Never since the earliest days has the LDS Church been in such danger of persecution by a mass of Americans. The same can be said about the danger of governmental punishment from the time of the polygamy trials. Unlike the mentioned examples where the religious were the instigators, secularists are in command and faith itself is in the crosshairs. This time no one who believes in God and attends church will be spared. Worst case scenarios have Christians going underground like in China to worship, if the modern interpretation of the religious clause is brought to its logical conclusion. Religation to absolute privacy is not freedom; its house arrest. There are some possible changes coming to how the LDS Church operates in this increasingly hostile secular new United States. Some are already in practice where secularism has completely taken over.
There is no need to rehearse where the danger comes from the most. Anyone can look at the current headlines about the U.S. Supreme Court’s biggest case of the year. For those who wish to criticise any “the sky is falling” concerns, a reasonable person should read what Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli said in response to Judge Alito’s question:
Justice Alito: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?
General Verrilli: You know, I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is going to be an issue.
Although the question refers to a college, it can easily apply to a Church since the university is a privately held religious institution. It wouldn’t take a leap to translate into any private institution with tax exempt status. For many religions the university is an extension of the church and not a side project. I am sure that Brigham Young University’s varied campuses are seen in that light by the LDS leadership, who on more than one occasion has stated it outright. Calling it “The Lord’s University” is more than a silly saying to be mocked. Those might be the first casualties.
The End of Church Schools
At the moment the LDS Church’s Universities are strong and well attended. Every year there is a growing number of Mormon youth who aspire to attend what has become a huge educational conglomerate. It has become so popular that the LDS Church started to emphasis the need for students to attend more secular schools, backing it up by developing complementary religious institutes wherever possible.
Students who attend “The Lord’s University” are eligible for student loans and grants from the government. Although the school as a whole has not received grants, individual research is often subsidised. These are reasons that the University must comply with Title IX in sports, and a few other less visible compliances. There has been times when the segregated housing has been unsuccessfully challenged. The late President Hinckley once told Larry King about not accepting government humanitarian aid during George W. Bush’s faith based initiative drive that he “appreciate[s] the offer of federal funding, we like to do ours on our own. Once the government is involved, regulations follow.”
The schools could, under pressure to comply with increasingly secular requirements, completely cut off all federal funding or loans for students and faculty. The costs might be exorbitant enough for individual students that generous Church subsidies be impossible without the government resources. Properties might be sold off and the Church completely leave education, hoping that strong religious institutes fill in the needs.
Dangers of Dissolving
Nothing sounds so far fetched, but yet has loud enough voices, as taking away the tax exempt status of Churches. This is where the LDS Church and traditionally religious opponents will end up in the same situation. For a small example, it isn’t difficult to find in comment sections a call for stripping Churches of all tax exempt status with another saying Churches should be taxed out of existence. The goal is not to make them follow after businesses rather than charities, but run them to the ground.
Those who wish to no longer consider Churches as 501(c) 3 tax exempt organizations are ignorant of history. Taxes were the prime force that got in the way of religious freedom. True that a tax exemption does give them financial support, but it also in theory keeps them out of politics to a large degree. Of course, the opponents want them to stay out completely and taxing them is supposed to suppress even more the voice by reducing growth opportunities. The irony is that large Churches will become completely free and secularist influence might actually be harmed. This despite smaller Churches becoming unsustainable. The biggest winner might end up the Catholic Church.
How the LDS Church responds is more questionable, because it does have money while in reality consists of a small footprint. It did in the past come close to dissolving when the might of the federal government took away all its property. There is nothing keeping this from happening again considering certain trends hold up and increase. A small consolation is that this time Mormons would not be alone in the struggle for survival.
Changing the Marriage Procedure
Now for the not exactly elephant in the room; what might happen with marriage. Assuming that a particular group gets its way, “Verrilli’s issue” can do more than redefine marriage for the government. It can easily change how the LDS Church does marriages in the United States. Currently the Church is given the authority to mix couple sealing with civil ceremony. In many places outside the United States, a couple must first produce a civil licence before allowed to enter Temples to be sealed.
Marriage procedures could be unified throughout the world and rumors are spreading this is already on the drawing board. The members of any country will have to get a court produced marriage certificate, and the marriage sealings will be a purely religious ceremony. Temple married Mormon couples will then have to have two marriage certificates; one secular and another religious. Without going over what was discussed some time ago, the secular requirement might some day be discretionary or even discouraged.
Any marriages by “clergy” (such as a Bishop) outside a temple could be halted completely. Since the “public accommodation” argument has been given a very wide definition, it might end up safe than sorry to stop using meeting houses for marriages. Any marriages outside of Temples (recognized very specifically as private) could be in danger of government regulations.
Most shocking is that tithing might become optional to entering the Temple. As one critic said:
Yes it is okay to discriminate against gays if the church is non-profit.
But hey, what do members have to pay to the Mormon church to enter the Temple and to be Sealed?
Yep, tithing, ie money and lots of it, 10% of annual income.
A very lucrative for profit business, eh?
And one that cannot discriminate according to US law.
You read it right here. A nascent argument that Churches cannot gather any kind of money regardless of the need to even exist. According to this “budding lawyer” the mere exchanging of money for any kind of service is considered commerce to be regulated.
As the saying goes, “we live in interesting times. Woe to those who live in interesting times.” There is hope that the opposition is right in claiming none of these secular changes will interfere with the free worship of religions, but evidence clearly stresses the opposite. For them “freedom of religion” has been morphed into “freedom from religion” and therefore placing shackles on individual believers. Not that this should be a surprise. The Scriptures have warned and forewarned that the last days will be dangerous, corrupt, and only the fires of heaven will stop the wicked from obliterating the righteous. The only question is how far down the rabbit hole will we witness in our lifetimes?
New Post: The Church in a New Hostile America: Never since the earliest days has the LDS Church b… http://t.co/OVifXvpi9g #LDS #Mormon
Interesting stuff, frightening to contemplate. I certainly hope that what you have written does not come to pass. I take comfort in Daniel’s vision of the stone cut without hands.
Elder M. Russell Ballard often refers to the Church as scaffolding for building righteous individuals and families. If the scaffolding is required to come down, will we hold up? There are periods of time in other nations when the Church had to “go underground” due to civil unrest or martial law. When the storm passed, those who remained to return were those who had lived the gospel in their homes, doing the simple yet significant things we are asked to do.
TheMillennialStar: The Church in a New Hostile America http://t.co/YEOcUhUnLP #lds #mormon
I have entertained the idea of rebellion and civil disobedience in response to increasing government encroachment into religion. I would be willing to fight, though I am encumbered with physical handicaps. But my inclination is premature and impetuous. If it ever comes to that kind of conflict, I am confident that Church leaders will direct us, and we will rely on the Lord to fight our battles. Until that day, we resolve to work within the law and established system to seek justice.
My wife converted after our civil marriage, hence we have two wedding anniversaries to celebrate every year. We like that, as we are always looking for things to celebrate. I am thinking that allowing couples in the United States to be civilly married first and then be sealed at the time of their choosing would be a good thing. However, this belief exists in a vacuum of never having heard the reasons for the current U.S. practice from Church leaders themselves. Nonetheless, the current U.S. practice seems to be a matter of policy and not “right and wrong.”
As for the matter of what members of the Church might be required to suffer prior to the Second Coming, I think the Book of Mormon model of Christ’s First Coming might be our model. The stress was severe enough such that seismic shifts (and that is plural) in the number and fidelity of “Church” members in the decades before that event were the norm. Sometimes as I look at what is developing around us I am surprised to realize how the last days are shaping up. I think such continued surprise is to be the norm.
“However, this belief exists in a vacuum of never having heard the reasons for the current U.S. practice from Church leaders themselves.”
I wish that I could find quotes from them directly, but I do remember some reasons given. Most importantly is that those who marry civilly first are more likely to skip getting sealed in the Temple at any time. Another reason is the devaluing of the sealings of its Eternal significance since someone can go down and have it done by the local law. The Temple then becomes an afterthought. My own belief is that the Church should encourage Temple marriages first and then the couple can do it by civil authority whenever they want; although I see reasons against this as well. Better to combine both without any perception complications.
“For a small example, it isn’t difficult to find in comment sections a call for stripping Churches of all tax exempt status with another saying Churches should be taxed out of existence.”
It isn’t difficult to find in comment sections a call for wholesale slaughter of atheists/gays/theists/whoever the rabid commenters are disagreeing with. I would not take them seriously. The world is not run by the internet peanut gallery.
“Most shocking is that tithing might become optional to entering the Temple. As one critic said:
….
You read it right here. A nascent argument that Churches cannot gather any kind of money regardless of the need to even exist.”
What’s the source? Who said this? Another random rabid netizen, or an actual policymaker? If you want me to take this seriously, please cite a source.
Haters gonna hate. They always have, they always will.
b717, by your own argument I should not take you seriously for not taking my post seriously. You aren’t any policymaker either, so words are of no importance. I really dislike haters are going to hate, because often they end up doing a lot more than that when the haters become powerful enough to take action. History is full of malcontents on every side of issues that end up bending people to their wills when becoming strong enough. All it takes is a good talker with a big enough audience in agreement to tip a nobody into an historical figure.
My own belief is that social media is an important commentary on culture. In turn, culture determines future laws and government policies. The founders declared the need of government for the people, of the people, and by the people for a reason. My feeling is the United States is long past that ideal, but individuals both on and off social media are still collectively powerful. It is enough that trends, even by “trolls,” can be powerful motivators and indicators of future possible directions.
I agree in general Jettboy that times are looking increasingly dire in the short term for religious believers in the Western world. But there are a few long-term trends worth considering. Christianity in general and the LDS church in particular are growing in Africa, Asia and Latin America much faster than secularism. Many people who study these trends point out that it is atheism that will be in retreat, not religiosity.
I am continually impressed that Church leaders every time they speak appear upbeat and optimistic. They have a larger view that includes the marvelous growth of the Church outside of the U.S. and Europe. In addition, they have a better view of how we will get through the negative trends taking place in the U.S. today.
So, we are going to go through some tough times, but if we follow modern-day prophets all things will turn out OK in the long run. And that is an encouraging thought.
Okay, but this still begs the question, why are you worried about those particular trolls, and not others? I’ve read comments from trolls who argue for humankind to all be euthanized for the good of the planet, or who say all heterosexual sex is rape. Why are you taking your trolls as indicative of the future, and not those others? Trolls are just going to troll. Don’t feed them.
b717, you assume I don’t take those “trolls” seriously. No, I take all statements online (unless proven to be hoaxes or admitted goading) very seriously. My reply even explains why I do. For sake of argument, if there was a topic that those would be included as “small examples,” then I would use them. No person (or troll) is an island. In my world there is no such thing as trolls, but this is getting way off topic from my OP. If you have evidence or an argument like Geoff B had that counters mine, then share. I would actually welcome hope that my theories and perceived trends here are less dire than I believe.
If same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land, one thing I could see the church possibly changing would be the one year waiting period between a civil marriage and then a temple sealing.
If it gets to the point of all marriages first needing a civil marriage certificate, and as long as couples are honest about not having pre-marital sex, I can see the church bending a little and allowing sealings shortly after the marriage.
I served my mission in Italy, where it wasn’t possible to get married in the temple and have that recognized as legal. So all couples get married civilly and then soon thereafter get married in the temple.
Within my lifetime that was the case for the many people in the United States who did not live near a temple and would have to travel overnight to reach one of the temples in Utah (namely, that the couple marry civilly before the trip to the temple).
Also, in Italy all members of the population are taxed to help support the operations of the Catholic Church. At the time, I don’t recall that LDS individuals got any civic “credit” for paying tithes.
God and His are able to adapt. If we were able to weather the political and fiscal storms of the 1880s and 1890s, we will be able to weather the social and legal storms of today.
b717,
You say that there are internet comments about slaughtering gays/atheists, etc. but that these are just the peanut gallery. This in response to the assertion that churches may be taxed out of existence.
Let me point out that there are current societies that do both of these things right now. How crazy is it really?
Witness the strength of Saints in adverse conditions throughout history. Yes, many fall away under the pressure of oppression, but those who stay are stronger. I’ve been reading Mosiah 24.
One singular advantage our Church has is the lay ministry wherein ideally every family has at least one member who can officiate in the administration of the Sacrament.
It isn’t just taxes that could be a problem. Take a look into Trinity Western if you aren’t aware. http://bc.ctvnews.ca/mobile/twu-sues-b-c-law-society-over-law-school-accreditation-1.2155548
This university in Canada is losing accreditation because a an honor code type clause where students agree to abstain from sex outside marriage (they define as man/woman due to their religious beliefs). Things like this and the Mozilla Firefox CEO are the most terrifying to me frankly.
I could imagine the church needing to separate civil and temple marriages as has been discussed. Same with bishops performing civil marriages. I predicted that several years ago. I don’t think it’s far fetched that the church would have to adjust its policy for private use of buildings for things like wedding receptions of members. I could see most private use of buildings going away, unfortunately.
“Never since the earliest days has the LDS Church been in such danger of persecution by a mass of Americans … For those who wish to criticise any “the sky is falling” concerns, a reasonable person should read what Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli said in response to Judge Alito’s question:..”
This reads to me that anything less than fully tax-exempt status is supposedly tantamount to persecution. If the possibility of no longer having a more privileged status than most people and organizations in the country is how persecution manifests itself these days, then this whole post does sound a lot like “sky is falling” concerns. I think it is reasonably safe to say that the church will manage just fine through this whether it has to pay some taxes or not.
I tend to think there’s more utility in this post versus that of the “love and SCOTUS” post. There is good reason to prepare for the worst, even though the idea that doing so makes us “fearful” ‘haters’ is quite popular.
Hi Lucinda,
I suspect if you had been waiting in line listening to the most rabid rhetoric for four days, you might have wished to go tell the hate-mongers to tone it down.
In reporting on the experience of my young friend in the Love and SCOTUS post, I am not saying that natural consequences won’t follow. I am merely indicating that there is a difference between dispassionate and principled disagreement on the one hand and ugly hate-filled rhetoric on the other hand.
Meg, I don’t doubt your story not the sincerity of your young friend. I would point out, however, that in Canada, for example, it is considered “hate-filled rhetoric” to simply say: “I am not in favor of gay marriage.” People who say these things publicly face trial and fines for “hate speech.” We are living in a topsy-turvy world where many common sense rules of behavior and free speech are being abandoned before our eyes. It would be nice to see people caring about this problem as well.
When it comes to the SCOTUS case, the arguments have already been made, and the justices will decide as they will decide.
Those in favor of same gender marriage see themselves in the tradition of the 1967 Loving v. Virginia, where SCOTUS swept away any remaining state laws prohibiting interracial marriage.
What most fail to see is that Loving v. Virginia did not change the basic nature of marriage, while providing blanket federal approval for same-gender marriage does fundamentally change the nature of marriage.
Examining Loving v. Virginia, which one might have expected the 1967 ruling to impact the LDS Church, given the policy from Brigham Young’s era to 1978 of declining priesthood to Black individuals. Yet I am unaware of any push to strip the Church of the legal right to solemnize marriages in the temples based on this policy. Mormons were widely seen as backward and bigoted because of the policy, but it didn’t face the consequences that are projected if same-gender marriage is legalized at the federal level.
In this I don’t mean to suggest that there won’t be such a push if SCOTUS decides to set precedent supporting same-gender marriage. But such a push would go against the precedent of Loving v. Virginia, which legalized interracial marriage at the federal level but stopped short of criminalizing private and religious organizations that had policies preventing certain interracial marriages.
I will be interested to see what comes forward from the bench. In particular, it will be interesting to see if SCOTUS, surely aware of how approval of same-gender marriage has played out in places like Canada, will render opinions that speak not only to marriage but the impact recognizing such marriages might have on the liberty and free speech of others.
Huh – I must have done an inadvertant cut and paste, since I can’t make any sense of one of my paragraphs above. The gist of what I intended was that we can look to the impact of Loving v. Virginia on the LDS Church ability to perform marriages as a precedent for the possible impact of a SCOTUS ruling legitimizing same-gender marriage at the federal level.
In most states, religious leaders are able to celebrate weddings by registering as such with the local clerk of court. Therefore, when sealings are performed, the sealer is wearing two hats — one for the state, and one for the church. (Whereas in Europe for the most part, religious leaders (other than the predominate state religion) can’t even register as officials to represent the state). Although SSM advocates have not overtly stated so, I believe that if SSM is approved, advocates will say because a sealer/stake president/bishop/ wears a state hat, then he can’t discriminate. If he doesn’t want to do SSM’s, then he shouldn’t register with the state and thus be limited to only religious ceremonies, similar to what is done in Europe. When that happens, I think the church will change it’s policy and require civil ceremonies to be done first, followed immediately by temple sealings. Then, all the people who complain about the one year waiting period will finally be satisfied.
Hi IDIAT,
I don’t know that the one year waiting period would be waived for those who would still incur the waiting period today (new converts, those who married with no expectation of being worthy of the temple, those who were previously sealed and had not begun the process of having the prior sealing appropriately adjudicated as necessary).
To Lucinda and Geoff,
Regarding the matter of how we interact with those we do not agree with, I liked these comments Elder Oaks made in Argentina, regarding religious faith in increasingly secular public discourse:
“We should love all people, be good listeners, and show concern for the sincere beliefs of others. We should be wise in explaining and pursuing our positions and in exercising our influence. We should seek the understanding and support of nonbelievers.”
I’m sure I would have been irritated by obnoxious individuals, most especially if I felt they were embarrassing my side. But at the same time, I understand their desperation. Like you pointed out with the Joseph Smith issues regarding various offensive words, the fear of being too explicit has led to misunderstanding. And I might say the same regarding this issue: Being too embarrassed by allegiance to unpopular yet ardent emotion lends credence to the idea that we are not strong believers.
I don’t see that as being a real problem when it comes to the actual arguments, or the decisions the justices will make, but as a concerned onlooker, looking for encouragement, I sometimes feel like Justice Alito when someone yelled out something about hell: “It’s actually kinda refreshing”. Refreshing when people act like it actually matters. If someone were to quietly inform “You are about to go off a cliff”, versus the one who yells “You are about to go off a cliff!”, how you feel about that person depends on whether they are in earnest. For someone who genuinely believes we’re headed off a cliff, some urgency is in order if love is there.
It reminds me of that scene in the old Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, when Wonka warns the bad child in a deadpan tone. It’s clear he cares nothing for the child, and the child’s calamity is no tragedy for Wonka.
The Church exists to do a number of things (encompassed in the four-fold mission of the Church – re: Monson, rather than Kimball), but one of those objectives is to make available and perform the essential ordinances of exaltation. Marriage when defined as a legal contract is NOT an essential ordinance. A Sealing IS an essential ordinance. Common North American practice within the Church is to combine the two in one ceremony (as everyone reading this page likely knows) but as Church practice in many other parts of the world demonstrates this is not required from a Gospel (eternal truth) perspective.
Regarding persecution: What we are being faced with is the possibility of potentially losing (some of) our favored status (tax exemptions and performs civil ceremonies). I realize that having tax exempt status makes it easier for people to donate tithes and offerings, and it makes those tithes and offerings go farther in doing God’s work, but really equating that possible loss with the severe persecutions which resulted in death and imprisonment in the early decades of the Church’s existence in the US seems a poor comparison.
What we “know” from scripture and various modern Conference talks is that the Church will exist as a functional entity right up to, and through, the Millennium. Some members will fall away but the Church will not be removed from the earth. The proper ordinances will be available.
The primary reason (from an eternal perspective) for the US to exist was/is to: 1) serve as a safe environment for the Restoration to take place, 2) provide a safe environment for the Gospel to issue forth from, 3) provide the financial wherewithal to the Church to pay for the work. Historically it came within a (metaphorical) cat’s whisker of failing the first objective multiple times (and may well come close again), with regards to the second objective the US passports many of our missionaries carry have protected them pretty well (likely better than any other country’s they could have been carrying – certainly the case since WWI), and for the third objective the US (meaning primarily the Wasatch Front) pretty much “carries” the rest of the world-wide Church financially.
We may be in for a bit of turbulence, but the work will go forth and we will be fine.
I’m generally skeptical of apocalyptic scenarios, but I’m starting to become more enchanted with doomsday as I grow older. I wonder, suppose the church lost BYU and its tax exempt status. Would it be entirely a bad thing? BYU takes up an enormous chunk of the church budget and its services are available for an increasingly smaller percentage of members. What about a post-BYU church? If we cut the BYU budget and used it to further spiritual and educational efforts elsewhere, could it possibly do even better?
When I read David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, I was impressed that Ernest Wilkinson was able to go around the strong objections of the 12, appealing directly to President McKay in order to garner extraordinary resources for BYU unopposed. BYU is fantastic of course, but did others like President Lee have a point? Could that money have been better used elsewhere? Is it fair that tithes around the world finance the education of an increasingly elite minority of members?
nate, I love you bro, but your refrain of white/US guilt has gotten too familiar. 😉
If you’re implying that BYU attendance by a “disproportionate” number of US students is somehow unfair, i would counter that non-US students attending BYU as a percentage of total BYU entrollment very likely exceeds Non-US tithing income as a percentage of total tithing income.
Nate, the United States is a place where any group who wants to set up a college can do so. You can find quips from the late 19th Century that “There are more colleges in Ohio than in France and Germany combined.” There weren’t more people, wealth, or intelligence in Ohio, just opportunity to try to build something. That freedom to create included a flowering of non-established religious schools, the Texas Christians, Pepperdines, and Brigham Youngs. By what ratio do Lutheran colleges in American outnumber those in Germany?
I wish that LDS in other countries had church-sponsored higher education available where that works in other countries’ cultures. Taking away what can work in the United States, in order to level everything, is a direction I dislike.
meg, i think idiat was referring specifically to the one-year waiting period that current temple-recommend-holding (or otherwise temple worthy) individuals must abide by if they get married civilly first, before they can then go get sealed in the temple. Had they not had that civil marriage first, they could have gone directly to the temple to be legally married and sealed.
The “complainers” he was referring to are usually converts with nonmember or part member families who complain about missing “the wedding”.
My guess is that the policy’s intent is to instill in people’s minds that the sealing should be elevated to be considered “the wedding” and not an afterthought.
For those readers who dont know, when an engaged lds couple are already temple-recommend holders as individuals, and they plan on getting married in a Temple, they still need a temple marriage/sealing recommend from their bishop (and SP?) for that specific ceremony/ordinance.
—
Related:
My understanding is that if they get married civilly first, they don’t lose their individual recommends, and can still go to the temple. Can someone confirm that?