Jesus warned Peter that “Satan desireth to have you, that he may sift you as wheat.” What does it mean to be “sifted as wheat?” Elder Oaks stated that it means to be rendered mundane, like the Nephites who lost the Spirit and became “weak like unto [their] brethren” (Morm. 2:26), left to rely on their own strength and wisdom, without the gifts of the Spirit. We need that flame burning brightly to avoid deception.
Those convinced they are sinners are a step closer to God than those who are doing the wrong thing, yet are also convinced that they are doing God’s work. What a coup—for Satan to convince us we are righteous when we are sinning. “The devil has great power to deceive; he will so transform things as to make one gape at those who are doing the will of God” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph smith, p. 227).
Peter was asked by the Savior to accompany Him into the Garden of Gethsemane. He asked Peter to stay awake, but Peter fell asleep. Perhaps he was bewildered by Jesus’ many painful predictions of His own death, as well as Peter’s imminent betrayal. A stomach full of Passover dinner, the largest and most lavish meal of the year, probably contributed to his exhaustion. Whatever the case, Peter slept through part of the greatest event in history, the hours Christ suffered in the Garden for our sins. When the agony of Gethsemane was complete, and the next phase of the Atonement was about to begin, Jesus told Peter, “Sleep on now, and take your rest: it is enough, the hour is come; behold, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners” (Mark 14:41). Peter had slept when Jesus needed him; now Peter springs into action when the Lord has told him to go back to sleep.
Judas identifies Jesus for the mob with a kiss; Peter pulls out a sword and strikes off the ear of Malchus, the servant of the High Priest. Jesus tells Peter, “Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?” First Jesus asks Peter to stay awake, and he sleeps. Then Jesus says it is time for His betrayal, and Peter tries to prevent it. Peter follows the mob and Jesus back to the city when Jesus had specifically told Peter to go back to sleep. If Peter had laid down in the Garden and slept instead of following the mob, he would not have denied knowing Jesus, or wept bitterly. If he had done as Jesus told him, none of those painful outcomes would have followed.
How easy it is to fight for the wrong cause, to have our ladders propped against the wrong wall. An old military adage asks, “Is this the hill you want to die on?” Gamaleel warned the zealous Pharisees to wait and see what came of Jesus’ disciples, not to persecute them prematurely. If they were not of God, the sect would die off without their help; if not, their persecutors would “be found to fight against God.” Saul of Tarsus, later the Apostle Paul, was one of those persecutors. He fulfilled the prophecy of the Savior that “...the time cometh that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me” (John 16:2-3). Paul and Peter both made grievous errors while believing that they were doing good.
Joseph Smith warned against “zeal not according to knowledge”—undereducated enthusiasm. Peter acted with great enthusiasm, but was unwittingly interfering with the Atonement. Paul fought with great zeal against Christians, until the Lord told him to stop. King Saul thought he could placate the mob and God at the same time by saving the cattle he was commanded to destroy, and use them for burnt offerings instead. His attempt to serve two masters lost him his crown and his soul.
I recently read a sign held by a young woman in a photo that said MORMONS FOR NON-TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE. The article next to the photo explained that there had been a rally in support of gay marriage, and that the crowd had included several BYU students. I understand that there are many members of the Church who support the idea of marriage consisting of something other than one man and one woman. These desires spring from the virtues of kindness, generosity, tolerance, open-mindedness, and egalitarianism. But, as we have established above, it is possible to have pure motives while doing the wrong thing. Is there a higher law than kindness? Yes, it is obedience to "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." That includes following His ordained servants. Members of the Church may or may not have read The Family: A Proclamation to the World. The first paragraph states, "We, the First Presidency
and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a
woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s
plan for the eternal destiny of His children." The Proclamation on the Family was signed by all members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.
This position was reaffirmed recently: "We firmly support the divinely appointed definition of marriage as the
union between a man and a woman because it is the single most important
institution for strengthening children, families, and society." Members of the Church who support the current popular trends of
alternatives to traditional marriage are in open opposition to the
governing body of the Church. If the Church were a democracy, and questions of right and wrong could be solved through democratic processes or debate, it would not be governed by revelation. (That was the sure sign that Christianity had been corrupted in the 4th century—questions of doctrine were hammered out by committees instead of direct revelation.) If the Church is governed by revelation to the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, debate and speculation have no place directing the Church. "Kingdom" is not "democracy."
Contained within the above statement by the leaders of the Church is a nugget of understanding that has eluded many people, including myself until recently: while spouses can and should derive benefit from marriage, the main purpose of marriage is to beget children in an environment best suited to their development. Statistically speaking, children fare better when they are raised by their biological parents. Adoption and divorce tend to produce poorer quality environments than traditional marriage for children. Governments depend on successful marriages to provide something no other institution can adequately generate: the next generation of healthy, moral, law abiding citizens. Adoption, and a multitude of other arrangements, can produce notable exceptions to this rule, but they are exceptions, and laws are drafted to govern millions of people, not thousands of exceptions. Why should a government or church support a version of marriage that, by definition, automatically excludes one or both of the biological parents from raising their children? Dead-beat parents are already a social problem that creates a host of ills; why sponsor a system that encourages one or both biological parents to surrender their duties of caring for their kids?
Reference is often made to an imaginary "right" to have one's sexual preference endorsed as a matter of public record. If marriage were primarily about the needs of adults, this would make sense. But there is no compelling reason to do this for homosexual relationships, because such activity has no lasting consequences outside their relationship. On the other hand, it makes sense for governments and churches to support lasting, committed relationships between men and women, because whether they stay together or not, their relationship will create the next generation of citizens. Whether that next generation is emotionally, socially, spiritually, physically, and financially ready to stand up and replace the old generation depends largely on the durability of the relationship of its biological parents. Any measure government can take, any privilege it can extend, to encourage couples to promise life-long fidelity to each other will benefit the next generation, and by extension, the everyone else. One person can live a hundred years. Whether that person spends those hundred years as a burden or a blessing to society depends greatly on the quality of the relationship between parents during formative years.
"Equality" is the rallying cry for most gay-marriage proponents. As harsh as it may seem, equality in law is already established. Anyone of any sexual orientation may marry anyone of the opposite sex, and the two of them automatically become the guardians of all the children they have together. Fulfillment of their needs should not be the basis for printing marriage licenses; what is best for the next generation should be.
As I have written elsewhere, marriage is performed at altars, not at ATMs, slot machines, or refrigerators. It is not about convenience; it is about sacrifice. Why are brides and grooms held on such high pedestals? Current tides of narcissistic self-absorption emphasize the ego affirmation aspect, and endless funds can be vaporized on trinkets and frills and clothing and tinsel. Modern wedding celebrations are a dizzy blend of family reunion, fashion show, and birthday party in one slick package. If this were the main reason behind marriage celebrations, then gay-marriage and traditional marriage would indeed be equal. Yes, we feel empathy for the excitement of the newlyweds, and rejoice in their love and joy. But the deeper reason for celebrating has less to do with deserving a pat on the back or needing ego boost; the bride's and groom's vow at the altar will perpetuate the community.
What sacrifices do traditional marriages include? First, couples sacrifice by forming a relationship with someone who has a different physical, mental, and emotional makeup than they, someone of the opposite sex. This is a tricky union to sustain for decades on end, and requires work and often counseling. Any support society can offer is a welcome boon. Second, traditional couples sacrifice the opportunity to seek other potential mates. The inclination does not necessarily go away, and options welcome or unwelcome continue to present themselves. The bride and groom promise to ignore any such temptation. A union whose main purpose is gratification will eventually dissolve as boredom at home and temptation abroad drive partners apart. It is not a fair-weather commitment; "...for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health..." Third, traditional couples sacrifice the rest of their lives to take care of any children produced by their union. Human nature may waiver between fidelity and adultery, but the needs of children from cradle to adulthood will require decades of commitment on the part of both parents in any case. It is best to start the relationship on a note of complete devotion. This is a strict and potentially rough course the couple is signing up for. It is extremely fitting that they receive the admiration and generosity of their community and government.
For these and many other sacrifices, it makes sense to make the commitment between a man and a woman a matter of public record, and to extend privileges (different from rights) to them for their public service. True, few are inclined to see marriage this way today, but when have intentions and ultimate uses, means and ends, ever lined up, especially where government is involved? Without this broader, long-term view, weddings become another example of emotional exhibitionism with no inherent benefit beyond the couple's feelings.
Though intent is honorable and feelings warmly enthusiastic, members of the Church who throw their support behind a system that is fundamentally opposed to establishing what is best for children, in favor of what is comfortable in the short-term for adults, are misled in their zeal. We came to this earth to pull uphill against the burden of matter, not to succumb or lie down every time a breeze of temptation blows on us. Nowhere in all the fussing and fretting on this subject by members of the Church have I heard any mention of receiving the grace of God to bear burdens. The assumption seems to be that heterosexuals have been given outlets for their sexual appetites because the strict law of chastity is suspended via marriage. That, or at least chaste single heterosexual members of of the Church derive the hope necessary for self restraint from the far off promise of marriage one day. Also, the assumption is that homosexuals have no righteous avenue for sexual expression, and are therefore left without relief or hope. The solution to the perceived problem is worldly, not divine. Heterosexuals are able to keep the commandment because God makes an exception to the rules about chastity; why not make more exceptions for others?
This view is wrong. The Lord prepares a way to keep all His commandments. Grace, not distant hope of fulfilled appetite, is the proper solution. Whether delivering us from temptation, or giving us strength to bear it, God does not abandon us to struggle alone. This grace is sufficient for all who come to Christ in faith and humility. Paul had a thorn in the flesh, and the Lord refused to remove it, but He still gave Paul grace to carry this burden. Members of the Church who support alternative forms of marriage never mention this power, (except rarely to label it as a spurious avenue of rescue from something as dire as sexual temptation). Perhaps this is because they have yet to experience such sustaining grace themselves.They seem to view the alternatives as suffer, or compromise the commandment; no third alternative is perceived. But there are other weapons than temporal worldly ones available in the fight against sin; there is a spiritual solution, namely, grace.
The message to all, regardless of sexuality, is the same: repent, take up your cross, and follow Christ. Becoming acquainted with His grace will enable anyone to bear any burden for Him. The Atonement is called "infinite;" it is available to all. Sometimes we are completely delivered; other times we receive grace to carry burdens until the Lord sees fit to deliver us. Either way, it is possible to do so with joy on a long-term basis: "And now it came to pass that the burdens which were laid upon Alma and his brethren were made light; yea, the Lord did strengthen them that they could bear up their burdens with ease, and they did submit cheerfully and with patience to all the will of the Lord" (Mosiah 24:15). I have experienced such sustaining and empowering grace, as well as deliverance by a change of heart. I hope that everyone else will gain a testimony of such help as well, and acknowledge the Lord's power to rescue us.
[Update, 11 April 2013: I realized that Satan was the first person on the list of people with good intentions who want to give God advice, to "steady the Ark." Satan's proposed version of the plan of salvation eliminated the possibility of sin, or the necessity of the suffering attending the Atonement, by eliminating agency. If everyone has their choices made for them, voila, no sin. A great plan, yes? No. It was turned down by our all-knowing Father in Heaven because He knew it would not work. Everyone who rebelled was sent here to earth to get us to surrender our agency through other means. Satan went from "I'll save everyone" to "I'll damn everyone" very quickly. Selfish motives are characterized by short-sightedness in planning and action, as well as shortcuts for convenience. Such motives seek to circumvent the law of the harvest. But the quickest way is through it, not around it.
Jesus, on the other hand, was willing to bear the entire burden of punishment for our sin, as well as all our pain. And God planned to let all these things happen, our sin and suffering, and the Atonement for it. They seem horrific on the surface, but God can see down the road to the end, and knows what will cause the maximum benefit to us. We get to learn from difficulty instead of ease. It is easy to mistake "nice" with love—but love is more intense than like, and God loves us. He will not settle for our mediocrity. Hence the brutal school, stringent test, and beautiful gift of mortality.]
