-->
A
Response to the LDS Policy Change Regarding the Children of Same-Sex Couples
There are honestly SO MANY thoughts and ideas I
have encountered while doing my personal exploration of this topic. At the risk of leaving things out that
are close to my heart, I earnestly tried to make this post as short as possible,
but it seemed to just keep growing.
Please know that my thoughts on this are numerous and varied and seem to
change a little every day; and please know that I acknowledge that this is a
very tricky subject, with many hurt people in its wake; and please know that if
you feel heartbroken but are still trying to be faithful, YOU ARE NOT ALONE.
“’Don’t give up… Don’t you quit. You keep walking.
You keep trying. There is help and happiness ahead—a lot of it—… You keep your chin up. It will be all
right in the end. Trust God and believe in good things to come.’”
A
High Priest of Good Things to Come, 1999
Elder Jeffrey R.
Holland
Are
you ever burdened with a load of care?
Does the cross seem heavy you are called to bear?
…
So
amid the conflict, whether great or small, do
not be discouraged; God is over all.
Count
Your Blessings, Johnson Oatman, Jr.
LDS Hymnal
With that in mind, here it goes…
The
Topic:
Recent policy changes in The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints regarding the children of same-sex couples.
The
Primary Source:
Handbook
1, AKA “The White Handbook.” Specifically, new Section 16.13.
Source
Content:
November 3, 2015
Policies on Ordinances for Children of a Parent
Living in a Same-Gender Relationship
The following additions to Handbook 1
have been approved by the Council of the First Presidency
and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for immediate implementation.
A new section in Handbook 1, 16.13 will be added as follows:
Children
of a Parent Living in a Same-Gender Relationship
A natural or adopted child of a parent living in
a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may
not receive a name and a blessing. A natural or adopted child of a parent
living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or
cohabiting, may be baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for
missionary service only as follows: A mission president or a stake president
may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and
confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who
has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by
personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met:
1. The child accepts and is committed to live
the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the
practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.
2. The child is of legal age and does not live
with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation
relationship or marriage.
The
Gist:
Children cannot become baptized, fully
participating members of the LDS church if their parents are a homosexual
couple, regardless of the child’s own sexual orientation or identity.
The
Clarification:
Special emphasis was made by many members that this clarification letter
included specific language that everyone at church should treat the children at
issue with the “utmost respect and love.” This is right and good. Yet, to many, this emphasis seems
incompatible with the whole policy in the first place. Hence,
the great divide, as I will discuss.
The
Context:
After a decade of fighting gay marriage in
defense of traditional families, only to legally lose that battle in the United
States (although no doctrines or practices of the Church changed), the Church
seemed to respond to this loss with love
towards gay people and to reach out with open arms and the invitation of, “Come,
there is space for you here.” Then, just a few short months later, this policy change left
many people confused. Are we loving or are we rejecting? Is there
really “space” here for gay people or not?
It is not particularly surprising that gay
couples would be limited in their membership activities—in fact, it is not
surprising at all. It was,
however, a huge surprise to many
that prohibitions against the families of gay couples would extend to the most
innocent members of their families, by forbidding their worthy, willing children
to be baptized.
Frankly, the way this all came about indicated
to me that the First Presidency did not think
this would be such a big deal to the membership and to outsiders. Rather than a polished Mormon Newsroom
article or press release, which typically accompanies any change or response of
any significance, this policy change was “leaked” by the press and immediately
inflamed thousands upon thousands via social media. A haphazard video response by a member of the Quorum of the
Twelve Apostles, Elder D. Todd Christofferson, seemingly thrown together in an
effort to calm the flames, did little to calm many members. Those who were aware that Elder
Christofferson has an openly gay brother in the Church were often more agitated
than soothed, feeling like this task was placed upon Elder Christofferson to try to use his
brother’s reputation to make peace with the community.
The
Uncomfortable Question About Prophetic Authority:
Many have found some solace in dismissing the
problem as a mere policy issue. Their
solace rests on the idea that since this is not a doctrinal change, it is not something that should particularly
concern us lay-members, and it is not something that should be construed as
undermining the prophet’s ability to direct the doctrine of the Church.
While it IS true that this is undeniably policy, and NOT doctrine, there still lies the question of, Shouldn’t the prophet not make mistakes when
leading the Church, even in matters of “mere policy?”
To that end, I think people in the Church struggling with this policy are actually hung
up on concerns about prophetic authority more than they are hung up on the actual content of the policy. After all, can anyone really say they are surprised that the LDS Church would somewhat
disenfranchise gay families? The problem, to me, seems to be the uncomfortable place people go when talking
themselves through the possibility that the prophet may have made a mistake. I imagine many people spinning their wheels
through this no-win line of thinking:
1) The prophet was wrong, or
2) The prophet was right
If the prophet was wrong,
then perhaps
a)
Prophets cannot be trusted, or
b) Prophets are just people who make mistakes
If the prophet was
right, then
a) I doubt my ability to understand or agree
with basic doctrine of this church, and perhaps
b) I don’t want to be a part of this enterprise
any longer.
If this is the spiral you are stuck in, remember,
PLEASE remember, that we view our prophet in a far different way than the
Catholic world views the Pope; the prophet is NOT an infallible being.
“The Church of Jesus Christ has always
been led by living prophets and apostles. Though mortal and subject to human imperfection, the Lord’s servants are
inspired to help us avoid obstacles that are spiritually life threatening and
to help us pass safely through mortality to our final, ultimate, heavenly
destination.”
Elder M. Russell Ballard
God is at the Helm, 2015
In other words, prophets are people, too. Here are just a few examples:
Noah got drunk and
shamed himself.
The Brother of Jared
forgot to pray for a good while.
Joseph Smith described
his younger years (although he had already been called of God at this point and
visited by God, Christ, and angels) in this way, “I frequently fell into
many foolish errors, and displayed the weakness of youth, and the foibles of
human nature; which, I am sorry to say, led me into divers temptations,
offensive in the sight of God…”
Brigham Young decided that
black church members couldn’t hold the Priesthood, despite several having been
ordained by his predecessor, Joseph Smith. (More on that in a minute)
And on and on and on… These were all policy
decisions or personal decisions by prophets that were not in harmony with
traditional doctrine. And yet,
right or wrong, they happened. We
know they happened. And we still
honor these men as prophets who were inspired by God to lead His people during their time period.
Although I would like to believe that I will always have 100% confidence in ALL
official action taken by the prophet, if he does something I do not agree with,
history suggests that it is not the end of the world. Having personal opinions that are seemingly incongruous with Church policy does not convince me to start packing my spiritual bags and leave
the Church.
What I truly believe is that when I do have
questions about policy decisions made by the leadership of the Church, I have every right to pray about it
myself. And if I do not agree with
said policy, but I still believe in the divinity of this work (which I do), it
is OKAY for me to have my own opinions and to carry on as a faithful follower
of Christ and a supporter of the LDS Church organization.
The
Divide:
A couple passages that immediately come to mind
that seemingly refute this new policy are the following:
But
Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid
them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew
19:14
We
believe that men should be punished for their
own sins…
Articles
of Faith: 2
To me, these scriptures contradict the constant,
automaton battle cry of the policy’s supporters, “It’s for the kids! It
protects the kids!”
And from what, pray tell, is this protecting the
kids? Protecting them from
receiving the saving ordinances of the gospel?! It is certainly not protecting
them from the ridicule of their peers, that –if you know anything about
kids—will surely come.
You contend that this policy protects the kids
of homosexual parents. You contend
that it protects them from a lack of “harmony” between their church and home
environments. (See the published policy clarification above) I can only interject
that there are NO parallels between this policy and other family/living situations
that are also not in harmony with gospel ideals. There are no sanctions for kids when parents divorce. No sanctions for a kid who is born out
of wedlock. No sanctions for kids
born to cohabitating straight parents.
No sanctions for kids born to Nazi/hate group/KKK families. None. The singling out of gay families at a time when Gay Marriage
has just been legalized, has the unfortunate appearance of retaliation and,
insidiously, the only casualties are innocent children.
If only the Church had come right out and said
something like, “We want to protect ALL the kids in the Church so they are not
confused that homosexual marriage is a valid lifestyle sanctioned by the
Church.”
If only the Church leaders had used this logic
of protecting ALL kids from being under a false impression that gay marriage is
no big deal in the LDS church, then I would have had a much easier time swallowing this policy. But the claim that this is to generously aid only the kids
of gay parents is paternalistic and –sorry—not valid.
If the church had even been so bold as to state that,
“Temple
marriage is our #1 priority. Regardless
of the legalization of gay marriage, we want our Church to be a place where
heterosexual temple marriages reign supreme, so we are enacting this policy to
make a statement in our community so that people don’t forget what our #1 is.”
Sounds a bit harsh, but for me, I actually
appreciate it more than some beat-around-the-bush, patronizing, one-sided
“harmony of environments” excuse.
The
History:
For better or for worse, in my biracial little family,
we tend to examine those pronouncements coming from the prophet that don’t
sound quite right to us, through the lens of the early Priesthood Ban. As you are certainly aware, from
the time when Brigham Young was prophet, all the way through to the issuance of Official Declaration
2 by President Spencer W. Kimball in 1978, nearly all non-whites were banned
from the Priesthood and from temple ordinances.
Doctrinally, this made no sense. Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of
this dispensation and the prophet immediately preceding Brigham Young, was
known to have fully included black Americans in the church. In fact, (fun fact!) when Joseph Smith
ran for President of the United States (told you it would be a fun fact!), a
major tenet of his campaign platform for President was the abolition of the
slaves. From a pamphlet for his
campaign:
“The Declaration of Independence ‘holds these
truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;’ but at the same time some two or
three millions of people are held as slaves for life, because the spirit in
them is covered with a darker skin.”
A great side note is that he planned to have the
federal government re-pay slaveholders for lost “property” upon abolition, in
part, by reducing Congress’ pay!
Can’t say that I disagree!
At any rate, keeping blacks from the Priesthood
was simply not part of the program before Brigham Young led the show. I have heard several people chalk up
the whole prohibition to President Young being “racist.” That is an easy accusation to make, and
perhaps it is true. I am, however,
just humble enough to acknowledge that even if something doesn’t make sense to me, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it
still might not make sense for some other purpose of which I am unaware.
I have tried to consider scenarios in which,
even though banning blacks from the priesthood was WRONG and is now recognized
by Church leadership as wrong (https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng)
, it still may have been in God’s
wisdom to command His prophet to do so.
Here is one of my utterly ridiculous scenarios: if blacks had been equal
participants in the Church from the beginning, such that maybe we had a black
prophet during WWII, maybe Hitler would have blitzed Salt Lake City right along
with London.
There were a lot of maybes in there and, like I said, it’s a pretty ridiculous notion. But I hope it serves to illustrate my
point that maybe the prophet, as
inspired by God, sometimes promulgates things that may not make sense and may
even seem doctrinally wrong, but they do have some unseen purpose in the end,
known only to God.
Similarly, I have opened to the idea that even
though prohibiting children in gay families from Church membership does not
make much sense to me, and even seems wrong, it may have some unseen purpose in
the end. And, like the Priesthood
Ban, it may even later be condemned as an error. The legalization of gay marriage in the United States certainly
still stings Church leadership, and I cannot see a revision of this policy coming (if
at all) any time soon.
Until then, I cannot change my personal opinion regarding the irrationality of
this policy. But I can change my attitude and, rather than breed
anger and outrage, develop trust that all will be made right in the end and
that, perhaps a greater unseen purpose is being served here, even if at the
expense of so many tender hearts.
My
Commentary:
There’s Room For You
I had a hard time verbalizing this split-mind
stance until I finished reading Harper Lee’s controversial, recently-published Go Set a Watchman. I could not help but seeing Jean Louise
“Scout” Finch as me, or as my friends who feel like their opposition to the
policy is their cue to leave the Mormon community.
By the end of the novel, Scout’s world has been
shattered after seeing her father in a completely new light—not the
open-minded, fair, idealist, White Knight whom she had grown to emulate and
practically worship. Shockingly, her
hero and exemplar now looked more like a racist imposter than the guardian of
truth she had so adored. She tries
to run to the train station and leave her hometown in Alabama behind forever,
taking solace from what she perceives as her wrecked mirage of a childhood, to
New York City where she has been attending college.
Her father’s brother, Uncle Jack/Dr. Finch, is
trying to convince her to stay, to teach her that this let-down from her father
has a higher purpose and that there is a still a place for her in Maycomb,
Alabama, betrayed though she may feel.
Here, Uncle Jack is asking about her hurt and her disappointment in her father, which are finally
beginning to subside.
From near the end of the book:
“…look back, now,” her
uncle was saying. “It’s still
there, isn’t it?”
She
looked. It was there, all
right. Every word of it. But something was different. She sat in silence, remembering.
“Uncle
Jack,” she finally said.
“Everything’s still there.
It happened. It was. But you know, it’s bearable
somehow. It’s—it’s bearable.”
…
“Do
you know why it’s bearable now, my darling?
…It’s bearable, Jean
Louise, because you are your own person now… Every man’s island, Jean Louise, every man’s watchman, is
his conscience. …now you, Miss,
born with your own conscience, somewhere along the line fastened it like a
barnacle onto your father’s. As you grew up, when you were grown,
totally unknown to yourself, you confused your father with God. You never saw him as a man with a man’s
heart, and a man’s failings—I’ll grant you it may have been hard to see, he
makes so few mistakes, but he makes ‘em like all of us. You were an emotional cripple, leaning
on him, assuming that your answers would always be his answers.”
She listened to the figure on the sofa.
“When you happened
along and saw him doing something that seemed to you to be the very antithesis
of his conscience—your conscience—you literally could not stand it. It made you physically ill. Life became hell on earth for you…”
…
Ah! Have I likewise fastened my own conscience and beliefs to the Church leadership like a barnacle? Am I so used to leeching off of their spirituality that when my own thoughts are separate from theirs, that I "literally cannot stand it?" Could my confusion between my beliefs and their beliefs be the crux of the problem?
Again, from Uncle Jack:
“…Prejudice, a dirty word, and faith, a
clean one, have something in common: they both begin where reason ends…It’s one
of the oddities of this world.”
When Scout is deciding where to go now, Uncle
Jack continues his loving teaching, encouraging her to stay in Maycomb, Alabama,
despite her initial desire to return to New York:
“Well,
at the risk of overloading you, could you possibly give an undertaking to thing
about it? You may not know it, but
there’s room for you down here.”
“You
mean Atticus needs me?”
“Not
altogether. I was thinking of
Maycomb.”
“That’d be great, with me on one side
and everybody else on the other.
If life’s an endless flow of the kind of {racist} talk I heard this
morning, I don’t think I’d exactly fit in.”
“That’s
the one thing about here, the South, you’ve missed. You’d be amazed if you knew how many people are on your
side, if side’s the right word. You’re no special case. The woods are full of people like you,
but we need some more of you.”
She started the car and backed it down the driveway. She said, “What on earth can I do? I can’t fight them. There’s no fight in me any more…”
“I
don’t mean by fighting; I mean by going to work every morning, coming home at
night, seeing your friends {} …the time your friends need you is when they’re
wrong, Jean Louise. {} …it takes a certain kind of maturity to
live in the South these days.”
Change Uncle Jack’s words to apply to YOU—
“You’d
be amazed if you knew how many people are on your side, if side’s the right
word. You’re no special case. The Church is full of people like you,
but we need some more of you… It
takes a certain kind of maturity to be a Mormon these days, with all of the
baggage that comes along with that word.
But the Church needs to see you, with your own political/social
opinions, still being faithful every day and still cherishing the truths of the
gospel, regardless of your seemingly contrary opinions.”
Collectivism VS Individualism
As Uncle Jack told Scout, I do believe that it
takes maturity to be different—in this case, it takes great Spiritual Maturity
to consider, ponder, and pray about questions for yourself, but to still give
deference to inspired leaders even if you aren’t quite sure you’re on the same
page. To me, this is one of the
most interesting things about the LDS Church—it is simultaneously a society
based on collectivism AND on individualism.
Examples?
Christ atoned for all mankind with
incomprehensible power and application, yet we are each individually required
to utilize the Atonement in our lives to give it any effect.
The gospel is for everyone, but you must choose
to be baptized for yourself.
We aspire to perform baptisms for the dead for all who have passed, yet we acknowledge
that a proxy baptism has no efficacy unless the deceased person him- or herself consents to accept the
ordinance performed.
We use home teaching and visiting teaching to
connect everyone as a unit and learn what is going on in everyone’s lives, yet
your personal sins are confidential and dealt with individually with your
Bishop.
We
believe that the prophet has stuardship to speak to all the world, promulgating
God’s will, yet all members are encouraged to pray for themselves and receive
personal revelation that the prophet is truly called of God and is truly
speaking for God in every instance.
And
how can this dualism be possible?
I suggest that it is possible because there is a homogeneity of doctrine, but not
of one’s experiences, beliefs, or opinions. The society of saints is expected to assist the one, but ultimately the one is responsible for his or her
own conversion.
In other words, there are many things that are
universal—the Commandments, God’s love, Christ’s atonement—and yet these
universal things mean little without the alignment of our individual hearts,
minds, and actions to them.
Elder
Gerald N. Lund of the Seventy taught:
“Individual agency is so
sacred that Heavenly Father will never force the human heart, even with all His
infinite power. Man may try to do so, but God does not. To put it another way,
God allows us to be the guardians, or the gatekeepers, of our own hearts. We
must, of our own free will, open our hearts to the Spirit, for He will not
force Himself upon us”
Opening
Our Hearts
Ensign,
May 2008
Even Elder Christofferson, in his policy-related
put-out-the-fire video, was candid in
admitting that the church does not attempt to practice “mind control.” There will always be differences of
opinion and ideas among members of the Church (Mitt Romney and Harry Reid,
anyone?) And yet for each of us, there
is always the same goal: to press on. To approach perfection, little by
little. To develop the qualities
and characteristics of godliness.
The Tree of
Life—Pressing On
One of the best known images/parables in the
Mormon faith is Lehi’s vision –and subsequently Nephi’s identical vision—of the
Tree of Life. To re-cap, the Tree
of Life bears sweet, bright white fruit that is more delicious than anything
and represents Eternal Life—the greatest of all the gifts of God to His
righteous children. The fruit can
only be tasted by people who complete the journey to the Tree of Life, which
includes following a treacherous path alongside dirty rivers, mists of
darkness, and detractors along the way.
The only way one can possibly complete this journey is by holding
tightly to an iron rod that lines the path to the tree. This rod is interpreted in the text as
representing the Word of God (the scriptures, the words of the prophets,
revelation).
This parable is instrumental in understanding
the heartfelt expressions of a local Stake President on this policy
change. The Stake President of
whom I speak is internationally known businessman, David Checketts, who
gathered locals together for an opportunity to seek inspiration on this policy
change. The New Canaan, Connecticut,
stake hosted a fireside where President Checketts and others spoke, including
the openly gay brother of Elder D. Todd Christofferson – Tom Christofferson— whom I mentioned earlier. My husband and I could not pass up this
opportunity to seek balm in Gilead.
We did not hear what we expected to hear, but our hearts were comforted,
and we felt unity with many others who had the same questions as we did.
President Checketts compared himself to one of
the people in Lehi’s vision who grasped the iron rod, hoping to reach the Tree
of Life. For me, the most moving
part of this whole fireside was when this faithful, strong, successful man
admitted to one and all that he feels like, right now, he is in the mists of darkness— just barely hanging on to the iron
rod.
Similarly, we each have the goal to get to the
Tree, but when darkness comes upon us, sometimes we lose our place, or we lose
confidence in the direction we are going.
But as Lehi and Nephi taught, firmly grasping onto the Iron Rod –God’s
word—even when the darkness is choking us, is the only way we can hope to make
it to the Tree, and partake of the fruit that is “sweet above all that is
sweet.”
It was also a special experience to hear Tom Christofferson
speak at this fireside. He was
very upfront in stating that his purpose was not to provide a rationale for the
recent policy changes, but to help us all think together about the work of
disciples –our work as disciples— in
trying times. When things are
difficult, uncomfortable, or even heartbreaking, a true disciple of Christ
would not use that as an excuse to abandon his Master. Rather, times of trial are times when
the world needs the message of Jesus Christ the most.
“His love impels us to emulate His character…
bring the balm of His love to all who are around us, and be a beacon to bring
all to Christ. We may want to withdraw, but seek to serve
others now more than ever… I pray
that the experiences of recent days will fuel our determination to share
Christ’s love… Move forward in
peace, with faith enough for today. Our testimonies of the Savior, Jesus Christ, can testify
that none are beyond His reach; we
can reach out with testimony and change the world.”
(Note that I only took notes by hand at this meeting, but I did my best to be accurate.) Tom
Christofferson; November 15, 2015
New Canaan Stake
Fireside
I appreciated the faithful words of Brother
Christofferson and President Checketts immensely. To complement their touching reverence for the Lord, His
work, and His love; I share a favorite hymn, based on a favorite scripture, that
I think really speaks to the situation at hand:
Press forward,
Saints, with steadfast faith in Christ,
With
hope's bright flame alight in heart and mind,
With love of God and love of all mankind.
Alleluia!
Alleluia! Alleluia!
Press forward,
feasting on the word of Christ.
Receive
his name, rejoicing in his might.
Come
unto God; find everlasting light.
Alleluia!
Alleluia! Alleluia!
Press on,
enduring in the ways of Christ.
His love proclaim thru days of mortal
strife.
Thus
saith our God: "Ye have eternal life!"
Alleluia!
Alleluia! Alleluia!
Press Forward, Saints
by Marvin K. Gardner
LDS
Hymnal
2 Nephi 31:20 Wherefore,
ye must press forward with a
steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and
of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of
Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have
eternal life.
(Note that it doesn’t say, “Be the proverbial
ideal” or, “Be happy all the time”
or, “Know all the answers.” It
says that pressing forward—just
hanging in there!— regardless of the storms raging inside and out, is what will
bring eternal life!)
Elijah
Teaching seminary, I became re-acquainted this
semester with a scriptural story in the Old Testament that has undeniable
relevance. Recall that in the book
of 1st Kings, the Israelites are now divided into two kingdoms. The northern kingdom, Israel (as
opposed to Judah in the south), has turned to idolatry and a famine has now smitten
the land for several years. The
prophet is currently Elijah and the Lord has been sustaining him near a brook,
which ultimately dries up. Elijah
comes to Zarephath for sustenance, and there he encounters a widow and her son,
who are resigned to their last bit of flour and oil to prepare their last meal before
they wait for death. Elijah does
something unthinkably selfish and cruel—he tells the widow that, instead of
feeding her desperate self and her starving son, that she should use her last
bit of food to feed Elijah himself!
The depravity! Taking food out of the mouth of an innocent child! How very wrong this seems. Today, the Church always puts family first and I cannot imagine a
Bishop or a missionary or the prophet ever asking a starving mother for such a
sacrifice. But here, this woman who
wouldn’t even have known Elijah, is asked to sacrifice she and her son’s last
chance at living for this out-of-touch old guy!
But miraculously, when this small, suffering
family endures their pain for a little longer and chooses to sacrifice their
tiny portion of food to this stranger because he, the prophet, asks them to in
the name of the God of Israel, somehow, they are provided for. Somehow they have enough to sustain
them. Somehow they press on and live.
Conclusion:
I have no idea what will happen next, but I
cannot see a reversal of this new policy in the near future, if at all. I still cannot say that I agree with
the policy. But I do feel at peace
that the prophet, though a fallible human being like the rest of us, speaks for
the Lord when inspired to do so.
As I do on many issues, I have no qualms separating my personal,
sometimes political, opinions from my understanding of doctrine or from
accepted Church traditions. As I
have been trying to show, one can accept idealistic doctrine and aspire for
righteous perfection, while still living in the real world and embracing a
loving realism towards one’s fellow humans. Not all good people have enduring temple marriages; not all
good people have even heard of temples.
So idealism can only take us so far in this world. I believe in striving for universal ideals
as I assess my own improvement, but I also believe in meeting people where
they are, serving them where they are, and loving them where they are, regardless
of the ideals. Love will win. Loving realism, coupled with faith,
will certainly make all things right in the end. So press on and
hope for better days ahead.
Again, from Elder Holland:
“’Don’t give up… Don’t you quit. You keep
walking. You keep trying. There is help and happiness ahead—a lot of it—… You keep your chin up. It will be all
right in the end. Trust God and believe in good things to come.’”
