We could talk about how gay marriage is now grounds for apostasy (even though adultery isn’t?). We could talk about how gay kids can’t get baptized just because their parents don’t keep the commandments (wait, I thought it was “men will be punished for their own sins, and not Adam’s transgression?). We could talk about about the hypocrisy of the Church defining the traditional family when their history with marriage has been anything but traditional (looking at you young teen brides and polygamy).

But I want to talk about something else. It is common knowledge the Church bends to public pressure. It bent on polygamy. It bent on blacks and the priesthood. It bent on temple ordinances. And do you know why it bent?

Because people said something.

I don’t care if you are a true believing Mormon or complete liberal communist atheist, you must recognize that something needs to be said. Something needs to be done. The arguments members make defending the Church’s actions are the same arguments that were made to defend keeping the blacks out the temple and away from the priesthood. It is an argument that stems from the leadership is always right.

Guess what. They aren’t.

Of course, some people will refuse to see that. To them, Church leadership are bravely taking a stand for God’s eternal doctrine on the family (which has a habit of changing). They will justify anything the brethren do in order to maintain the paradigm the brethren are inspired. I know this because I used to think the same way. Before the Church admitted it screwed up with blacks and the priesthood, I would tell people that God really was behind the priesthood ban. The leadership of the Church were just reluctantly enforcing his will. And that wasn’t true. Just read this letter from the First Presidency to Lowry Nelson in 1947:

“From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel. Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and the White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs till now… We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this area, toward breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine. 

Faithfully Yours,
Geo. Albert Smith
J. Reuben Clark, jr.
David O. McKay

At times I’ve wondered what I would do if I lived during the priesthood ban. Would I have had the courage to say something? Would I have been willing to be called anti-Mormon, faithless, foolish, prideful, and an apostate in order to advocate for equal treatment of blacks? I would hope that I would have had the courage to stand up and say something rather than perpetuate the racism. Or the polygamy. Or blood atonement. And the homophobia.

Do you really believe that Jesus Christ is behind this policy or any similar ones?

Matthew 19:14: But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Article of Faith 2: We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

2 Nephi 26:33: For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

Luke 18:15-17: And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

He wouldn’t. And I am sick of members pretending Jesus put His stamp of approval on this. Too many people see something like this, disagree with it, and then perform some sort of mental gymnastics to justify the brethren’s actions. You do not need to do that.

Do not let fear overcome your moral conscience. “When you smell something, say something.” Remember, the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

People will find a way to justify this. You do not need to do that. And nor should you. Your personal moral compass is more accurate than that.

If you sustain the brethren, I must ask: what would it take? What would it take for you recognize these men aren’t prophets? They are already acting contradictory to scripture, and show no more fruit of being a prophet than an average pastor. What would it take for you to stop justifying their wickedness? What would it take for you to realize that these men shouldn’t be given “a break”, but held to the standard they have given themselves?

What would it take for you to understand that it isn’t about handbooks and ordinances and realize that it’s about love?

“Now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.” (1 Corinthians 13:13). Whenever there is a choice between faith and charity, I will always choose charity.

Do what is right. Let the consequence follow.

Albert Carrington
Albert Carrington
Albert Carrington served as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles until he was excommunicated for adultery. During his disciplinary court, Elder Carrington tried to argue that he had only committed "a little folly in Israel!", but the current brethren couldn't be bothered to give him a break. Learn more about Elder Carrington here.

google-site-verification: google2cac8eb5ff86e577.html