Former BYU philosophy adjunct instructor Jeffrey Nielsen spoke to an overflowing crowd at October's general meeting. Not rehired because of his famous and infamous op ed piece in the Salt Lake Tribune [6/4/06] supporting legalizing marriage for homosexual couples, Nielsen chronicled how he reached that point.

Considered to be the first humanist of the western tradition, Protagoras wrote (485 B.C.E.), "Man is the measure of all things…" Humanity being the ultimate context, individuals or groups should not sacrifice human rights for abstract beliefs, organizational interests, or institutional religion. Rather, the measure should be whether something improves the concrete circumstances of the human condition, increases our natural affections, or expands our sense of moral community.

Protagoras the foundation for Nielsen's moral sensibilities, two basic principles emerged as the beacon for his life choices. 1] He is morally obliged to improve the well-being of other people by seeking their best interest and alleviating their suffering. 2] Every human being, regardless of his/her place or position, possesses an equal privilege to speak, and every human being shares an equal and reciprocal obligation to listen.

Religion:

In seeking to improve the well-being of others, Nielsen said that we could follow a dialogical and non-hierarchical way of understanding and defining ethics and moral reasoning. Illustrating this is neo-pragmatist Richard Rorty's thoughts on religion, the two primary aspects being 1] religious experience and 2] religious dogma or institutionalized religion. Often in tension are these two concepts.

To Nielsen, religious experience evokes the prophetic role of speaking truth to power, the primal experience of God as moral imperative. Upsetting the status quo, religious experience is protestant and on the side of the poor and dispossessed, fighting for social justice, calling an individual's ego into question, and calling us to care for others as much as we care for ourselves.

Religious dogma or institutionalized religion, on the other hand, often becomes the very power structure that oppresses people, demanding absolute obedience, blind conformity, and unquestioning acquiescence: "do what your leaders tell you, and even if they are wrong, you'll be blessed for it." In this context, the preservation of the institution and of the power and privilege of the religious leaders becomes more important than the welfare of the ordinary members. Here religion becomes, in Peter Berger's words, the sacred canopy of the status quo.

As can be seen, these two concepts may simultaneously be both an oppressor and a liberator: the opiate of the masses [Marx] and the prophetic voice that inspires people to e.g. sacrifice themselves to improve life for a complete stranger.

"Religious experience" [the golden rule and unconditional love] can be also viewed in a non-theistic, non-sectarian, and natural way.

Democracy:

Democracy is another powerful force that helps form our moral foundation. In the enlightenment age, it was realized that government could not both preserve individual freedoms and endorse any particular religious authority. John Locke provided persuasive arguments for the separation of church and state, which to Nielsen, was most significant in that religious faith should not be coerced or mandated, but must be freely chosen. Even if government was allowed to mandate religion, how could they sponsor the "right" religious authority? Government could just as easily mandate the wrong religious tradition.

Besides, institutional religion is inherently exclusive in nature and absolutist in claims, which can potentially lead to tyranny in unchecked religious influence. Nielsen added that institutional religion is by nature hierarchical, which would confute his second moral principle.

In the history of the American republic, religious experience [the prophetic role of God as moral imperative] has persuaded us to become more inclusive in guaranteeing individual rights and respect for individual dignity. At the same time, religious institutions have become more exclusive and more defiant of individual equal rights and respect for individual dignity of certain classes of people--the crossroads that Nielsen found himself in May this year regarding the LDS Church's opposition against marriage for homosexual couples.

Gay Rights in the LDS Church:

A constitutional amendment to deny marriage equality, or in other words, to restrict individual rights solely for religious reasons strikes at the heart of the key safeguard protecting our democracy from falling into unchecked tyranny. Considering the two moral principles that guide his life, Nielsen could not but defend equal marriage rights for homosexual couples.

In light of the LDS Church's stance, Nielsen said that the well-being of gay men and women and their families are harmed, both in and outside of the church, by labeling same-sex attraction as perverse and unnatural, and condemning that which is not fully understood. In fact, Nielsen believes that science is beginning to show that same-sex attraction is biological and hence, as natural as heterosexual attraction. Same-sex attraction may be caused by environmental conditions in the mother's womb before birth, triggering the DNA that gives the fetus a homosexual orientation. If this is the case, neither the mother nor the child has a choice in the matter--it is a completely natural, biological condition.

Said Nielsen, "Truly God would be unjust if He wee the creator of a biological process that produced such uncommon but perfectly natural results, and then condemned the innocent person to a life of guilt, while denying him or her the ordinary privileges and fulfillment of the deep longing in all of us for family and a committed, loving relationship."

Even if the scientific evidence does hot establish this beyond reasonable doubt, Nielsen said that virtuous moderation and loving kindness should move us to exercise caution before making constitutionally binding discrimination against a whole class of people based only on fear and superstition. In Nielsen's opinion, there are few reasonable arguments, like claming gay marriage has not been historically recognized the same argument against civil rights for ethnic minorities and equal rights for women. Or how could gay marriage, the union of two committed and loving people, destroy his own traditional marriage?

Other Rights in the Church:

Equally passionate was Nielsen about other human rights denied in the church and out, like the harmful belief that people of color reflects pre-mortal levels of spiritual worthiness. More specifically, Nielsen would like the LDS Church to state clearly what their position is on the past denial of the priesthood to blacks. After all, Joseph Smith himself ordained at least one black man, Elijah Abel, to the priesthood. Then when Brigham Young took over the presidency, blacks were denied the priesthood. Could this reflect a certain cultural racism of the times and not divine will? Isn't it time for the church to be honest?

Harmed also are women and children of polygamous sects. According to Nielsen, until the church acknowledges that modern polygamy is a direct result of the polygamous teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, there will be continued denial of accountability to polygamous families. Also, because many polygamists believe that the church will reinstate polygamy and receive them back into the fold the church has a responsibility to clearly state the nature of polygamy, past and present--and if polygamy becomes legal, would the church reinstate it.

People are harmed when they have a right to know the actual history of the church versus official history. Said Nielsen, "Church leaders have implied that to doubt or question is to jeopardize your family, and so those who find such inaccuracies in church publications are faced with alienation of love and affection in their families if they dare talk about it. This dilemma of choosing between the truth as they perceive it, or the love and affection of their families is the fault of the church's failure to be more open and transparent, and it is harming real families."

Other human rights that Nielsen believes the church denies are:

• The exclusion of mothers and fathers from their children's temple weddings when the parents are inactive or are non-members. Already done in countries without temples, civil and temple weddings could occur on the same day. "Not one more mother should have to wait outside the temple while her child is married because she didn't pay the LDS Church enough money to gain entrance," said Nielsen.
• There is no doctrinal reason to keep real membership numbers and church-wide activity a secret; the church needs to be completely open and accountable.
• There is no doctrinal reason to keep secret church finances from members.

The only rationale, in Nielsen's opinion, for keeping secret both membership numbers and finances is to protect the position and privilege of the church hierarchy.

• Worthiness interviews between local church leaders and teenage members should only occur in the presence of their parents or guardian, which would benefit church leaders, parents, and youth.
• There should be gender equality between men and women in the church. The Relief Society needs to return to complete control by the women of the church with direct access to the president rather than be under the direction of a seventy, which is how it was with Joseph Smith to the 1970s.

In addressing these inequities, Nielsen emphasized that questioning them is not meant to challenge LDS Church leadership or doctrine, but rather to examine the injustices and to consider a moral reform.

Last but not least, Nielsen expressed desire for complete freedom to examine, question, and dialogue with church leaders and church members so that when he sustains leaders into official office, he could do so genuinely. Said Nielsen, "I do not believe that sustaining leaders requires either silent acquiescence or unquestioning conformity, but it does require active engagement with one another and with out church leaders, regardless of our place or position within church leadership hierarchies. Every person possesses the privilege to speak and the obligation to listen."

--Sarah Smith