Matters of Religion

Communicating is hard. I just want to start this post by saying that premise, because I am so nervous that I won't present my thoughts accurately. 

Yesterday I read a news article about a "mormon sex therapist" [aka a therapist who is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, who counsels on topics relating to sex, but doesn't have any special authority from the church] who was excommunicated for advocating against Church stigma associated with pornography, masturbation, same-sex marriage, maybe other stuff. This is a tricky topic; some may think I should stay out of this mine-strewn controversy. But I think this is important, even social-life/death important.

From my understanding of the event, I see two primary issues: the differences between society and religion, and religious rights.

Parts of society have become more accepting of porn use, masturbation, same-sex marriage, to name a few. Most of those I consider to be in the I-don't-understand-yet corner of the minefield. But I do have a stance on porn use, and I see serious complications from societal acceptance, but mostly what I see is poor communication. Saying that someone who uses porn is okay is fundamentally different from saying that porn use is okay. For example, is it bad to exclude someone from social activities because they engage with porn? Well, that depends on several things, and should be assessed on a case-by-case basis; I don't plan on disowning any of my acquaintances solely on their use of porn. But...is the use of pornography bad? Yes, absolutely. Why? Because people are made to be objects of sex, and such a portrayal can damage the ability to have real relationships. I'd like to emphasize here that I am not saying sex is bad--I support the Church's statement that "healthy sexuality is central to the plan of happiness"--but rather that removing thoughts and emotions while retaining lust is bad.

There is also a difference between a society saying something is bad, a religion saying so, and a government saying so. For example, I'd say a fair number of religions consider cheating on your spouse to be sinful. Society also doesn't think it's great, but I don't think anyone would be ostracized for it. And the government doesn't really say anything at all on the topic. We could probably agree that a religion has the right to discipline its members on that topic, as long as they are not infringing on any legal rights.

So if a religion can discipline its members for nonlegal actions [as in not illegal, but rather not addressed by law], it seems fair that a religion be allowed to "kick someone out"--excommunicate, disfellowship, whatever the term may be. The LDS church actually has a specific scripture for this: 

"We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, ^aaccording to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has ^bauthority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship."

 Okay, so, it's within the Church's right to kick someone out. But in the article referenced above, some mental health professionals thought it was abusive for the Church to do so, and wrote and signed a letter of complaint. I can see where some of them are coming from. Back when a Minnesota nurse was fired for what scrubs he wore, or when a Houston doctor was fired for giving out COVID vaccines before they expired, I was pretty upset and would have gladly signed a statement of protest, even though I'm not in those states. But here's the tricky part: those hospitals are accountable to people for their decisions; on matters of doctrine, the Church is not. That is the idea of having prophets receiving revelation from God, of saying that God leads the Church. I am not expecting any of those mental health professionals to be struck by lightening, especially those who are not members of the Church and thus--in all fairness--not subject to Church decisions. But if you had believed that the Church is led by God, and then protest against a membership decision by that Church, in all fairness it could be said that you don't believe God leads the Church anymore, in which case your membership in the Church is not for spiritual/religious purposes, in which case losing your membership is fairly logical. From my knowledge of various excommunication cases [mostly historical, unless the local news picks up the story], and from review of the Church Manuel (which is freely available on www.churchofjesuschrist.org), the Church has only used excommunication in cases where there is influence on others; you may hold different beliefs on some (or I suppose even all) topics of the church, but if you aren't preaching it, if you aren't publicly opposing the Church, then excommunication isn't likely.

And for the final thought, let me emphasize that empathy is and remains a central virtue of a Christ-like life. Regardless of membership, sexual/gender orientation, race, etc.

"Living together with mutual respect for one another's differences is a challenge in today's world. However...this living with differences is what the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us we must do." [President Dallin H Oaks, in February 2013 edition of the Ensign magazine]