Changing Times, Changing Morals?

Yesterday a report was released by the Pew Research Center showing how people’s attitudes about gay marriage have changed over the past 10 years. The report states that “the rise in support for same-sex marriage is among the largest changes in opinion on any policy issue over this time period.”

I won’t burden you with the full report. If you want to study the details you can find them here . Nevertheless, I would like to share with you the answers to one of the survey questions:

Q: “What made you change your mind about same-sex marriage?”
A: I have friends/family/acquaintances who are gay/lesbian 32%
    I’ve become more tolerant/older/studied more/am more aware 25%
    The world has changed/it’s more prevalent/inevitable/doesn’t hurt 18%
    People’s have freedom to choose/ love and happiness 18%
    Equal rights 8%
    Morals/religious beliefs/only God can judge 5%
    Born that way 2%
    Other 6%
    Don’t know/refused 6%
(Total exceeds 100% because of multiple responses.)

The trend is obvious:
- Tolerance ranks supreme
- Let others live their lives as they wish.
- There is no absolute right or wrong.

I see no sign that the trend will be reversed. In fact, I foresee that Latter-day Saints will come under increasing pressure from the world—and the worldly—to “get our heads out of the sand,” “be more tolerant,” and to respect people’s freedom to choose.

While the results of the Pew survey are startling, to the observant “watchmen on the tower” they are not surprising. Anyone who’s been following societal trends—and who’s been listening to latter-day prophets—has surely seen this coming.

Here are some examples of their recent warnings:

1. President Thomas S. Monson: “The face of sin often wears the mask of tolerance. Do not be deceived; behind that façade is heartache, unhappiness, and pain. You know what is right and what is wrong, and no disguise, however appealing, can change that. The character of the transgression remains the same” (General Conference, April 2008).

2. President Boyd K. Packer: “Tolerance is often demanded, but seldom returned” (“Be Not Afraid,” address at Ogden Institute of Religion, Nov. 16, 2008).

3. Elder Bruce D. Porter: “Until recently in our national history, tolerance referred to racial and religious non-discrimination. It meant civility in the political arena; in other words, respecting the right of others to express their views, even if we do not agree with them. It meant treating all people with decency and respect. Such tolerance is an important and vital part of our American heritage.

“Today, however, the world is in danger of abandoning all sense of absolute right or wrong, all morality and virtue, replacing them with an all-encompassing ‘tolerance’ that no longer means what it once meant. An extreme definition of tolerance is now widespread that implicitly or explicitly endorses the right of every person to choose their own morality, even their own ‘truth,’ as though morality and truth were mere matters of personal preference. This extreme tolerance culminates in a refusal to recognize any fixed standards or draw moral distinctions of any kind. Few dare say no to the ‘almighty self’ or suggest that some so-called ‘lifestyles’ may be destructive, contrary to higher law, or simply wrong.

“When tolerance is so inflated out of all proportions, it means the death of virtue, for the essence of morality is to draw clear distinctions between right and wrong. All virtue requires saying no firmly and courageously to all that is morally bankrupt.

“Curiously enough, this new modern tolerance is often a one-way street. Those who practice it expect everyone to tolerate them in anything they say or do, but show no tolerance themselves toward those who express differing viewpoints or defend traditional morality. Indeed, their intolerance is often most barbed toward those of religious conviction. But let there be no misunderstanding or deception: the First Amendment right of free speech applies to religious speech as well as to other kinds of speech. Believers of all faiths have every right to participate in and share their convictions in the public arena.” (“Defending the Family in a Troubled World,” Ensign, June 2011).

4. Elder Dallin H. Oaks: “We live in a world where more and more persons of influence are teaching and acting out a belief that there is no absolute right and wrong, that all authority and all rules of behavior are man-made choices that can prevail over the commandments of God. Many even question whether there is a God . . . Persuaded by this philosophy, many of the rising generation—youth and young adults—are caught up in self-serving pleasures, pagan painting and piercing of body parts, foul language, revealing attire, pornography, dishonesty, and degrading sexual indulgence . . .

“There is an alarming contrast between the older and younger generations. According to survey data of two decades ago, 79 percent of American adults [believed] that ‘there are clear guidelines about what’s good and evil that apply to everyone regardless of the situation.’ In contrast, a more recent poll of college seniors suggests that ‘three-quarters of [them] believe that the difference between right and wrong is relative.’ [SK’s note: I cannot help worrying about how many of those college seniors will end up as teachers in classrooms attended by our grandchildren.]

“The kingdom of God is like a leaven. A leaven—yeast—is hidden away in the larger mass until the whole is . . . raised by its influence. Our Savior taught that His followers will have tribulation in the world, that their numbers and dominions will be small, and that they will be hated because they are not of the world. But that is our role. We are called to live with other children of God who do not share our faith or our values and who do not have the covenant obligations we have assumed . . . Since followers of Jesus Christ are commanded to be a leaven—not to be taken out of the world, but to remain in it—we must seek tolerance from those who hate us for not being of the world . . . We do not abandon the truth or our covenants” (“Truth and Tolerance,” CES Devotional for Young Adults, Sept. 11, 2011).

As I was watching the live broadcast the night Elder Oaks gave his talk, and I was struck by what I heard in his closing remarks:

“The Bible teaches that one of the functions of a prophet is to be a ‘watchman’ to warn Israel (see Ezekiel 3:17; 33:7). In revelation the Lord added this parable for modern Zion: ‘Set . . . a watchman upon the tower,’ who will ‘[see] the enemy while he [is] yet afar off’ and give warning to save the ‘vineyard from the hands of the destroyer’ (D&C 101:45, 54).

“I have spoken to you as one of those watchmen on the subject the Spirit has assigned me. I assure you that my message is true. If you have doubts about this, or if you have questions about how to apply these principles in your own life, I urge you to seek guidance from the same source.”

The popular call right now is for tolerance. As a Christian pastor has said, "Sadly, the debate about Christianity has shifted from 'Is it true?' to 'Was anyone offended?'" (Mark Driscoll, Mars Hill Church, Seattle). If we ever find that the societal pressure is causing us to waver in our role as the Lord's designated "latter-day leaven"—if we find ourselves fondling the attitude of letting every man live according to whatever lifestyle makes him happy—then it may be time for a course correction, that is, to do precisely what Elder Oaks said we should do: “Seek guidance from the same source” that “assigned” him to make those statements. I am confident that if we do, we will know that he spoke the truth and that there really are standards of right and wrong that God expects us to embrace, even in this so-called “modern world.”

Time For a Loyalty Check

Now that the white smoke has dissipated, some are wondering just how much difference the new pope will make in the lives of the average Catholic. A few weeks ago, New York Times columnist, Frank Bruni, put it this way: ”In the American news media it’s all pope all the time, a tsunami of papal coverage, and until a new pope is named, the tide won’t quit. You’d be forgiven for concluding that he’ll actually have significant sway over Catholics in this country. He won’t, not over the majority of them, not in any immediate sense. And it’s worth pausing, amid this hoopla, to remember that. In large parts of the Roman Catholic world, certainly in North America and Western Europe, most Catholics don’t feel any particular debt or duty to the self-appointed caretakers of their church. They don’t feel bound by the pope’s interpretation of doctrine or moral commands . . .”

He continues: “We in the media love the clear-cut drama of transitions. They’re easy to grasp and frame. And in the case of the Vatican, they come with majestic visual backdrops, colorfully costumed characters: a pageant extraordinaire. It looks splendid on the front page and even better on the nightly news. We traffic in celebrities, and the pope qualifies as one. We also relish the narrative of any winner-take-all contest in which there are multiple hopefuls, murky dynamics and a familiar brand of suspense. This informs the way we approach presidential elections, focusing on the horse race. It explains all the cook-offs, the sing-offs, the analyses of the face-off between “Argo” and “Lincoln” for Best Picture. The papal selection process is in one sense “Top Chef” without the cooking. It’s the ecclesiastical Oscars.”

In other words, one shouldn’t make the mistake of equating media airtime and front-page headlines with personal devotion. Polls indicate a significant lack of papal allegiance within the Catholic church, confirmed by the results of a study I found in the National Catholic Reporter from November, 2011. It revealed that only 19% of those surveyed categorized themselves as “highly committed Catholics,” meaning that on a scale of 1 to 7—with 1 representing the highest level of commitment—the “highly committed” Catholics were those who said that (a) the church was the most important or one of the most important parts of their life; and (b) they attended church once a week or more often.

In addition:

-- Close to a majority of those who call themselves “highly committed” say that a person can be a good Catholic without going to weekly Mass (48 percent), without their marriage being approved by the church (48 percent), and without obeying the church’s teaching on divorce and remarriage (46 percent).

-- 60 percent of the “highly committed” say that one can be a good Catholic without obeying the church’s teaching on artificial contraception.

-- Only 57 percent of “highly committed” Catholics said that the teaching authority claimed by the Vatican is very important to them personally.

So while their leaders may have strong positions about moral issues, those positions are not shared by the great majority of the “highly committed.” How else would you explain that the country the new pope hails from—Argentina, 75% Catholic—recently passed a law allowing same-sex marriage?

The disconnect is obvious. In scriptural terms, it’s a “my will vs. Thy will” attitude, where most members do their own thing. I heard a great example of this several months ago as a Catholic woman from Mexico was interviewed about her church’s attitude toward birth control. She proudly declared herself “a faithful Catholic,” and then she stated that even if God Himself told her it's wrong to practice birth control, she would do it anyway, because she knows what’s best for her own life.

Bruni's article concluded with this thought: “Does the pope fully appreciate this drift? Every Sunday, he looks from his window onto St. Peter’s Square and sees adoring, rapt masses. Everywhere he goes, traffic parts and cameras follow him. But here in America, the Catholics watching closely are fewer and fewer. They’re Christian. They’re caring. They’re moral. But they have minds and wills of their own, and no conclave will change that.“ (Frank Bruni, “The Pope’s Muffled Voice,” New York Times, 18 Feb. 2013).

There is a lesson in this for Latter-day Saints. Where are our loyalties? When it comes to those we sustain as prophets, seers and revelators, where is our allegiance? Hopefully we are not like those described in this little verse quoted by President Boyd K. Packer::

The sermon was ended.

The priest had descended.

Much delighted were they,

But preferred the old way.

(Boyd K. Packer, “Follow the Brethren,” Speeches of the Year, BYU, 23 March 1965, pp.; 1-10.)

Couldn't Happen Here!

Don’t Let the First Paragraph Fool You – This Is About Pornography, Not Obesity

Most Americans agree with experts who warn that childhood obesity is a growing problem (no pun intended). What’s ironic, however, is that when polled on this subject, four out of five parents said they weren’t worried about their children becoming obese (NPR report, March 4, 2013).

That poll illustrates a tendency most of us have. Researchers call it “optimism bias,” a tendency to believe that we’re more “special” than others. As a result, we generally under-estimate the likelihood of certain negative things happening in our own lives, such as dying from cancer or auto accident, and we over-estimate the likelihood of positive things, such as our longevity or believing that our children will naturally be brighter than other children—even when statistics prove otherwise.

Tali Sharot’s research shows how “optimism bias” manifests itself. She gave a fascinating TED talk on the subject. It can be viewed here.here. I think you’ll enjoy her presentation (even though the ending is a bit cheesy).

Examples of “optimism bias” include:

- Life-long, heavy smokers who believe they are less likely than other smokers to contract lung cancer.

- Newlyweds who firmly believe that, in spite of statistics showing that 40-50% of all marriages end in divorce, their marriages will never fail.

- Teens who engage in smoking, drug use, and unsafe sex, because, in their minds, addiction, unplanned pregnancy, and sexually transmitted diseases only happen to others.

- People with poor eating habits who don’t exercise but still consider themselves as a below-average risk for heart disease, even after they’ve read articles indicating that they are prime candidates.

In her presentation, Sharot illustrates this bias by asking members of her audience the following questions:

“When compared with the general population --

1. How well do you get along with others?

2. How does your driving ability compare with others?

3. How interesting are you?

4. How attractive are you?

5. How honest are you?

6. How modest are you?”

In each category the overwhelming majority ranked themselves as “above average” – something that is statistically impossible.

I am not an expert on this topic. Nevertheless, I have some real-world experience giving me a nagging suspicion that Latter-day Saints have a particularly strong “optimism bias” regarding how they feel about the likelihood of a family or ward member becoming involved with or addicted to pornography.

I’m not talking about denial. Denial is different. Denial of a pornography addiction (and there’s more of that in the Church than you’d ever guess) is what the addict does when he tells himself he’s not hurting anyone. Denial is what the addict does when he tells himself he can stop anytime—because he’s done it hundreds of times. It’s what spouses of the addicts do when they say, “He just has a little pornography problem.” Denial is manifest in a quick “I’m sorry” prayer on the way to a temple endowment session or on Saturday night when the addict is preparing his priesthood lesson. Denial is manifest by priesthood leaders who deny the statistics showing that more than 70% of men ages 18 to 34 visit a pornography site on the Internet every month “because it just couldn’t happen here,” so they leave to the General Authorities the task of preaching about it and worry about more pressing matters such as increasing attendance at ward temple day. That’s denial. (Think about it: If those statistics are only half true, then 35% of the elders quorum has a pornography problem.)

“Optimism bias” is the attitude that “We’re special, therefore it couldn’t happen here—not in our family—not in our ward.” Just like the audience’s responses to Sharot’s questions, such beliefs are statistically impossible.

Speaking of statistics, consider these statistics from a 2007 Church News article: “One survey of children ages 7-17 indicated that 90 percent of them had seen online pornography, most while doing homework. In another survey of 16-17 year-olds, 48 percent said their parents knew little or nothing about what they looked at online. The average age for an addict’s first exposure is 11 years old. Studies also say that all male high school students have viewed it at one time or another” (“In Your Home,” Church News, March 3, 2007).

That same year, the Deseret News published an article showing that Utah ranked #1 for Web searches using the words “Jesus,” “family history,” Mormon,” and “home storage.” But it also ranked Utah #1 for these search words: “Pornography,” “naked girls,” “striptease,” “topless,” “nude,” “strip poker,” “lingerie,” “blonde,” and “brunette” (“What Do Utahns Google?” Deseret News, October 12, 2007).

All of this leads me to ask a more fundamental question: Why are we not hearing more about this issue? Except for General Conference settings, we hear very little – and especially not in priesthood or Relief Society meetings. Why? If we all agree that pornography is evil, soul-destroying, marriage-destroying, and absolutely addictive, then I see two possible reasons.

First, it could be that our “optimism bias” is telling us that those evils are much more likely to happen in other families and other wards—and that we are, thankfully, immune.

The second reason can be illustrated by a classic poem that I learned as a seminary student. It’s called, “The Fence or The Ambulance,” and it’s about a town that sat at the foot of a high cliff. Because of the spectacular view from the top, many people climbed the cliff, only to get too close to the edge, and, inevitably, they suffered a disastrous fall.

                      So the people said something would have to be done,

                      But their projects did not at all tally.

                      Some said, ‘Put a fence ‘round the edge of the cliff,’

                      Some, ‘An ambulance down in the valley.”

                      But the cry for the ambulance carried the day,

                      For it spread through the neighboring city.

                      A fence may be useful or not, it is true,

                      But each heart became brimful of pity

                      For those who slipped over that dangerous cliff,

                      And dwellers in highway and alley

                      Gave pounds or gave pence, not to put up a fence,

                      But an ambulance down in the valley.

                      “For the cliff is alright if you’re careful,” they said,

                      “And if folks even slip and are dropping,

                       It isn’t the slipping that hurts them so much

                       As the shock down below when they’re stopping!”

                       So, day after day, as those mishaps occurred,

                       Quick forth would the rescuers sally

                       To pick up the victims who fell off the cliff

                       With the ambulance down in the valley.

                       Then an old sage remarked, “It’s a marvel to me

                       That people give far more attention

                       To repairing results than to stopping the cause

                       When they’d much better aim at prevention.

                       Let us stop at its source all this mischief,” he cried,

                      “Come neighbors and friends, let us rally!

                      If the cliff we will fence we might almost dispense

                      With the ambulance down in the valley.”

The ambulance proponents argued that the old sage was a fanatic, saying:

                       “Aren’t we picking up folks just as fast as they fall?

                        And shall this man dictate to us? Shall he?

                        Why should people of sense stop to put up a fence

                        While the ambulance works in the valley?”

                        ["A Fence or an Ambulance," Joseph Malins]

It is entirely possible that, much like the ambulance proponents, many Latter-day Saints accept the fact that someone they know and love may have actually been enticed too close to the edge and have fallen victim to pornography. But they’re not worried. Why? Because even if someone does fall over the cliff, they reason, in the Church we have the best ambulances—and at the wheel are loving bishops and caring stake presidents who will work tirelessly to heal those broken souls and broken marriages. (As if they don’t have anything else to do!)

I side with the old sage in the poem: “If the cliff we will fence we might almost dispense with the ambulance down in the valley.”

The threat is real. Those who feel it can’t or won’t be a problem for Latter-day Saints “because we’re special” are wrong. It is precisely because we are special that it’s more likely to happen! Satan knows who we are, what we’ve covenanted to do, and what God expects of us. What a trophy for him if we ignore the warning signs until it is too late. Let us not allow “optimism bias” to lull us into a sense of false security. People we know are falling victim to this evil addiction. And even we ourselves are not immune.

Elder, The Mission Is Not About You

It used to be a common practice for Church members to invite the full-time missionaries for dinner. But a few years ago our mission president instituted a new program where the missionaries could only be invited for dinner as long as they were accompanied by a non-member they were teaching or a less active ward member who needed fellowshipping.

With this in mind, we recently agreed to a request from our ward mission leader to host a dinner for a less-active, single sister. The full-time elders would also be there. When my wife called the sister to extend the invitation, she agreed to the sister's request  that we also invite one of our ward missionaries, a single fellow with whom she'd become friends.

I anticipated that the event would provide a good opportunity for the sister to warm up to us as members as well as to the missionaries. Unfortunately the missionaries didn't have the same idea.

The elders arrived first. One of them was quick to announce that he was brand new to the mission and that he was actually waiting for approval of a visa so he could be on his way to Paris, France. No sooner had he introduced himself than he spied our piano and asked if he could play it. I said that would be fine, so he proceeded to play a song or two. As he played, I sensed he was regularly looking in my direction as if seeking my approval. When he was finished, he virtually dominated the conversation, volunteering much information about himself.

Our guest, the sister, soon arrived, accompanied by her male friend. Practically all of the dinner conversation took place between the two elders and the male ward missionary. Nothing they said was ever directed at this sister. All they talked about was themselves, laughing about stories from their past, comparing their interests, their abilities and accomplishments. During all of this I noted that most of the me-centered conversation was dominated by the new elder. What he shared was definitely interesting -- some was even inspiring -- but it was all about "me." 

This went on during the entire dinner. The less-active sister who I'd thought was to be in the spotlight sadly became a silent spectator. The elders never directed a single comment or question to her. Because she hadn't said much, she finished her meal first, then sat silently with her arms folded while the "show" went on.. When I tried to engage her in a few moments of conversation, she gladly responded. But those moments didn’t last very long because the others continued to dominate the conversation.

After dinner we gathered for a spiritual message from the elders. Since this took place shortly before Christmas the senior missionary read the nativity story from Luke 2. Then he bore a fine testimony. I was asked for a comment which took about 15 seconds. The new elder then told of an experience he’d had with a non-member while the elders were bowling that afternoon (P-day), then the ward missionary launched into what became a 5-minute talk all about himself and his recent experience of once again becoming an active member of the Church. Throughout all of this the sister, arms folded, sat quietly without saying a word – and without any comment or question being directed at her.

The visit ended, we said our goodbyes, and I've been uneasy ever since as I’ve been thinking of the good that might have come from this experience if only the proper attention had been directed at our guest of honor and much less time had been spent with the “let me tell you about my favorite subject: me!” by the missionaries. 

If I were in a position to counsel prospective missionaries and their parents I would remind them that a call to serve a mission is a call to forget themselves and focus on others. The mission call letter from the prophet doesn't say, “You are hereby called to go into the world and tell people all about yourself, call attention to your musical talents or ability to perform magic tricks, recount your family history, impress people you meet with your scholastic accomplishments and tales from high school, etc.”

Today's young people live largely in a me-centered world. Social media is used to spotlight oneself, not to show an unselfish interest in others. Forgetting oneself is not an easy thing to teach to 18 and 19-year-olds. Perhaps looking to the Savior’s example would be helpful. In all of scripture there is no record of the Lord ever approaching a group of listeners saying, “Let me tell you about the miracle I just performed,” or “Would you like to know how cool it is to walk on water?” or “I just love my calling.” How ironic that He whose life and mission have such eternal impact on the rest of us was so focused on serving – and saving – others.

Lest you misinterpret my feelings about that new missionary I should point out that he is an outstanding individual -- a fine young man. He comes from a unique and noble family and has some spiritual values uncommon in one his age. He has a firm testimony and has had some very special spiritual experiences. Unfortunately, his challenge as a missionary will be to resist temptation--not temptation to break the commandments but the temptation to make himself the main topic of conversation. Unless he quickly learns that lesson he will get in the way of the message he's been called to proclaim.

It has been my experience, not only as a missionary but in other positions of Church service, that those who have the most influence are the humble ones who follow the counsel found in Proverbs 27:2 - "Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth."