three separate and distinct entities (Mormon Doctrine, p. 319).

In a latter work, McConkie confirmed that “…the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one…. They are one in plan, one in possession of the attributes of godliness, and one in every good thing. The whole system of salvation is so ordained that we may become one with Deity. If we do not, we are not like him….” (Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrines of the Restoration, p. 380). Thus, the oneness of the Godhead is a perfect example of the unity that should exist among the saints (3 Nephi 28:10-11; Doctrine & Covenants 35:2, Teachings, pp. 311-312; Lectures on Faith, Lecture 5).

Although the Bible contains numerous examples of the separate nature of the Father and the Son (see below), there are only a few instances where all three members of the Godhead are described as separate and distinct. The best example is the baptism of Jesus Christ (Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:29-32). In all but John’s account, all three members of the Godhead are identified: the Father bearing witness “from heaven” (Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22), the Son “coming up out of the water” (Mark 1:10), and the “Holy Ghost descending in a bodily shape like a dove” (Luke 3:22). All three members of the Godhead are clearly separate entities who, in this instance, are physically separated also.

John provides another scriptural witness that “there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word [Jesus Christ], and the Holy Ghost” (1 John 5:7). John adds that “these three are [actually] one,” apparently meaning one witness because they, like the witnesses of the spirit, the water, and the blood, “agree in one” (1 John 5:8). Bible scholars have noted that 1 John 5:7 and 8 are not found in the early Greek manuscripts and may therefore be of questionable authority. Whether or not these verses are authentic, it is clear from other Bible passages that the Father and the Son are in fact separate witnesses. John himself records in John 8:17-18, 28-29 that Jesus taught:

It is written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me… I do nothing of myself; but as my Father taught me, I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone, for I do always those things that please him.

Many who espouse the Triune concept point to Old Testament scriptures as proof that there is only one God (Genesis 1:1; Isaiah 43:10-12; 44:6, 8; 46:9) but these verses, as originally written, made no such claim. Although our King James Version (KJV) states in Genesis 1:1 that, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” the Hebrew identified Eloheim as the creator. Eloheim is the plural form of eloah (as used in Isaiah 44:8), which means God or Deity. Thus eloheim literally means Gods or Deities and Genesis 1:1 could be translated: “In the beginning Gods created the heavens and the earth.” (See Abraham 4:1.) Use of “us” and “our” in Genesis 1:26 further justifies this conclusion.

Examination of the Hebrew text also helps us understand Isaiah’s references (chapters 43 and 44) to one God. Isaiah 43:10-12 in the KJV reads: “Ye are my witnesses saith the Lord [Jehovah in Hebrew]… understand that I am he: beside me there was no God [Eloheim in Hebrew] formed neither shall there be after me. I even I am the Lord [Jehovah] and beside me there is no saviour…. ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord [Jehovah], that I am God [El].” Knowing that Jehovah was Jesus Christ (see 1 Corinthians 10:4), we are confronted with a contradiction. Paul the apostle later taught that “there is but one God, the Father… and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things…” (1 Corinthians 8:6; see also 1 Timothy 2:5).

If Jesus as Jehovah was saying that He was the only God then the Father could not logically also be the only God and still be separate from Jesus Christ. The Hebrew wording clarifies the meaning of these verses. The last portion of Isaiah 43:10, for example, reads: “who has formed a god or poured out an image [i.e. idol] to no profit?” (Hendrickson Interlinear Bible) Thus, the Lord is not claiming to be the only God in existence but is warning Israel not to uselessly worship false idol gods. (See also Isaiah 17:7-8; 42:8, 17; 43:12; 44:6-18.)

When these chapters are read in context in the KJV, it is clear that Isaiah’s reference to forming god is speaking of graven images of metal and wood. Isaiah 44:8-18 makes it unmistakably clear that the prophet is condemning idolatry and not a belief in more than one god.

Isaiah 43:12 is also clarified when examined in Hebrew. The Hebrew reads:

Ye are my witnesses saith Jehovah, I (or I AM), El (short form of Eloheim) and no other eloheim [gods; in this case false gods] no none are like me.

This verse actually uses three names for deity together. The contraction of Jehovah-Eloheim (translated LORD God in the KJV) is a similar, commonly found grouping of names found in the Hebrew Old Testament. It appears that these compound name-titles were an attempt by ancient writers or scribes to refer to more than one member of the Godhead by a compound name (Articles of Faith, p. 49). Thus the Hebrew of the above verse might more accurately be translated: “Ye are our witnesses saith Jehovah and Eloheim and no other gods are like us.”

Although the New Testament also speaks of the “oneness” of the Godhead (John 10:30; 17:11, 21, 22; 1 Corinthians 8:4-6; 1 John 5:7), the context of the verses generally provides the key to a correct interpretation. John, for example, quotes the Savior’s reference to his own oneness with the Father but also indicates that the disciples need to be one (using the same Greek word) with Himself, God, and other believers (John 6:56; 14:20; 17:11, 21-22; 1 John 3:24; 4:13, 15). The context of many of Paul’s references to oneness make it clear that he is speaking of a oneness of mind and spirit. Paul speaks, in 1 Corinthians 2:16, of having “the mind of Christ.” He likewise tells the Philippians to “stand fast in one spirit with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel” (Philippians 1:27). (See also Galatians 5:22-25 and 1 Corinthians 1:10.)

Paul also made frequent reference to a oneness of the saints (again using the same Greek word) with God and Christ as well as with other members (Romans 8:1; 12:16; 15:6; 1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:17; 10:17; 12:13; 2 Corinthians 5:17; 6:16; Galatians 2:20;3:28; Ephesians 1:10; 3:17; Philippians 1:27; Colossians 1:27; 2:10; Hebrews 2:11). It is especially significant that Paul used the same verbal construction as Christ used in saying, “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) to describe his relationship to Apollos. He wrote, “I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase…. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one…” (1 Corinthians 3:6, 8). From the above cited references it should be clear that both John’s and Paul’s concept of “oneness” was not that of a merging of substance but was an expression of unity of purpose, mind, and heart. Modern scripture also confirms this interpretation (Doctrine & Covenants 35:2; 50:43; 130:22).

The early church fathers Hippolytus, Origen and Tertullian also affirmed that God the Father and Jesus Christ were separate and distinct personages with unity of purpose and power. Hippolytus taught that Christ and the Father “are one… but it refers to two persons and one power… and disposition of unity of mind… God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who being God, became man… and the Holy Spirit… are three” (Hippolytus, Against the Heresy of Noetus, 7, 11 as quoted in James L. Barker, Apostasy from the Divine Church, p. 44). Origen wrote that the Father and Son “are two separate persons, but one in unity and concord of mind and in identity of will…” (Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers, p. 336), and Tertullian declared that “the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct from Each other.” [(The Anti-Nicene Fathers, 3:603) See also James L. Barker, Apostasy from the Divine Church, pp. 42-44 for further quotes on this subject.]

Are Latter-day Saints Polytheists?

Some outside the Mormon Church contend that the LDS belief that there are three Gods in the Godhead make us polytheist. Though dictionaries generally define polytheism as a belief in the existence of more than one god, most Latter-day Saints refuse to accept this term as descriptive of our religious worship. The reason for this is the commonly accepted meaning that most people give this term despite its technical definition. Polytheism is commonly associated with a multiplicity of deities as worshipped by primitive pagan religions. This system of gods is totally foreign to LDS beliefs and is considered by Church members to be an apostate perversion of the original truths revealed to Old Testament prophets beginning with Adam.

Although Latter-day Saints do believe in a plurality of gods and may properly be called henotheistic (i.e. worshipping one God without denying the existence of others) or as Social Trinitarian (three divine persons whose unity consists of a loving relationship), we reserve our “worship in the true and saving sense” for God the Father (Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrines of the Restoration, p. 60).

Our worship of Christ is of an entirely different nature. Although we are “reverently grateful to Him who has redeemed us” (Ibid.) and love and respect Him for the perfect example He has given us, yet we reserve our most profound worship for God the Father. LDS prayers, for example, are always addressed to our Father in Heaven and are closed “in the name of Jesus Christ.”

Bible scripture speaks of a “God of gods and Lord of lords” (Deuteronomy 10:17) and Paul taught that while there were many gods, mortals of this earth should worship only “God the Father” (1 Corinthians 8:6). Members of the LDS Church do in fact worship God the Father in the name of Christ as is taught in both ancient and modern scripture (Matthew 6:9; John 15:16; Colossians 3:17; 2 Nephi 32:9; Jacob 4:5; 3 Nephi 18:19; Moroni 10:4; Doctrine & Covenants 18:40; 20:19, 29; Moses 1:17; see also Exodus 15:11; 18:11; Psalms 97:9; 135:5; 136:2; 138:1; Daniel 11:36).

Are God and Christ Separate Beings?

Joseph Fielding Smith leaves no doubt that God the Father and Jesus Christ are separate and distinct beings. He has declared:

How plain it is that the Father and Son are separate Personages, yet one in power, wisdom and unity. Hence they are, with the Holy Spirit which carries out their will— one God or Presiding Council! (Answers to Gospel Questions, 1:4).

Jesus Christ likewise taught: “And now… I come to thee, Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one [in purpose and unity] as we are” (John 17:11).

The scriptures are replete with examples of the separate nature and substance of the Father and the Son. Consider the following:

1.  God spoke from heaven while Christ was on the earth— Matthew 3:17; 17:5; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22; John 12:28-30.

2. God is a separate witness of Christ— John 5:36-37; 8:17-18.

3. Christ was “with” God in the beginning— John 1:1-3, 10, 14; 6:38; 16:28; 17:3, 5, 24;20:21; 1 John 4:14; Ephesians 3:9.

4. Christ is God’s Son— Mark 9:7; John 3:16; 9:35-37; 17:1; 20:17, 21, 31; Ephesians 3:14; Hebrews 1:6; 5:5.

5. Christ prayed to his Father— Matthew 6:6-9; 26:39; 27:46; Luke 23:34; John 12:27-28; 16:26; 17:10-11.

6.  Christ was seen standing at the right hand of God— Mark 16:19; Luke 22:69; Acts 2:33; 7:55-56; Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:3; 10:12; 1 Peter 3:22; Revelation 3:21.

7. The Father committed all judgment unto the Son— John 5:17-20, 22-23; Romans 2:16; 2 Timothy 4:1.

8. God anointed Jesus Christ— Acts 10:38; Hebrews 1:9.

9. God honored, blessed and glorified Christ— Matthew 12:18; John 5:26; 12:23; 17:1, 24; Acts 3:13; 5:30-31; 2 Peter 1:17-18; Philippians 2:9.

10. Jesus was raised up by God— Acts 5:30-31; 1 Peter 1:21.

11. God and Jesus are plural (we, our, us)— Genesis 1:26; Isaiah 6:8; John 14:23; 17:11, 22.

12. God “sent” Christ to atone for us— Mark 9:37; John 3:16; 5:24; 6:38; 7:28-29; 8:42; 12:44-45; 17:3-4, 6-10, 18, 25; 20:21; 1 John 4:14.

13. Christ asked men to pray to God in His name— Matthew 6:6; Colossians 3:17; Hebrews 7:25-26.

14. Christ spoke of His Father in heaven— Matthew 10:33; 16:15-19; John 14:12; 20:17.

15.Only God knew the exact time of the end; Christ did not then know— Mark 13:32; Matthew 24:36.

16. God the Father is Christ’s God— Mark 15:34; John 20:17; Ephesians 1:17; 1 Peter 1:3.

17. Christ’s will and doctrine were separate from God’s— Matthew 26:39-42; Luke 22:41-42; John 5:30; 7:16-17; 14:10.

18. Christ did His Father’s work, not His own— Luke 2:49-50; John 17:3-4.

19. Christ came in His Father’s name— John 5:43.

20. Christ came from and returned to God— John 14:12; 16:27-28, 30; 1 Peter 3:21-22.

21. The Father was “greater than” the Son— John 10:29; 14:28; 1 Corinthians 15:28.

22. We come to the Father only by the Son— John 14:6.

23. Christ will deliver up the kingdom to God— 1 Corinthians 15:24

24. Christ is mediator between God and men— 1 Tim. 2:5; Hebrews 8:6; 9:5; 12:24.

Since proponents of the “one substance” doctrine have never been able to explain how God can be His own son, stand by Himself, or why He would pray to Himself, they must describe it as a mystery. A mysterious God is not the God that Christ taught us we should come to “know” (John 17:3). (See also James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith, chap. 2.)

Do Latter-day Saints Believe in the Trinity?

Jesus Christ praying, artwork by Del Parson.

The answer to this question depends entirely on the inquirer’s definition of Trinity. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines the word Trinity as “the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead….” The Random House College Dictionary adds to this definition a second alternative which allows also “the threefold personality of one Divine Being.” Although Webster’s definition would be considered a valid LDS description of the Godhead, the second Random House alternative definition would be considered by Mormons to be an apostate view.

Some today assert that belief in a mysterious unknowable Trinitarian god is essential to a claim of Christianity, but this requirement is not biblical. Colossians 2:9 is, at times, used to prove a Trinitarian concept. It states that “in him [Christ] dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” Though this scripture appears to vindicate belief in a Trinity, the Greek text does not justify this interpretation. The Greek word translated as Godhead in this verse is “theotes.” This word actually means divinity and is translated as such in many modern Bible translations. Accurately translated, this verse should read “in Christ the fullness of divinity dwells in bodily form” (see New International Version). Thus God is manifest to us in Christ but Christ is not God the Father.

It is important to note that the word Trinity appears nowhere in the King James Version nor any other reputable translation of the Bible. The term Godhead, on the other hand, is an accepted biblical term (Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20; Colossians 2:9) and the preferred title in the LDS Church (History of the Church, 6:473; Lectures on Faith, Lecture 5; A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, pp. 58-59). References to the Godhead as the Trinity are found in Church literature (Articles of Faith, pp. 39-41; Journal of Discourses, 6:95; History of the Church, Vol. 1, Intro., 80-81), but such usage clearly denotes a three-person Godhead and not a one-being concept (See also Van Hale, Defining the Mormon Doctrine of Deity, brochure, Mormon Misc. Reprint #6, p. 9).

The latter concept seems to have originated under the influence of Greek and other oriental philosophies during the period of apostasy following the death of the apostles (History of the Church, Vol. 1, Intro., 82-87). A study of Christianity prior to A.D. 325 reveals that the LDS interpretation of the Godhead was then the prevailing belief. Church fathers such as Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Origen, Athanasius and others argued that the Godhead consisted of separate Beings (see J. D. N. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco, 1978, Harper and Row, pp. 93, 96, 129, 233). The first person to use the term Trinity appears to have been Tertullian in about A.D. 200. He used the term to refer to ideas which mentioned three and one.

Over a century later in A.D. 325, Emperor Constantine convened a delegation composed of about one-sixth of the bishops from throughout the Roman Empire. The stated purpose of this Council of Nicea, as it was called, was to achieve unity among the factions then existent. The three major groups with differing views regarding God’s nature, at length became two factions. The eastern (Arian) Christian view favored a three God concept while the western (Roman) view favored one supreme God, to whom all others were subordinated. Under extreme intimidation by the emperor, the Arian group was forced to go along with the Roman view. Arius and the bishops and priests who opposed the Nicean Creed and the “one substance” terminology adopted by the council were exiled. Constantine, in order to ensure future unity, also commanded that the writings of these men be burned (Journey to Eternal Life and Distractions Along the Way, James K. and Rose Seastrand, 1990, p. 132; History of the Church, Vol. 1, Intro., pp. 79-90).

The Nicean Creed stated that there was “one God and one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God…” who was “one substance with the Father.” The Athanasian creed, which was an outgrowth of the Nicean Creed, typifies the modern concept of the Trinity. It speaks of an “incomprehensible” God which is completely foreign to Christ’s teachings. Jesus taught that “this is life eternal that [we] might know… the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom [God had] sent” (John 17:3). (See also Jeremiah 31:34; John 8:19; 14:7-9; Hebrews 8:10-11; 1 John 2:3-4; and 1 John 3:1-2, 6; 5:20.)

Thus the accepted Trinitarian concept of deity is the result of a compromise achieved without the benefit of apostles, prophets, or revelation and arrived at only when extreme pressure was exerted by a then-pagan emperor. The true concept of God is not that of an “unknown” or unknowable God (Acts 17:23) but one whose offspring we are (Acts 17:28-29) and in whose image we were created (Genesis 1:26-27). Our Heavenly Father loves us and wants us to know Him and become like Him (Matthew 5:48; 1 John 3:1-2). (See also Answers to Gospel Questions, 3:165-169.)

Michael Hickenbotham is the author of Answering Challenging Mormon Questions, which is still in print after 20 years.  He grew up in Southern California and has served full-time missions to France and the Brussels, Belgium/Netherlands Mission. He studied at Brigham Young University, where he met and married Kathy Walker and obtained a Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering. He also earned an MBA from Florida State University. He served in the US Air Force for 20 years and has filled numerous callings in the Church for over 45 years.  He and Kathy have 5 children and 17 grandchildren.

Many people are surprised at what research shows with respect to the connection between father absence and an increase in social problems in America, including poverty, teen pregnancy, juvenile delinquency, physical abuse, suicide, substance and alcohol abuse and a host of other troubling social problems. [1]

Recently, two diverse publications—the Deseret News (owned and operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is sometimes inadvertently called the Mormon Church) and The Atlantic (owned by Washington entrepreneur David Bradley)—teamed up to produce a 4-part series on fatherhood and American family life. Paul Edwards, editor of the Deseret News, said:

So often the issues of family are used as a wedge issue in politics. We thought, wouldn’t it be interesting if two quite different publications— one aimed at a values-oriented heartland audience, The Atlantic providing thought-provoking insight to a coastal elite— could actually say something substantive. [2]

The result is an insightful look at why dads really do matter, how we can prepare our sons for this important role and why the traditional family is really the best option.

The Fundamental Importance of Family

The family is the foundational unit of society. It’s where we learn our values, our sense of right and wrong and where we form our identity. The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (together, the governing body of The Church of Jesus Christ) issued The Family: A Proclamation to the World, which states:

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. … By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.

Elder L. Tom Perry, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, said:

It appears to me that the crosshairs of Satan’s scope are centered on husbands and fathers. Today’s media, for example, have been relentless in their attacks—ridiculing and demeaning husbands and fathers in their God-given roles. …

Satan, in his carefully devised plan to destroy the family, seeks to diminish the role of fathers. A family needs a father to anchor it. Surely we have learned by now, from the experience over centuries, that the basic family provides the most stable and secure foundation for society and is fundamental to the preparation of young people for their future responsibilities. We should have learned by now that alternate styles of family formations have not worked and never will work. [3]

Children need the stability of both parents to have the greatest opportunities for success in life. Elder Dallin H. Oaks, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, said:

Of utmost importance to the well-being of children is whether their parents were married, the nature and duration of the marriage, and, more broadly, the culture and expectations of marriage and child care where they live. Two scholars of the family explain: “Throughout history, marriage has first and foremost been an institution for procreation and raising children. It has provided the cultural tie that seeks to connect the father to his children by binding him to the mother of his children.  Yet in recent times, children have increasingly been pushed from center stage.” [4]

No-fault divorce laws and other trends that weaken the definition of marriage and family are taking their toll on the children. Elder Oaks continued:

Children are the first victims of current laws permitting so-called “no-fault divorce.” From the standpoint of children, divorce is too easy. Summarizing decades of social science research, a careful scholar concluded that “the family structure that produces the best outcomes for children, on average, are two biological parents who remain married.” A New York Times writer noted “the striking fact that even as traditional marriage has declined in the United States … the evidence has mounted for the institution’s importance to the well-being of children.” That reality should give important guidance to parents and parents-to-be in their decisions involving marriage and divorce. We also need politicians, policy makers, and officials to increase their attention to what is best for children in contrast to the selfish interests of voters and vocal advocates of adult interests.

Children are also victimized by marriages that do not occur…. Unmarried mothers have massive challenges, and the evidence is clear that their children are at a significant disadvantage when compared with children raised by married parents. … For children, the relative stability of marriage matters. We should assume the same disadvantages for children raised by couples of the same gender. [4]

Dads Make a Difference

Fathers provide an anchor for their families. They are the protective force in their children’s lives. In The Church of Jesus Christ, there is a children’s song called “Fathers,” which says:

Fathers are so special with a very special love.

They guide us and protect us.

They guide us and direct us back to our home above.

Fathers and mothers each have their own distinct and important roles in the family—both essential to the welfare and development of their children. The late President James E. Faust, until his death, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, said:

… Sociologically, it is now painfully apparent that fathers are not optional family baggage. We need to honor the position of the father as the primary provider for physical and spiritual support. … It is useless to debate which parent is most important. No one would doubt that a mother’s influence is paramount with newborns and in the first years of a child’s life. The father’s influence increases as the child grows older. However, each parent is necessary at various times in a child’s development. Both fathers and mothers do many intrinsically different things for their children. Both mothers and fathers are equipped to nurture children, but their approaches are different. Mothers seem to take a dominant role in preparing children to live within their families (present and future). Fathers seem best equipped to prepare children to function in the environment outside the family.

One authority states: “Studies show that fathers have a special role to play in building a child’s self-respect. They are important, too, in ways we really don’t understand, in developing internal limits and controls in children.” He continues, “Research also shows that fathers are critical in establishment of gender in children. Interestingly, fatherly involvement produces stronger sexual identity and character in both boys and girls. It is well established that the masculinity of sons and the femininity of daughters are each greater when fathers are active in family life.” (Karl Zinsmeister, “Do Children Need Fathers?” Crisis, Oct. 1992.) [5]

Fathers help to prepare their children for life outside the home in several ways, according to Warren Farrell, author of “Father and Child Reunion”—for example, children with fathers around are more likely to succeed academically and less likely to use drugs. “Dad also helps with impulse control and memory and enhances a child’s ability to respond effectively to new or ambiguous situations, for boys and girls,” Farrell said. [6]

What Happens When One Parent is Gone?

But what happens when the father is absent from the home—or a child has a string of father figures coming into and out of his or her life? The result is chaos and instability—especially for the children. Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, said:

…I suppose no book I have read in recent months has alarmed me more than a work entitled Fatherless America. In this study the author speaks of “fatherlessness” as “the most harmful demographic trend of this generation,” the leading cause of damage to children. It is, he is convinced, the engine driving our most urgent social problems, from poverty to crime to adolescent pregnancy to child abuse to domestic violence. Among the principal social issues of our time is the flight of fathers from their children’s lives.

Of even greater concern than the physical absenteeism of some fathers is the spiritually or emotionally absent father. These are fatherly sins of omission that are probably more destructive than sins of commission. Why are we not surprised that when 2,000 children of all ages and backgrounds were asked what they appreciated most about their fathers, they answered universally, “He spends time with me”? [7]

I guess as a child I took it for granted that my dad was always there. I don’t remember him ever missing a concert, game, activity or event that I was in. He did the same for each of my seven siblings. But there was a family in our ward who didn’t have a dad in the house. And I also remember my dad taking their sons with him and my brothers on the father-son campouts and the Pinewood Derby races. And he took their daughters with my sisters on the daddy-daughter dates. Whenever they were at our home, he loved them just like he loved us. I don’t think I appreciated it as much then as I do now, when I see my husband playing with children we know who don’t have a father in their lives. I see the joy in their faces as they soak in the pure love of a father figure. And I am grateful for my father and my husband, and the fathers that they are.

In the introduction to “Wayward Sons,” a report produced for Washington think tank Third Way, scholar Elaine C. Kamarck and Third Way president Jonathan Cowan wrote:

There is a great deal of evidence that children from single-parent homes have worse outcomes on both academic and economic measures than children from two-parent families. There is a vast inequality of both financial resources and parental time and attention between one- and two-parent families. [6]

The so-called “family churn”—where parents split up and then mom and/or dad bring one or more new partners into the family dynamic—also adds to the chaos and instability of American family life. This can become even more difficult for children when siblings are born out of these new relationships. One Utah man, Jordan Ott, who was interviewed for the series was the third of his mom’s six children from 4 different marriages. The article states:

By age 8, he’d had two stepfathers; his brothers and sisters had more or fewer, based on birth order. Each child also had different numbers of siblings, depending on whether their own dads fathered other children. Ott has one full sister, four half-siblings and at one point had three step-siblings “that I know of,” he said. His own father has mostly lived far away. [6]

What about those three stepdads—one that Ott had for years? Ott said, “If I did something wrong and needed discipline, he was all over it. Otherwise, we didn’t have too much to do with each other.” The father figure was there—but Ott still didn’t have a father. Andrew J. Cherlin, author of “The Marriage-Go-Round” and the director of the Hopkins Population Center at John Hopkins University, said, “I think there’s consensus that cultural and family factors are causing children’s family lives to be more unstable than in the past.” [6]

On the other end of the spectrum are single dads, who are raising their children without the help of mom. In 1960, only 1% of households with minor children were headed by a single father; today it’s 8%, according to a recent Pew Research study. That’s a nearly nine-fold increase, from less than 300,000 households in 1960 to more than 2.6 million in 2011. Compare that with the number of single-mom households, which increased approximately four-fold in the same time period—from 1.9 million in 1960 to 8.6 million in 2011. [8]

It doesn’t matter which parent is absent—either way, there is a void in a child’s life.

Empowering Our Boys and Our Men

In the chaos of today’s world, some men and boys seem to have lost their way or become complacent. Elder D. Todd Christofferson, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, said:

In their zeal to promote opportunity for women, something we applaud, there are those who denigrate men and their contributions. They seem to think of life as a competition between male and female—that one must dominate the other, and now it’s the women’s turn. Some argue that a career is everything and marriage and children should be entirely optional—therefore, why do we need men? In too many Hollywood films, TV and cable shows, and even commercials, men are portrayed as incompetent, immature, or self-absorbed. This cultural emasculation of males is having a damaging effect. …

Some men and young men have taken the negative signals as an excuse to avoid responsibility and never really grow up. In an observation that is too often accurate, one university professor remarked, “The men come into class with their backward baseball caps and [their lame] the ‘word processor ate my homework’ excuses. Meanwhile, the women are checking their day planners and asking for recommendations for law school.” [9]

As parents as and a society, we need to empower our young men—as well as our young women. We must teach them the correct way to stand up for themselves in the world while respecting those who came before them. Elder Christofferson’s words to the men in The Church of Jesus Christ are applicable to all men today:

… We must be men that women can trust, that children can trust, and that God can trust. … We cannot afford to have boys and men who are drifting. We cannot afford young men who lack self-discipline and live only to be entertained. We cannot afford young adult men who are going nowhere in life, who are not serious about forming families and making a real contribution in this world. We cannot afford husbands and fathers who fail to provide spiritual leadership in the home. We cannot afford to have those who … waste their strength in pornography or spend their lives in cyberspace (ironically being of the world while not being in the world). [9]

The future of our nation lies in the strength of our families—who teach the rising generation their values, beliefs and moral foundation. Young men need to understand their role in society now—and to their families in the future. Elder Christofferson said:

Young men, you need to do well in school and then continue your education beyond high school. Some of you will want to pursue university studies and careers in business, agriculture, government, or other professions. Some will excel in the arts, music, or teaching. Others will choose a military career or learn a trade. Over the years, I have had a number of craftsmen work on projects and repairs at my home, and I have admired the hard work and skill of these men. In whatever you choose, it is essential that you become proficient so that you can support a family and make a contribution for good in your community and your country. …

You adult men … be worthy models and help the rising generation of boys become men. Teach them social and other skills: how to participate in a conversation, how to get acquainted and interact with others, how to relate to women and girls, how to serve, how to be active and enjoy recreation, how to pursue hobbies without becoming addicted, how to correct mistakes and make better choices. [9]

Fathers really are an important factor in a child’s life—and so are mothers. Men and women, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers must work together for the good of our children. Stability matters in the life of a child. Children learn confidence and security when mom and dad leave for a few hours—and then come back. They learn to respect and value others as they are respected and valued at home. As the winds of society shift to and fro concerning marriage and the family, it is becoming increasingly clear that traditional marriage provides the strongest foundation for family life.

Part 1   The father factor: What happens when dad is nowhere to be found?

Part 2   Why the number of single dads is on the rise

Part 3   Should welfare programs pay more attention to dads?

Part 4   How apprenticeships empower fathers and strengthen marriages

But as the world becomes smaller through our Internet connections, our opportunities exponentially increase to reach out and touch other people. Fifty years ago, one had to do something newsworthy to be in the media. Today, anybody with access to any number of electronic gadgets—many small enough to fit in the palm of your hand—can be his or her own communication outlet. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, sometimes inadvertently called the Mormon Church, this means that everyday Latter-day Saints—and their children—can share their beliefs with others online as well as in person. It gives a whole new meaning to the phrase Mormons in the media. And it gives us a greater appreciation for what we really have when we look at how far we’ve come.

Media Perceptions of Mormons from Romney to Romney

George W. Romney, from the Dayton Daily News Archive.

It’s interesting to see how times have changed through the lens of history. JB Haws, a professor of Church History at Brigham Young University (the flagship school for The Church of Jesus Christ), wrote a book called The Mormon Image in the American Mind, from Oxford University Press about how media has portrayed Mormons from 1967 to 2012. Why those dates? In 1967, George Romney campaigned to be the Republican nominee for the presidential election. Nearly 4 decades later, his son, Mitt, launched not one but two bids for the White House. Their campaign roads didn’t end at Pennsylvania Avenue, but they provide interesting bookends for examining media perceptions of Mormons (as both father and son are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, sometimes inadvertently called the Mormon Church) throughout the decades. [1]

Haws’ book discusses how perceptions have changed throughout the decades. In 1967, 17% of Americans said they would not vote for a Mormon candidate. By 2012, that had increased to 29%. When asked what made the difference, Haws replied:

A couple things happened in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Three events really stand out among others. First, the LDS Church’s opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment seemed to resurrect some fears about Mormon political ambitions and Mormon political power. Mormons didn’t seem as benign as they might have in the 1960s. Then, importance of the rise of the religious right as a political movement cannot be overstated. There was this feeling that Mormonism was a religious threat with growth all across the U.S., but especially the South. This made some people in the Christian right make a more concerted effort to distinguish themselves from Mormons. Finally, the Mark Hofmann episode seemed to bring to the fore all the fears about Mormon secrecy, conspiracy, and authoritarianism. It seemed that all of those images about Mormonism came back with a vengeance.

Those themes had been present before; it was the nineteenth century all over again. In the 1930s to the 1960s, many of those fears had faded into the background and Mormonism had come to be seen as all-American, one denomination among many. The 1980s brought those institutional fears into the foreground. [1]

Mitt Romney

Mark Hoffman was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ who forged historical documents that became more and more salacious. Apparently he was trying to discredit the Church and destroy the faith of members with his lies. He was eventually discovered to be a fake and arrested, but not before he bombed and killed several people who had become suspicious of him. However, there were other Mormons in the media at the time. Haws said:

The other thing that was really pronounced, and another thing that changed, is that individual Mormons like the Marriotts and the Osmonds were probably more well-known and respected than they’d ever been, but that didn’t necessarily translate into respect for the LDS Church as an institution. [1]

Fast forward to the current times, and how are media perceptions now? A Pew poll that came out in December 2012 found that “public opinion appears to be little changed.” [2] But Haws said:

I’m a little skeptical of those polls. I’m thinking in particular of the Pew poll that came out last December, and that was the headline. But what they did find was that generally speaking, there was a rise in favorability toward, and a sense of common religious ground with, [Mormons], even among evangelicals, who had a 4 percent increase, and maybe a 14 percent increase among mainline Christians. I think it may be that in terms of learning something, maybe the respondents felt like they hadn’t learned much, but in terms of feeling, this vague sense of Mormonism itself or of Mormons as people, I think that poll did show some movement in a direction that Mormons would see as positive. [1]

Mark Hoffman: A Cautionary Tale

When I was a kid, people often asked me what church I attended. I would reply, “The Mormon Church.” And most people would say, “What’s that?” Most people just didn’t know much about it. As Haws pointed out, the Mark Hoffman and his forgeries caused confusion. Critics have accused The Church of Jesus Christ of secrecy and withholding information—especially in regard to the Hoffman case. In answer to these claims, Elder Dallin H. Oaks, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (with the First Presidency, the governing body of The Church of Jesus Christ), said at the conclusion of the affair in 1987:

And so we are, hopefully, at the end of this tragic episode. After exhaustive investigations by law enforcement authorities and a host of media investigators, the charges against the Church and its leaders have been shown for what they are. Vicious lies have been exposed. Innuendos of Church or Church-leader involvement in the crimes of Mark Hofmann have been demonstrated to be groundless. In fact, Hofmann has admitted that his documentary crimes were at least partly motivated by his desire to change the history of the Church in which he no longer had faith. Everyone who believed and repeated his lies and used his forged documents was at best an unwitting servant of his efforts to discredit the Church. This description refers to Hofmann’s crimes against reputation. In his crimes against person and property, he had many victims, the Church being only one among many.

When it comes to naivete in the face of malevolence, there is blame enough to go around. We all need to be more cautious. In terms of our long-run interests in Church history, we now have the basis, and I hope we have the will, to clear away the Hofmann residue of lies and innuendo. With that done, we should all pursue our search for truth with the tools of honest and objective scholarship and sincere and respectful religious faith, in the mixture dictated by the personal choice each of us is privileged to make in this blessed and free land. [3]

This cautionary tale rings just as true today. We need to pursue the truth with the tools of honest scholarship. If not, we risk reaping the weeds along with the tares.

Shedding Light on Mormonism & Its History

The Savior taught His followers to let their light shine. He said:

Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 5:14-16)

Letting our light shine means that we don’t hide from our past, we embrace it and understand it. The Church of Jesus Christ is seeking to do that, evidenced by its Gospel Topics site. Of this, Haws said:

I think it reflects the Church’s direction towards greater openness about its history and collaboration with its top-notch scholars. The spirit of the Joseph Smith Papers is to be very forthright and forthcoming with the sources, to take an honest look at the Church’s history. There’s a wider recognition of historical context and situations. [1]

From the Joseph Smith Papers to the Book of Mormon Critical Text Project, Latter-day Saint historians and scholars are working to shed light on the history of The Church of Jesus Christ. Others are seeking to answer questions about Mormonism in today’s world. Both are important. Elder M. Russell Ballard, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, said:

… There has been a dramatic increase worldwide in inquiries about the Church. … Sometimes people just want to know what the Church is. Those who are curious in this general way deserve clear and accurate information that comes directly from those of us who are members so that they do not have to rely on the incomplete answers, half-truths, or false statements that may come from the media or other outside voices. The many misunderstandings and false information about the Church are somewhat our own fault for not clearly explaining who we are and what we believe. [4]

While it’s easy to blame the media and others for misunderstandings and misinformation, Elder Ballard’s point is well taken: It’s our responsibility to clarify our beliefs for others.

Social Media Gives The Power to the People

The beauty of the world today is that we make our own news. Between FaceBook, Twitter, YouTube, Google+ and all of the other social media outlets, people all over the world can share their stories with the click of a mouse or the touch of a screen. It’s all up to us. But Elder Ballard cautions:

…In today’s busy world, I have found that most people will not read or focus on more than just a few important facts at one time. Whatever you choose to use to inform your friends and acquaintances about the Church, write it down, check it for accuracy, and keep it simple and short.

The growing prominence of the Church and the increasing inquiries from others present us with great opportunities to build bridges, make friends, and pass on accurate information. But it can also present a greater possibility of misunderstanding and sometimes even prejudice if we allow others to define who we are and what we believe rather than presenting it ourselves. [4]

This is done not only by what we say but how we live. Elder Ballard continues:

Generally, there is no problem with those who are personally acquainted with our members. But there are millions upon millions who are not acquainted with any members of our faith. I would hope that those who know very little about the Church would seek to learn more about us. I would hope they would get to know our members rather than judging us by the misinformation given by those who do not know and in some cases by those who would deliberately mislead or defame. …

We should also remember [4] that sometimes the best way to answer people’s interest can be by how we live, how we radiate the joy of the gospel in our lives, how we treat others, and how sincerely we follow the teachings of Christ.

The Internet is a treasure trove of information, a powerful tool in the search for knowledge today. The important thing is to make sure we are using it correctly—and that the message we are sending is the one we are intending to send.

Mormons in the Media

Mormons in the media today are the ones creating, sharing and posting their stories, beliefs and testimonies (which are personal convictions of their beliefs). Elder L. Tom Perry, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, said:

… At all times of the day across the entire world, the Church and its teachings are being discussed on the Internet, on blogs and social networks, by people who have never written for a newspaper or a magazine. They are making videos and sharing them online. These are ordinary people—both members of our faith and of other faiths—who are talking about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. …

Today’s “manner of conversation” seems to involve the Internet more and more. We encourage people, young and old, to use the Internet and the social media to reach out and share their religious beliefs. [5]

There is much good that comes from Mormons in the media. Not just the celebrities and the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ, but the average, ordinary members who are letting their voices be heard. Not in condemnation or judgment of others, but in the interest of sharing their love of the Savior and His gospel.

The Importance of Family

It’s no coincidence that the Netflix movie shows Mitt Romney’s campaign journey through the eyes of his family. In The Church of Jesus Christ, families are important. Elder Neil L. Anderson, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (with the First Presidency, the governing body of The Church of Jesus Christ), said, “We believe in families, and we believe in children. … The family is ordained of God. Families are central to our Heavenly Father’s plan here on earth and through the eternities.” [1] In The Family: A Proclamation to the World, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles declared:

The Family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

The Romney family—Mitt and his wife, sons, daughters-in-law and grandchildren—exemplify this. They have fun together, they work together. It’s a natural unity that isn’t forced, it’s just how they live. Elder L. Tom Perry, a, Apostle of Jesus Christ, said:

In a world of turmoil and uncertainty, it is more important than ever to make our families the center of our lives and the top of our priorities. Families lie at the center of our Heavenly Father’s plan. [2]

Mitt Romney might have been the person in the spotlight, but his family was always there to support him.

Mormon Families Counsel Together

One of the keys to successful families is a family council. Communication is important in any relationship, and a family council is when family members counsel together. Elder M. Russell Ballard, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, said:

There has never been a time when the world was in greater need of the strength and security that are best sown and cultivated in the deep, fertile soil of family love. The family is under heavy attack from antagonists bent on extinguishing this powerful source of light in a darkening world. Successful families have a wide assortment of tools, and one of the most useful tools is the family council. …

Whenever there are two or more members of a family together and a discussion is going on, that is a council! Family councils can be held in one-on-one talks between a parent and a child or among parents and several children. When a husband and wife talk to each other, they are holding a family council. [3]

There is a scene at the beginning of the movie that is very familiar to Latter-day Saints: the family council. Mitt and his family sit down for a family meeting to discuss whether he should make a bid for the White House. Together, they make a list of pros and cons. This decision will affect the entire family—so they are all involved in the discussion. Ultimately, Mitt and Ann Romney’s votes will be the ones that count. While this meeting may seem contrived to some people, many members of The Church of Jesus Christ can relate. Elder Ballard explained:

In a family council we talk about the needs of the family and the needs of individual members of the family. It is a time to solve problems, make family decisions, plan day-to-day and long-range family activities and goals. It is a time to share one another’s burdens and joys and counsel together, to keep each family member on the right track spiritually. It is the time when we discuss family matters…. [3]

When family members get together to discuss problems, solutions and decisions, it strengthens the family bonds. Whether families are planning a vacation, solving a problem at home or deciding whether the patriarch should campaign for president of the United States, family councils bring families together.

Husbands, Take Care of Your Wives

In The Church of Jesus Christ, husbands and wives are equal partners before the Lord. The scriptures teach, “Neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:11). Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, said:

I know what it means to have God say to Adam that everything he had and everything that was done up to that point in the Creation was not enough, not sufficient, not complete. No, the crowning act of Creation was the creation of a woman. That is true in my life, and I think it’s true in all the annals of eternity. … It [is] the women in our lives who have saved our hopes and encouraged our dreams. [4]

This is true in the Romney family. Ann Romney is devoted not only to her husband, but to his dreams. She is by his side throughout his journey. Elder Holland also said:

One of the great purposes of true love is to help each other. We can endure almost anything if we have someone at our side who truly loves us, who is easing the burden and lightening the load. … Love is a fragile thing, and some elements in life can try to break it. Much damage can be done if we are not in tender hands, caring hands. To give ourselves totally to another person, as we do in marriage, is the most trusting step we take in any human relationship….

It is a real act of faith—faith all of us must be willing to exercise. If we do it right, we end up sharing everything—all our hopes, all our fears, all our dreams, all our weaknesses, and all our joys—with another person. True love blooms when we care more about another person than we care about ourselves. [4]

During Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign, much was made of his wealth—especially the “car elevator” in his garage. His response to that criticism, in the film, is very telling: “It’s for my wife.” Ann Romney has Multiple Sclerosis. It is the true demonstration of love: doing what you can to ease your wife’s burdens. Elder David A. Bednar, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, said:

We should remember that saying ‘I love you’ is only a beginning. We need to say it, we need to mean it, and most importantly we need consistently to show it. We need to both express and demonstrate love. [4]

True expressions of love are the things that husbands do to make life easier for their wives, and vice versa. Sometimes they are little acts of kindness, and sometimes they’re big, but they always mean a lot to the other person.

Duty to God and Family

Followers of Jesus Christ believe they have a duty to God, to their family and to their country. The Romney family is no exception. During the family meeting to decide whether Mitt Romney should campaign for president, his son Tagg said told of an experience with his grandpa, George W. Romney—Mitt’s father who was the governor of Michigan from 1963-1969 and made his own White House bid in the 1960s. Tagg asked if he should get into politics and his grandpa said, “Don’t do it.” Then Tagg told his father:

You have an opportunity as a result of many things that were beyond your control to run, that it would be a shame not to at least try. And if you don’t win, we’ll still love you. The country may think of you as a laughingstock and we’ll know the truth. And that’s OK. But I think you have a duty to your country and to God to see what comes of it.

As believers, our duty to God is as personal as our faith and trust in Him. For Mitt Romney, his duty to God and country was to campaign for president of the United States. Not for the honor of men, but for the good of the nation. Our duty is to do our best to serve our God, our country and our family in whatever we are asked to do. Some call his campaign a failure because he didn’t win the White House. But this isn’t the true measure of success. The true measure of success is how you played the game. Were you a poor winner or a gracious loser? Were you a sore loser or a gracious winner? In the end, I believe that Mitt Romney ran a clean campaign. He stood up for family values and campaigned on his own merits—without villainizing his opponents. In the movie, Mitt Romney said something to the effect of: The greatest source of wealth in this life is your association with others. President Thomas S. Monson, president of The Church of Jesus Christ, said:

The actions whereby we demonstrate that we truly do love God and our neighbor as ourselves will rarely be such as to attract the gaze and admiration of the world. Usually our love will be shown in our day-to-day associations with one other. [5]

But Mitt Romney had a very public opportunity to demonstrate his love of God and neighbor as he campaigned for the president of the United States. He followed the words of Elder Dallin H. Oaks, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, who said:

… When believers promote their positions in the public square, they should always be tolerant of the opinions and positions of those who do not share their beliefs. Believers must always speak with love and show patience, understanding, and compassion toward their adversaries. Christian believers are under command to love their neighbors (see Luke 10:27) and to forgive (see Matthew 18:21–35). They should also remember the Savior’s teaching to “bless them that curse [them], do good to them that hate [them], and pray for them which despitefully use [them], and persecute [them]” (Matthew 5:44). [6]

After two presidential runs that didn’t lead to the White House, Mitt Romney says he won’t run again. Others apparently are trying to get him to change his mind. But in the end, it’s refreshing that in today’s world where we only show our good side, we got the see the human side of Mitt Romney. And we can see how the teachings of Jesus Christ influence his decisions, his values and his behavior toward others.

For some, Roe v. Wade is a victory for women’s rights to fulfill their dreams, pursue their careers and not be “burdened” by the responsibilities of children. For members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (sometimes inadvertently called the Mormon Church), it is denying these spirits their birthright—the right to be born into the world. For me, it is an unimaginable betrayal of our unborn children. It was difficult enough for me to endure this procedure knowing that my unborn babies did not survive. But I can’t fathom electing this procedure on the chance my child could have survived. Elder Russell M. Nelson, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (with the First Presidency, the governing body of The Church of Jesus Christ), said:

… Society professes reverence for human life. We weep for those who die, pray and work for those whose lives are in jeopardy. For years I have labored with other doctors here and abroad, struggling to prolong life. It is impossible to describe the grief a physician feels when the life of a patient is lost. Can anyone imagine how we feel when life is destroyed at its roots, as though it were a thing of naught?

What sense of inconsistency can allow people to grieve for their dead, yet be calloused to this baleful war being waged on life at the time of its silent development? What logic would encourage efforts to preserve the life of a critically ill twelve-week-old infant, but countenance the termination of another life twelve weeks after inception? More attention is seemingly focused on the fate of a life at some penitentiary’s death row than on the millions totally deprived of life’s opportunity through such odious carnage before birth. [1]

Birth is Part of God’s Plan for His Children

Life does not begin at birth, and it does not end at death. We lived as spirit children of our Heavenly Father before we were born. After we die, our spirits and our bodies will separate—but our spirits will live on. Eventually our bodies and our spirits will be reunited—which is called resurrection. Elder L. Tom Perry, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, said:

Many people wonder, “Where did we come from? Why are we here? Where are we going?” Our Eternal Father did not send us to earth on an aimless, meaningless journey. He provided for us a plan to follow. He is the author of that plan. It is designed for man’s progress and ultimate salvation and exaltation….

We first heard about the plan of salvation before we were born, in what the scriptures call our first estate (see Abraham 3:26). What occurred in this first estate is dimly understood, but we do know that we lived there as spirits, children of our Heavenly Father, and we made certain steps of advancement to prepare for the opportunity of housing our eternal spirits in earthly bodies. We also know that our Father held a great council to explain the purpose of earth life. We had the opportunity of accepting or rejecting the plan of salvation. It was not forced upon us. The essence of the plan was that man would have an opportunity of working out his own salvation on earth, with God’s help. A leader was selected to teach us how to follow the plan and to redeem us from sin and death. As the Lord explained to Moses, “Behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever” (Moses 4:2).

Jesus Christ, our Elder Brother, became the leader in advocating the plan designed by the Father, and we accepted the plan and its conditions. With that choice we earned the right to come to earth and enter our second estate. [2]

The second estate, then, is our time on earth and is called “mortality,” or our mortal life. Elder Perry continued:

There are two purposes for life in mortality. The first is that we might gain experiences that we could not obtain in any other way. The second is to obtain tabernacles of flesh and bones. Both of these purposes are vital to the existence of man. We are now being tried and tested to see if we will do all the things the Lord has commanded us to do. These commandments are the principles and ordinances of the gospel, and they constitute the gospel of Jesus Christ. Every principle and ordinance has a bearing upon the whole purpose of our testing, which is to prepare us to return to our Heavenly Father and become more like Him. [2]

So we came to earth to obtain a body and gain experiences with that body. But the plan doesn’t end there. Our loving Heavenly Father knew that we would make mistakes, which would further separate us from Him. Elder Perry taught:

All of this is made possible by Jesus Christ. He is the centerpiece of the eternal plan of the Father, the Savior who was provided as a ransom for mankind. God sent His Beloved Son to overcome the Fall of Adam and Eve. He came to earth as our Savior and Redeemer. He overcame the obstacle of physical death for us by giving up His own life. When He died on the cross, His spirit became separated from His body. On the third day His spirit and His body were reunited eternally, never to be separated again.

Life on earth is of limited duration. There comes a time for all of us when the spirit and the body are separated in death. But because of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, we will all be resurrected, regardless of whether we have accomplished good or evil in this life. Immortality is the gift to every mortal child of our Father in Heaven. Death must be viewed as a portal to a new and better life. Through the glorious resurrection, body and spirit will be reunited. We will have a perfect, immortal body of flesh and bones that will never be subjected to pain or death. But the glory we attain to in the next life will depend on our performance in this life. Only through the gift of the Atonement and our obedience to the gospel can we return and live with God once again. [2]

Life is ‘Meaningful’ for All of Us

We are all children of our Heavenly Father, and He loves each and every one. We all have special, unique characteristics and personalities that we have had since before we came to this earth. We were individuals, and God loves us individually. Elder Nelson—an Apostle of Jesus Christ who is a physician by trade—said:

Nearly all legislation pertaining to abortion considers the duration of gestation. The human mind has presumed to determine when “meaningful life” begins. In the course of my studies as a medical doctor, I learned that a new life begins when two special cells unite to become one cell, bringing together 23 chromosomes from the father and 23 from the mother. These chromosomes contain thousands of genes. In a marvelous process involving a combination of genetic coding by which all the basic human characteristics of the unborn person are established, a new DNA complex is formed. A continuum of growth results in a new human being. Approximately 22 days after the two cells have united, a little heart begins to beat. At 26 days the circulation of blood begins. To legislate when a developing life is considered “meaningful” is presumptive and quite arbitrary, in my opinion. [3]

I have had many sacred experiences that have taught me that “meaningful life” begins at conception. When I was pregnant with each of my four children, I would communicate with them. I would talk and they would respond—spirit to spirit. There were never any words said on their part, just a feeling. My third pregnancy, I was sure he was a boy named Atticus. So when I talked, I talked to Atticus. But he never responded. And I found out why. When I had the ultrasound where we found out the gender, we discovered she was a girl. And she was Juliet. Once I started talking to Juliet, she would communicate back. But only after I called her by the correct name. One of the times I miscarried, I knew before I even took the pregnancy test that it would be positive because I could feel a little spirit with me. It was a very sacred and special experience. I could feel when he was there, and I could feel when he was gone. Elder Nelson tells another story that is cause for serious reflection:

Consider another individual weighing the consequences of her pregnancy. She was beyond the normal age for bearing children. She announced to her doctor that her husband was an alcoholic with a syphilitic infection. One of her children had been born dead. Another child was blind. Another had tuberculosis. Her family had a history of deafness. Finally she confessed that she was living in abject poverty. If this true historical situation were posed today, many would recommend abortion. The child born from that pregnancy became the renowned composer Ludwig van Beethoven. [1]

Right to Choose

Much has been made of a woman’s “right to choose.” But as I tell my children, you can always choose the action, but you can’t always choose the consequences. Of this, Elder Nelson said:

Elective abortion has been legalized in many countries on the premise that a woman is free to choose what she does with her own body. To an extent this is true for each of us, male or female. We are free to think. We are free to plan. And we are free to do. But once an action has been taken, we are never free from its consequences.

To understand this concept more clearly, we can learn from the astronaut. Anytime during selection or preparation, he or she is free to withdraw from the program. But once the spacecraft has lifted off, the astronaut is bound to the consequences of the previous choice to make the journey.

So it is with people who choose to embark on a journey that leads to parenthood. They have freedom of choice—to begin or not to begin that course. When conception does occur, that choice has already been made. … Her choice to begin the journey binds her to the consequences of that choice. She cannot “unchoose.” [3]

Once on the course, a woman’s choices no longer only concern herself. She is now responsible for the life of her unborn child. Elder Nelson said:

When the controversies about abortion are debated, “individual right of choice” is invoked as though it were the one supreme virtue. That could only be true if but one person were involved. The rights of any one individual do not allow the rights of another individual to be abused. In or out of marriage, abortion is not solely an individual matter. Terminating the life of a developing baby involves two individuals with separate bodies, brains, and hearts. A woman’s choice for her own body does not include the right to deprive her baby of life—and a lifetime of choices that her child would make. [3]

Depriving a child of life often has another consequence: It deprives a prospective adoptive couple the opportunity to bring a child into their family. There are happily married couples who, for one reason or another, are unable to have children of their own. Elder Nelson counseled:

Why destroy a life that could bring great joy to others? There are better ways of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. …Adoption is a wonderful alternative to abortion. Both the baby and the adoptive parents can be greatly blessed by the adoption of that baby into a home where the child will be lovingly nurtured…. [3]

My husband and I have seen firsthand the joy that comes from adoption—for the children and the parents. It is a beautiful gift for all involved.

We Can’t Lose Sight of Who We Are In God’s Eyes

In the world we live in today, we need to remember that we matter to our Heavenly Father—we are His children. But sometimes we can get too puffed up and forget that we are not alone in the world. Sometimes we can get too caught up in ourselves, in our own lives and in our own desires that we lose sight of what is really important. One writer commented:

… By misjudging our place in the world, we invariably begin to careen into others, and the sin of pride corrupts all that we do. How would our lives be different if we understood that we are never more important than our spouse? We are never more important than our children? We are never more important than our neighbor or brother? [4]

If we misjudge our place in the world, we may end up with regrets at the end of our lives. President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, the second counselor in the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ, said:

Another regret people expressed was that they failed to become the person they felt they could and should have been. When they looked back on their lives, they realized that they never lived up to their potential…. I am not speaking here of climbing the ladder of success in our various professions. That ladder, no matter how lofty it may appear on this earth, barely amounts to a single step in the great eternal journey awaiting us. …

Our Heavenly Father sees our real potential. He knows things about us that we do not know ourselves. He prompts us during our lifetime to fulfill the measure of our creation, to live a good life, and to return to His presence. Why, then, do we devote so much of our time and energy to things that are so fleeting, so inconsequential, and so superficial? Do we refuse to see the folly in the pursuit of the trivial and transient? [5]

When we can’t see the grand, eternal picture, we can get lost in the here and now. President Thomas S. Monson, the president of The Church of Jesus Christ, offered this counsel:

We become so caught up in the busyness of our lives. Were we to step back, however, and take a good look at what we’re doing, we may find that we have immersed ourselves in the “thick of thin things.” In other words, too often we spend most of our time taking care of the things which do not really matter much at all in the grand scheme of things, neglecting those more important causes. [6]

Those most important causes, for me, are my family: my husband and children. Motherhood isn’t restrictive, limiting or a burden—it is a gift that I cherish. Children are our greatest assets, and we see ourselves through them. At least I see myself through them. I thought I was something until I had children—and I realized just how flawed I was. Sometimes I see the need to change through my children’s behavior and actions. Sometimes I see what I’m doing right. But always I know now that I am a better person because of my husband and children.

Isn’t that what we all desire: to be the heroes and heroines of our own stories; to triumph over adversity; to experience life in all its beauty; and, in the end, to live happily ever after? …

Sandwiched between their “once upon a time” and “happily ever after,” they all had to experience great adversity. … The scriptures tell us there must be opposition in all things, for without it we could not discern the sweet from the bitter. Would the marathon runner feel the triumph of finishing the race had she not felt the pain of the hours of pushing against her limits? Would the pianist feel the joy of mastering an intricate sonata without the painstaking hours of practice?

In stories, as in life, adversity teaches us things we cannot learn otherwise. Adversity helps to develop a depth of character that comes in no other way. [1]

The depth of character forged in the fires of adversity is what makes a hero great. We look up to our heroes because we admire their courage and strength. We may face similar trials as our heroes, but we might not. The lessons we learn aren’t in the situations but in the way our heroes react to them.

Standing for Truth, Righteousness and the Cause of Freedom

Artwork by Steve Nethercott

The scriptures are full of stories of men and women who had the courage to stand for the right. Captain Moroni’s tale is found in the Book of Mormon—which is another testament of Jesus Christ, a companion scripture to the Bible and a record of God’s dealings with some inhabitants of the ancient Americas. Captain Moroni was a righteous military commander who led his people, the Nephites, in defense of their homes, their families and their freedom—first from invaders who would enslave them and then from one of their own who wanted to be king. When the enemy seemed too great to overcome, Moroni rallied his troops by reminding them that they were fighting for a just and righteous cause. (See Alma 43 and Alma 46.)

Captain Moroni’s greatness is not only in his military wisdom, but also in his unfailing commitment to God’s laws. Moroni never sought power, greatness or glory. He only wanted to protect his people, their families, their freedom and their ability to worship God according to their deeply held beliefs. The scriptures teach:

Moroni was a strong and a mighty man; … a man of a perfect understanding; … a man who was firm in the faith of Christ. …If all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; … the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men. (Alma 48:11, 13, 17)

Captain Moroni not only led his people into battle, but he helped to prepare them both physically and spiritually to defend against their enemies. Elder Richard G. Scott, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, said:

In between the many battles, Captain Moroni directed fortification of the weakest cities. … Captain Moroni understood the importance of fortifying the weak areas to create strength. [2]

This Book of Mormon leader isn’t just a hero for us today—he was a heroic leader for his people in his day as well. He not only stood up for what was right—but he rallied his troops to do the same. He was a hero, and he helped to create heroes. We only know Captain Moroni’s name, but those who followed his righteous example are heroes too. Through his courage, strength and inspiration, he helped to save an entire nation from destruction—multiple times.

Courage to Face our Foes—and Fears

Artwork by Steve Nethercott

The 2,000 Stripling Warriors are another group of heroes from the Book of Mormon. But the heroes in this story aren’t limited to those who fought in the battles. The story actually begins with the parents of the 2,000 young men—and they are contemporaries of Captain Moroni. Their Lamanite fathers had been wicked, bloodthirsty people. But then they and their families were taught the gospel of Jesus Christ and repented. They made a covenant with God to never fight again and buried their weapons of war. They also changed their tribal name as a symbol of their repentance. (See Alma 23:7, 13, 17.) The newly named Anti-Nephi-Lehies moved over to the land of the Nephites because the Lamanites were trying to kill them.

So, fast-forward. The Nephites are becoming exhausted after years of fighting. And the Anti-Nephi-Lehies want to help their protectors. But a man named Helaman (who becomes the leader of this band of young men) and others persuade them against this idea. The Anti-Nephi-Lehi fathers had many sons who had not made the covenant to not fight. These 2,000 young men said, in essence, “Dad, don’t go to war. You can’t break your promise to Heavenly Father. We didn’t make that promise. We will go in your place—to save your soul and protect your freedom.” The scriptures teach:

They were all young men, and they were exceedingly valiant for courage, and for strength… but behold this was not all—they were men who were true at all times in whatsoever thing they were entrusted. Yes, they were men of truth and soberness, for they had been taught to keep the commandments of God.” (Alma 53:20-21)

This story is inspiring on so many levels. To begin with, these young men loved their fathers so much that they were willing to go to battle for them—literally in their fathers’ place. Much is made of their heroism, as well it should. But the quiet heroes in this story are the fathers and mothers who trusted the Lord enough to allow their sons to go to war. I am certain there were many parental prayers offered. I can’t imagine allowing my sons to go war in my place. That must have been humbling. The scriptures teach us a little about the relationship between the sons and their parents:

They did think more upon the liberty of their fathers than they did upon their own lives; yea, they had been taught by their mothers, that if they did not doubt, God would deliver them. And they rehearsed unto me the words of their mothers, saying: We do not doubt our mothers knew it. (Alma 56:47-48)

None of these 2,000 young men were killed in battle, although many were wounded. They all made it back home. They were blessed because of their faith—and the faith of their mothers and fathers. The parents of the 2,000 Stripling Warriors set the example of righteousness and keeping their covenants with God. They taught their sons well, and their sons followed their example. Even though they lived in a time of war and uncertainty, both parents and children placed their trust in the Lord—and faced their foes and fears with faith.

Unwavering Obedience to God’s Commands

Artwork by Steve Nethercott

The early history of The Church of Jesus Christ in modern days has many heroes also. The founding prophet Joseph Smith and his wife, Emma, are at the top of that list. At the tender age of 14, on a spring day in 1820, young Joseph knelt in a grove of trees and prayed, asking God which church he should join. In answer to his humble petition, Heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, appeared to the young boy and told him not to join any of them. Through his powerful, simple faith, young Joseph received the answer to his prayer—in what is called today the First Vision. President Thomas S. Monson—the president of The Church of Jesus Christ and current successor to Joseph Smith—said:

A few days after his prayer in the Sacred Grove, Joseph Smith gave an account of his vision to a preacher with whom he was acquainted. To his surprise, his communication was treated with “contempt” and “was the cause of great persecution, which continued to increase.” Joseph, however, did not waver. He later wrote, “I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true. … For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it.” Despite the physical and mental punishment at the hands of his opponents which the Prophet Joseph Smith endured throughout the remainder of his life, he did not falter. He taught honesty—by example. [3]

Joseph Smith is the prophet of the Restoration. Through him, Jesus Christ restored His Church to the earth and brought forth The Book of Mormon. Joseph accomplished many great things with the Lord’s help—but he was always a humble servant of God, seeking to do His will. Joseph was a kind and gentle soul. One of my favorite stories about the Prophet Joseph illustrates this:

Joseph Smith was as tenderhearted as he was sociable, as one young man remembered: “I was at Joseph’s house; he was there, and several men were sitting on the fence. Joseph came out and spoke to us all. Pretty soon a man came up and said that a poor brother who lived out some distance from town had had his house burned down the night before. Nearly all of the men said they felt sorry for the man. Joseph put his hand in his pocket, took out five dollars and said, ‘I feel sorry for this brother to the amount of five dollars; how much do you all feel sorry?’” [4]

Elder Robert D. Hales, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, said:

… The Prophet Joseph Smith endured all manner of opposition and hardship to bring to pass the desire of our Heavenly Father—the restoration of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Joseph was harassed and hunted by angry mobs. He patiently endured poverty, humiliating charges, and unkind acts. His people were forcibly driven from town to town, from state to state. He was tarred and feathered. He was falsely charged and jailed. …

Joseph knew that if he were to stop going forward with this great work, his earthly trials would probably ease. But he could not stop, because he knew who he was, he knew for what purpose he was placed on the earth, and he had the desire to do God’s will. [5]

Artwork by Steve Nethercott

Emma Smith was the faithful and devoted wife of the Prophet Joseph. She stood by his side through all of the trials and tribulations. One of my favorite stories of Emma occurs during a time when her husband had again been arrested and the Latter-day Saints were being driven from their homes in Missouri by angry mobs and relocating to Illinois:

For Emma Smith, the months after Joseph’s arrest were especially trying. In February 1839 a neighbor, Jonathan Holman, helped her place her four children and her meager belongings into a straw-lined wagon pulled by two horses. On the evening prior to her departure she received from Miss Ann Scott the priceless manuscripts of her husband’s “translation” of the Bible. James Mulholland, the Prophet’s secretary, had given the papers to Ann for safekeeping thinking that the mob might not search a woman. Ann had made two cotton bags to hold the documents. Emma used these same cotton bags to carry the manuscripts from Missouri to Illinois, tying them under her long skirt.

When the party arrived at the Mississippi they found the river frozen over. Rather than risk the weight of the wagon, Emma walked across the ice holding two children, with the other two clinging to her skirt. They finally arrived safely at the outskirts of the village of Quincy, Illinois, where Emma lived until Joseph’s release. [6]

Joseph and Emma Smith were faithful followers of Jesus Christ. They endured intense persecution and suffering, yet accomplished great things through their obedience to the gospel. Their examples of kindness and love toward others even when the times got tough are truly inspiring.

‘I’ll Go Where You Want Me To Go’

Artwork by Steve Nethercott

During the early years of The Church of Jesus Christ, the members were persecuted and forcibly removed from their homes and cities several times. Church leaders decided to relocate the entire body of Saints to the tops of the Rocky Mountains. It took much courage, faith and dedication to follow the leaders of the Church into the wilderness—but they did. The Latter-day Saints left their comfortable homes and most of their belongings, because they had faith in God and believed that The Church of Jesus Christ was the Savior’s Restored Church on the earth. The pioneer exodus began in 1847 but continued for many years. The majority of Latter-day Saint pioneers came in wagons, but some came in handcart companies. All of those early Latter-day Saint pioneers are heroic in their own right, but members of two notable handcart companies stand out for their sacrifice, their valor and their unwavering faith in God and in His goodness. The Martin and Willie Handcart Companies came across the plains in 1856. They left late in the season, but hoped to make it to the Salt Lake Valley before the snow fell. But they were caught in early winter snows in present-day Wyoming, and they ran so low on food and supplies that many were boiling leather to make a broth to eat. Their suffering was unimaginably severe. And yet, their heroism isn’t only in the fact that they endured these trials—it’s also that they endured these trials and through it all, thanked God for His goodness and blessings.

One survivor’s story tells it all, I think. The late President David O. McKay, a past president of The Church of Jesus Christ, recounted a story that occurred some years later. During a class at church, the teacher and others began sharply criticizing Church leaders in a discussion concerning the Martin and Willie handcart tragedy. President McKay continued:

An old man in the corner … sat silent and listened as long as he could stand it, then he arose and said things that no person who heard him will ever forget. His face was white with emotion, yet he spoke calmly, deliberately, but with great earnestness and sincerity.

In substance [he] said, “I ask you to stop this criticism. You are discussing a matter you know nothing about. Cold historic facts mean nothing here, for they give no proper interpretation of the questions involved. Mistake to send the Handcart Company out so late in the season? Yes. But I was in that company and my wife was in it. … We suffered beyond anything you can imagine and many died of exposure and starvation, but did you ever hear a survivor of that company utter a word of criticism? Not one of that company ever apostatized or left the Church, because everyone of us came through with the absolute knowledge that God lives for we became acquainted with him in our extremities.

“I have pulled my handcart when I was so weak and weary from illness and lack of food that I could hardly put one foot ahead of the other. I have looked ahead and seen a patch of sand or a hill slope and I have said, I can go only that far and there I must give up, for I cannot pull the load through it.” He continues: “I have gone on to that sand and when I reached it, the cart began pushing me. I have looked back many times to see who was pushing my cart, but my eyes saw no one. I knew then that the angels of God were there.

“Was I sorry that I chose to come by handcart? No. Neither then nor any minute of my life since. The price we paid to become acquainted with God was a privilege to pay, and I am thankful that I was privileged to come in the Martin Handcart Company.” (Relief Society Magazine, Jan. 1948, p. 8.)

The late President James E. Faust, who was an Apostle of Jesus Christ until his death, said:

I cannot help wondering why these intrepid pioneers had to pay for their faith with such a terrible price in agony and suffering. Why were not the elements tempered to spare them from their profound agony? I believe their lives were consecrated to a higher purpose through their suffering. Their love for the Savior was burned deep in their souls, and into the souls of their children, and their children’s children. The motivation for their lives came from a true conversion in the center of their souls. [7]

Elder M. Russell Ballard, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, said:

Those 19th-century pioneers … never set out to be heroes, and yet they accomplished heroic things. That is what makes them Saints. They were a band of believers who tried to do the right thing for the right reasons, ordinary men and women who were called on to perform an extraordinary work. [8]

The greatest heroes didn’t set out to be heroes—they just set out to do what was right. And in doing so they left a priceless gift for generations to come: a legacy of faith. Some heroes led, and some faithfully followed. Greatness isn’t measured by wealth, fame, prestige or prominence. Greatness is when ordinary people do extraordinary things—like remaining steadfast and true to the gospel of Jesus Christ no matter what the cost. True heroes inspire us to do better and to be better—because if they could do it, so can we. We may not put on our armor and fight—but we can fight for religious liberty. We may not go to battle for our parents—but we can honor them and recognize their sacrifices for us. We can take the lessons we learn from our heroes and apply them in our own lives, in our own day. That’s what makes a true hero—someone who is worthy of emulation as well as adulation. And that is the best gift that anyone can give.

Among the Senators who voted for the legislation were four members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—sometimes inadvertently called the Mormon Church. However, The Church of Jesus Christ has not taken a stance on the subject, but issued this statement:

Elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated church position.

On the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), the church has not taken a position. On the question of same-sex marriage, the church has been consistent in its support of traditional marriage while teaching that all people should be treated with kindness and understanding. If it is being suggested that the church’s doctrine on this matter is changing, that is incorrect.

Marriage between a man and a woman is central to God’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. As such, traditional marriage is a foundational doctrine and cannot change. [2]

Although there has been some misconception that the position of The Church of Jesus Christ is changing on the issue of gay rights, this is not the case. Many evangelicals and Christians support anti-discrimination measures—but cannot support same-sex marriage. The two issues are distinctly different.

Christians Stand in Defense of Marriage

Christians—including members of The Church of Jesus Christ—stand in defense of marriage. Marriage is a sacred ordinance, or a sacred, solemn contract between a husband, a wife and God—and the terms are set by God Himself. The Family: A Proclamation to the World states:

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife. …

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.

 Elder Dallin H. Oaks, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (with the First Presidency, the governing body of The Church of Jesus Christ), explained the views of Latter-day Saints:

Man’s laws cannot make moral what God has declared immoral. Commitment to our highest priority—to love and serve God—requires that we look to His law for our standard of behavior. For example, we remain under divine command not to commit adultery or fornication even when those acts are no longer crimes under the laws of the states or countries where we reside. Similarly, laws legalizing so-called “same-sex marriage” do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it. We remain under covenant to love God and keep His commandments…. [3]

Strong Marriages are the Ties that Bind Families & Strengthen Nations

The late President Gordon B. Hinckley, the past president of The Church of Jesus Christ, said:

A nation will rise no higher than the strength of its homes. If you want to reform a nation, you begin with families, with parents who teach their children principles and values that are positive and affirmative and will lead them to worthwhile endeavors. … [4]

Conversely, if you want to destroy a nation, you begin by weakening the foundation—the family. Strong families are built upon strong marriages, with husband and wives who honor their marital covenants with complete fidelity. And strong nations are built upon the strengths of these families.

I have seen powerful examples of this in my own family this year. Both of my grandfathers died more than a decade ago. My grandmothers cared for their husbands and took care of them during their long illnesses—one of which lasted 17 years. This year, one Grandma decided it was time to sell her house and move in with my parents. She celebrated 50 years in her house, and had a huge party with her children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren—and all of us were there. Her family was there to help her pack up and move. And her children (all boys) have made sure that she is happy and comfortable in her new home.

My other Grandma, due to health issues, can’t drive anymore and must move in with my uncle and his wife. My aunt and uncle helped my Grandma take care of my Grandpa the last few years of his life, so he didn’t have to go to a nursing home. And at that time, they decided that when my Grandma couldn’t live alone anymore, she would move back in with them. This has been a more difficult adjustment. But I watched as my mom and her siblings have lovingly helped my Grandma through this loss of independence. They have made sure that she knows she is loved and valued—and wanted. Both of my Grandmas have shared their treasures with their posterity—and have found joy knowing that their treasures are going to their loved ones who will treasure them in return.

Both of my Grandmas passed down not only their earthly treasures—but the lasting legacy of true and pure love and commitment. And my parents and their siblings are setting the same example for their children and grandchildren. That’s the power of families—they take care of each other. Not just the parents and siblings, but throughout generations. This is the reason that a nation will rise no higher than the strength of its homes—and families. And each of these families began with the marriage of a husband and wife. That is the reason that Christians must protect the sanctity of traditional marriage.

In Support of Compassion

Supporting and defending marriage doesn’t mean there is no room for compassion. On the contrary, the Savior taught compassion, kindness and love one for another. Christians and evangelicals seek to follow these teachings, especially in the way they treat each other. Thus, many support certain rights for homosexual and lesbians. The Church of Jesus Christ issued this statement:

The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. The Church does not object to rights … regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.

The Church has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are proper only between a husband and a wife united in the bonds of matrimony.

The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility towards homosexual men and women. Protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not affect Church members’ Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people. [5]

Tolerance for Religious Freedom

A very disturbing trend in America today is the attempt to shame those who oppose same-sex marriage into silence. This is not true freedom—for anyone. Elder Oaks said:

For persons who believe in absolute truth, tolerance for behavior is like a two-sided coin. Tolerance or respect is on one side of the coin, but truth is always on the other. You cannot possess or use the coin of tolerance without being conscious of both sides.

Our Savior applied this principle. When He faced the woman taken in adultery, Jesus spoke the comforting words of tolerance: “Neither do I condemn thee.” Then, as He sent her away, He spoke the commanding words of truth: “Go, and sin no more” (John 8:11). We should all be edified and strengthened by this example of speaking both tolerance and truth: kindness in the communication but firmness in the truth. [6]

 

For Disciples of Christ, there is no tolerance without truth. You cannot have one without the other. Religious liberty is the freedom to think, believe and act according to our deeply held beliefs. Anything less is a fraudulent version of freedom. This is no excuse for mistreatment of anyone. But simply standing up for one’s beliefs should not be an invitation for contention—or a lawsuit.

Stories of people of faith who face retaliation and punishment for refusing to cater, photograph or otherwise condone a same-sex wedding are becoming more commonplace. This is truly a travesty of American democracy. It’s never easy to stand up for one’s beliefs. We should applaud all who have the courage to do so. And when we start punishing people instead of applauding them, Lady Liberty’s lamp dims a little more with each infringement—and everybody loses. Elder Oaks said:

The spirit of our balance of truth and tolerance is applied in these words of [the late] President Hinckley: “Let us reach out to those in our community who are not of our faith. Let us be good neighbors, kind and generous and gracious. Let us be involved in good community causes. There may be situations where, with serious moral issues involved, we cannot bend on matters of principle. But in such instances we can politely disagree without being disagreeable. We can acknowledge the sincerity of those whose positions we cannot accept. We can speak of principles rather than personalities.” [6]

Finding the Balance

Anti-discrimination measures such as ENDA seek to eliminate unjust and unfair treatment of people based on their sexual identities. However, there must be a balance. Tolerance must extend both ways. Gay rights must not overshadow religious liberties. Christians must be allowed to disagree with the homosexual lifestyle and same-sex marriage without being harassed and punished for their beliefs. Elder Quentin L. Cook, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, said:

Let me be clear that all voices need to be heard in the public square. Neither religious nor secular voices should be silenced. Furthermore, we should not expect that because some of our views emanate from religious principles, they will automatically be accepted or given preferential status. But it is also clear such views and values are entitled to be reviewed on their merits. [7]

 The time has come for all sides to work together—the good, old American way. America is the Great Melting Pot because it’s where diverse groups of people have learned to live together in peace despite their deepest differences in culture, backgrounds and beliefs. They built on their commonalities and respected their differences. That is the greatness of America. And Americans, it seems, have not forgotten what makes them truly special: the ability to work together. Working together requires us to find a common ground and build on that. That doesn’t mean that we agree—it just means that we agree to get along while respecting each other’s beliefs. And respecting each other’s beliefs requires us to listen to them—even if we don’t agree—without silencing any voices or opinions.

… Only those with the deepest beliefs and even the deepest differences can help each other against the encroaching threat to religious liberty, marriage and the family. [1]

Mormons and Evangelicals Can Be Friends

Nearly a decade ago, two evangelical leaders made interfaith headlines when they spoke in the home of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. It was the first time since 1899 that an internationally renowned evangelical spoke at the Tabernacle on Temple Square in Salt Lake City. Richard Mouw, then-president of the Fuller Theological Seminary, gave a 7-minute introduction for renowned Christian philosopher Ravi Zacharias on that historic occasion. [2] Some have called this the beginning of friendly relations between the Latter-day Saints and the evangelicals that continues today. In September, two members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (with the First Presidency, the governing body of The Church of Jesus Christ) traveled to Washington, D.C., to attend the inauguration of Dr. Russell Moore as the head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. Mohler spoke at Brigham Young University in October. Other evangelical leaders—including Mouw and Zacharias—are also scheduled to speak (or have spoken) in Utah. Mouw, who retired in June but has been a longtime proponent of evangelical-Mormon dialogue, said:

At the very least, the two communities, evangelicals and Mormons, have been … each other’s worst enemies. There’s a significant part of the evangelical movement that is now having healthy and friendly conversations, and it’s gone from a group of two dozen scholars talking to each other to church leaders meeting each other, going to see each other. [3]

Christian Forgiveness

Latter-day Saints and evangelicals have their differences. Mouw, in his 2004 speech at the Tabernacle, apologized to members of The Church of Jesus Christ, saying, “Let me state it clearly. We evangelicals have sinned against you.” [4] He continued, “We’ve often seriously misrepresented the beliefs and practices of members of the LDS faith. It’s a terrible thing to bear false witness.” [5]

Unfortunately, misunderstanding and misconceptions about another’s beliefs often lead to dissemination of misinformation—in other words, bearing false witness. Mormonfaq.com is a website that answers questions about The Church of Jesus Christ and its beliefs—although it is not affiliated with the Church nor an official Church website. Another website—made to look exactly like mormonfaq.com—compares the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ to another religion. The result is misinformation, misrepresentation and confusion. It is truly bearing false witness against another. If I had an abscessed tooth, I wouldn’t ask a podiatrist for help. Likewise, as a Latter-day Saint, I am wholly unqualified to answer questions about the Jewish religion. The same is true if someone of another faith tries to explain the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ. It just doesn’t work very well—and it can cause divisiveness among religious communities. As John Taylor, the director of Interfaith relations for The Church of Jesus Christ, said:

There’s a realization among faith groups generally that despite doctrinal differences — and we have doctrinal differences, there’s no question about that — we do have areas of commonality. [3]

And we need to build upon our commonalities to fight for our common causes.

Building on Our Common Ground

Finding commonalities in Christianity shouldn’t be too difficult—we all believe in Jesus Christ and His teachings. When asked what the most important commandment was, the Savior replied: Love the Lord thy God will all thy heart, and love thy neighbor as thyself. But our commonalities extend further. Christians believe in the Savior’s Atonement, and we celebrate His birth at Christmas. We honor His Death and celebrate His Resurrection at Easter. There are definite and distinct doctrinal differences. But focusing on these will never build bridges between religions—it will only tear them down.

 Christians can also find common ground with Muslims, Hindus, Jews and other religions. We all believe in a higher power and doing what’s right. The words of Elder M. Russell Ballard, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, to an LDS audience ring true for people of all faiths:

For the most part, our neighbors not of our faith are good, honorable people—every bit as good and honorable as we strive to be. They care about their families, just like we do. They want to make the world a better place, just like we do. They are kind and loving and generous and faithful, just like we seek to be. [6]

These are similarities that we all can and should embrace.

Cultivating ‘Convicted Civility’

Mouw advocates convictions and civility—or “convicted civility.” He wrote:

When I decided to explore the subject of civility two decades ago, I was especially concerned about the ways in which religious convictions seemed to be at the root of much of the mean-spiritedness in the world. … In recently revising my book, I still had to deal with the fact that religion continues to be a big part of the problem. Christian denominations are torn apart by angry debates over sexuality. Both sides in the ongoing culture wars engage in sloganeering. Religious extremists, on the left and the right, propagate their own conspiracy theories about their religious and irreligious enemies.

As the Lutheran scholar Martin Marty once observed, people these days who are civil often lack strong convictions, and people with strong religious convictions often are not very civil. What we need is convicted civility. [7]

Elder Robert D. Hales, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, echoed this sentiment. He said:

To … all who seek to know how we should respond to our accusers, I reply, we love them. Whatever their race, creed, religion, or political persuasion, if we follow Christ and show forth His courage, we must love them. We do not feel we are better than they are. Rather, we desire with our love to show them a better way—the way of Jesus Christ. [8]

If followers of Jesus Christ—no matter which Christian church they belong to—adhered to His teachings of love and compassion for each other, we would accomplish much more good in the world. However, followers of Jesus Christ also feel obligated to teach correct doctrines and principles to others. And sometimes these principles and doctrines differ between religions. But we can all listen to each other and agree to disagree—with convicted civility.

Mouw gave an excellent example of cultivating this civility. He had given an address on this subject at a university, and one professor talked about an exchange his religious group had with a gay-lesbian group on campus. The religious group had run an ad in the newspaper explaining why same-sex relations were against the laws of God. The gay-lesbian group responded with an ad, and the exchange became acrimonious. The evangelical asked, “What could we have done differently?” Mouw responded:

At the very least, I said, his folks might have talked with the gay-lesbian leadership privately before going public with their views. “You could have sent them a copy of the ad you planned to run, and asked them whether there was anything in it that they found abusive. And you could have invited them to have lunch with you to talk about the topic before going public with your views.”

His response, expressed in a genuinely regretful tone: “I wish we would have done that!”

A month later he wrote me a letter. “After you and I talked,” he said, “we contacted the gay-lesbian leaders. We told them that we are very sorry we had not met with them privately before publishing our ad. And we asked them if we could meet over lunch, and they accepted.”

The encounter had started out badly, he reported. The [other group was] very angry. But at one point one of them told about some terrible experiences she had as a teenager in an evangelical church. “We were very moved by her story,” he said, “and we told her so.” Some tears were shed on both sides. “We agreed not only to disagree, but to keep meeting on a regular basis. It was a tough conversation, but we evangelicals were so glad we reached out. It sure beats angry public name-calling.” [7]

We don’t have to agree—we just need to agree to disagree with civility. And this begins with private, respectful, one-on-one conversations. Peaceful, civil discourse in the public square are more likely to occur when both sides see each other not as faceless adversaries but as real people trying to do what they feel is right. Elder Quentin L. Cook, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, offered this counsel for followers of Christ:

…How we disagree is a real measure of who we are and whether we truly follow the Savior. It is appropriate to disagree, but it is not appropriate to be disagreeable. Violence and vandalism are not the answer to our disagreements. If we show love and respect even in adverse circumstances, we become more like Christ. [9]

With Religious Freedom, ‘We Hang Together or We Hang Separately’

Religious liberty is an important issue in today’s world because it is competing with other, more popular issues—and seems to be losing ground. Mohler explained:

When you have competing liberties, society is always going to have to make a choice on which liberty is greater than the other. In the history of the United States, the greatest tension on this has been on individual liberty against the demands of a larger democratic process. What we have (today) is what I identify as “erotic liberty” against “religious liberty.” … What’s being claimed is, someone’s freedom to be themselves requires your accommodation to their sexual orientation and lifestyle. So you look at some of the bigger issues, and what can be called erotic liberty is at the very essence of so many of the most controversial cultural movements of the last half century … issues of gender, sexuality, reproduction, you go down the list.

The question is, how will society adjudicate and work out a way of deciding which liberty is going to have to give way? … For instance, on the question of the contraception mandate (in the Affordable Care Act), the argument being made by the Obama Administration is the reproductive liberty of women trumps the liberty of Christian institutions to refuse to participate in either the funding or distribution of contraception or of … possible abortifacients. The same issue would be true on same-sex marriage where the same claim of liberty can be used to say, “My sexual orientation liberty trumps the ability to say you will only place babies from your Catholic adoption agency in homes headed by a heterosexual couple.” … The collision of liberties isn’t new; you can read about them in the federalist papers. But this is a new form. [10]

Richard Land, president of the Southern Evangelical Seminary, also spoke at BYU this fall. He said in a Deseret News interview, “When it comes to religious freedom, we all hang together or we all hang separately. We are common targets in this.” [1]

During his speech at BYU, Mohler said, “I do not believe that we are going to heaven together, but I do believe we may go to jail together.” Afterward, he explained:

I wasn’t exaggerating, I was speaking honestly when I said we may go to jail together. I don’t necessarily mean going to prison together, but I think we’re going to suffer the coercive power of the secular state together. [1]

Land said, “Those who oppose us are not going to make any distinctions. They’re hostile to people of faith, period.” [1]

 People of faith need not make any distinctions, either. They can show the same love for all people in the public square. As we follow the example of Jesus Christ in all things—especially in the way we treat each other—we draw closer to our Savior and set an example worthy of being followed.

Believers Must Band Together

The Savior taught, “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand” (Matthew 12:25). Believers must band together to fight for their religious liberties. Divided, they cannot withstand their foes. But united, they will be heard. Cardinal Francis George—who spoke at BYU in 2010—said:

The lesson of American history is that churches and other religious bodies prosper in a nation and a social order that respects religious freedom and recognizes that civil government should never stand between the consciences and the religious practices of its citizens and Almighty God. …

Sometimes our common advocacy will make one of us the target of retribution by intolerant elements. … [But] in the coming years, interreligious coalitions formed to defend the rights of conscience for individuals and religious institutions could become a vital bulwark against the tide of forces that work in our government and society to reduce religion to a purely private reality.

I’m personally grateful that after 180 years of living mostly apart from one another, Catholics and Latter-day Saints have begun to see one another as trustworthy partners in the defense of shared moral principles and in the promotion of the common good of our beloved country. Our churches have different histories and systems of belief and practice, although we acknowledge a common reference point in the person and the gospel of Jesus Christ. [11]

Mohler said in his BYU address:

Your faith has held high the importance of marriage and family. Your theology requires such an affirmation and it is lovingly lived out by millions of Mormon families. We stand together for the natural family, for natural marriage, for the integrity of sexuality within marriage alone, and for the hope of human flourishing.

I come in the hope of much further conversation, conversations about urgencies both temporal and eternal. I am unashamed to stand with you in the defense of marriage and family and the defense of human sexual integrity. I am urgently ready to speak and act in your defense, against threats to your religious liberty, even as you have shown equal willingness to speak and act in defense of mine. [1]

Elder Dallin H. Oaks, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, said:

Believers can and must seek laws that will preserve religious freedom. …The United States and other nations are experiencing a disturbing reduction in overall public esteem for religion. Once an accepted part of American life, religion is now suspect in the minds of many. Some influential voices even question the extent to which our constitutions should protect the free exercise of religion, including the right to practice and preach religious principles.

This is a vital matter on which we who believe in a Supreme Being who has established absolute right and wrong in human behavior must unite to insist on our time-honored rights to exercise our religion, to vote our consciences on public issues, and to participate in elections and debates in the public square and the halls of justice. We must stand shoulder to shoulder with other believers to preserve and strengthen the freedom to advocate and practice our religious beliefs, whatever they are. For this purpose we must walk together on the same path in order to secure our freedom to pursue our separate ways when that is necessary according to our separate beliefs. [12]

Believers must stand together to defend their religious liberties. Latter-day Saints, Catholics, Evangelicals and those of all other religions must stand shoulder to shoulder on these matters. Otherwise, our deeply held beliefs will be relegated to the privacy of our own homes. And this is not true freedom. True freedom is the ability to not only think and believe but to act according to our deeply held beliefs. Our actions speak louder than our words. And if we only live our religion in the privacy of our own homes, then we don’t really live our religion. We must be able to live our religion wherever we are. We must respect the rights of others, but we must stand up for our rights as well.