Excerpts from the October CES Devotional
with Elder Jeffrey R. Holland
...Lesson number one for the establishment of Zion in the
21st century: You never “check your religion at the door.” Not ever....
...My young friends, that kind of discipleship cannot
be—it is not discipleship at all. As the prophet Alma has taught the young
women of the Church to declare every week in their Young Women theme, we are
“to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places
that ye may be in,” not just some of the time, in a
few places….
...Having said that, I remind us all that
while reaching out to and helping back a lamb who has strayed, we also have a
profound responsibility to the 99 who didn’t—and to the wishes and will of the
Shepherd. There is a sheepfold, and we are all supposed to be in it, to
say nothing of the safety and blessings that come to us for being there. My
young brothers and sisters, this Church can never “dumb down” its doctrine in
response to social goodwill or political expediency or any other reason. It is
only the high ground of revealed truth that gives us any footing on which to
lift another who may feel troubled or forsaken. Our compassion and our
love—fundamental characteristics and requirements of our Christianity—must never
be interpreted as compromising the commandments. As the marvelous George
MacDonald once said, in such situations “we are not bound to say all that we
[believe], but we are bound not even to look [like] what we do not [believe].”
In this process of evaluation, we are not called on to
condemn others, but we are called upon to make decisions every day that
reflect judgment—we hope good judgment. Elder Dallin H. Oaks once referred
to these kinds of decisions as “intermediate judgments,” which we often have to
make for our own safety or for the safety of others, as opposed to what he
called “final judgments,” which can only be made by God, who knows all the
facts. (Remember, in the scripture quoted
earlier, that the Savior said these are to be “righteous judgments,” not
self-righteous judgments, which is a very different thing.)
For example, parents have to exercise good judgment
regarding the safety and welfare of their children every day. No one would
fault a parent who says children must eat their vegetables or who restricts a
child from running into a street roaring with traffic. So why should a parent
be faulted who cares, at a little later age, what time those children come home
at night, or what the moral and behavioral standards of their friends are, or
at what age they date, or whether or not they experiment with drugs or
pornography or engage in sexual transgression? No, we are making decisions and
taking stands and reaffirming our values—in short, making “intermediate
judgments”—all the time, or at least we should be.
...When we face such situations in complex social issues
in a democratic society, it can be very challenging and, to some, confusing.
Young people may ask about this position taken or that policy made by the
Church, saying: “Well, we don’t believe we should live or behave in such and
such a way, but why do we have to make other people do the same? Don’t they
have their free agency? Aren’t we being self-righteous and judgmental, forcing
our beliefs on others, demanding that they act in a certain way?” In
those situations you are going to have to explain sensitively why some
principles are defended and some sins opposed wherever they are found
because the issues and the laws involved are not just social or
political but eternal in their consequence. And while not wishing to offend
those who believe differently from us, we are even more anxious not to offend
God, or as the scripture says, “not offend him who is your lawgiver" —and I am speaking here of
serious moral laws.
But to make the point, let me use the example of a
lesser law. It is a little like a teenager saying, “Now that I can drive, I
know I am supposed to stop at a red light, but do we really have to be
judgmental and try to get everyone else to stop at red lights? Does everyone
have to do what we do? Don’t others have their agency? Must they behave as we
do?” You then have to explain why, yes, we do hope all will stop at a
red light. And you have to do this without demeaning those who
transgress or who believe differently than we believe because, yes, they do
have their moral agency.
My young friends, there is a wide variety of beliefs
in this world, and there is moral agency for all, but no one is entitled to act
as if God is mute on these subjects or as if commandments only matter if there
is public agreement over them. In the 21st century we cannot flee any longer.
We are going to have to fight for laws and circumstances and environments that
allow the free exercise of religion and our franchise in it. That is one way we
can tolerate being in Babylon but not of it.
I know of no more important ability and no greater
integrity for us to demonstrate in a world from which we cannot flee than to
walk that careful path—taking a moral stand according to what God has declared
and the laws He has given, but doing it compassionately and with understanding
and great charity. Talk about a hard thing to do—to distinguish perfectly
between the sin and the sinner. I know of few distinctions that are harder to
make, or at least harder to articulate, but we must lovingly try to do exactly
that. Believe me, brothers and sisters, in the world into which we are moving,
we are going to have a lot of opportunity to develop such strength, display
such courage, and demonstrate such compassion—all at the same time.
Read the complete talk HERE
