Weightier Matters
By Elder Dallin H. Oaks
Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
From a devotional address given at Brigham Young University on 9 February 1999.
Diversity and choice are not the weightier matters of the law. The weightier matters are love of God, obedience
to His commandments, and unity in accomplishing the work of His Church.
Dallin H. Oaks, "Weightier Matters," Ensign, Jan. 2001, 13
The book of Matthew contains the Saviors denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees: "Ye pay tithe of
mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith:
these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone" (Matt. 23:23; emphasis added).
I wish to address some "weightier matters" we might overlook if we allow ourselves to focus exclusively on
lesser matters. The weightier matters to which I refer are the qualities like faith and the love of God and His
work that will move us strongly toward our eternal goals.
In speaking of weightier matters, I seek to contrast our ultimate goals in eternity with the mortal methods
or short-term objectives we use to pursue them. The Apostle Paul described the difference between earthly
perspectives and eternal ones in these words: "We look not at the things which are seen, but at the things
which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal"
(2 Cor. 4:18).
If we concentrate too intently on our obvious earthly methods or objectives, we can lose sight of our
eternal goals, which the Apostle called "things not seen." If we do this, we can forget where we should
be headed and in eternal terms go nowhere. We do not improve our position in eternity just by flying
farther and faster in mortality, but only by moving knowledgeably in the right direction. As the Lord told
us in modern revelation, "That which the Spirit testifies unto you ye should do in all holiness of heart,
walking uprightly before me, considering the end of your salvation" (D&C 46:7; emphasis added).
We must not confuse means and ends. The vehicle is not the destination. If we lose sight of our eternal
goals, we might think that the most important thing is how fast we are moving and that any road will get us
to our destination. The Apostle Paul described this attitude as "hav[ing] a zeal of God, but not according to
knowledge" (Rom. 10:2). Zeal is a method, not a goal. Zealeven a zeal toward Godneeds to be
"according to knowledge" of Gods commandments and His plan for His children. In other words, the
weightier matter of the eternal goal must not be displaced by the mortal method, however excellent in itself.
Thus far I have spoken in generalities. Now I will give three examples.
Family
All Latter-day Saints understand that having an eternal family is an eternal goal. Exaltation is a family
matter, not possible outside the everlasting covenant of marriage, which makes possible the perpetuation of
glorious family relationships. But this does not mean that everything related to mortal families is an eternal
goal. There are many short-term objectives associated with familiessuch as family togetherness or family
solidarity or lovethat are methods, not the eternal goals we pursue in priority above all others. For
example, family solidarity to conduct an evil enterprise is obviously no virtue. Neither is family solidarity
to conceal and perpetuate some evil practice like abuse.
The purpose of mortal families is to bring children into the world, to teach them what is right, and to
prepare all family members for exaltation in eternal family relationships. The gospel plan contemplates the
kind of family government, discipline, solidarity, and love that serve those ultimate goals. But even the love
of family members is subject to the overriding first commandment, which is love of God (see Matt.
22:37-38), and the Saviors directive, "If ye love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15). As Jesus
taught, "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or
daughter more than me is not worthy of me" (Matt. 10:37).
Choice, or Agency
My next example in this message on weightier matters is the role of choice, or agency.
Few concepts have more potential to mislead us than the idea that choice, or agency, is an ultimate goal.
For Latter-day Saints, this potential confusion is partly a product of the fact that moral agencythe right
to chooseis a fundamental condition of mortal life. Without this precious gift of God, the purpose of
mortal life could not be realized. To secure our agency in mortality we fought a mighty contest the book of
Revelation calls a "war in heaven." This premortal contest ended with the devil and his angels being cast
out of heaven and being denied the opportunity of having a body in mortal life (see Rev. 12:7-9).
But our war to secure agency was won. The test in this postwar mortal estate is not to secure choice but to
use itto choose good instead of evil so that we can achieve our eternal goals. In mortality, choice is a
method, not a goal.
Of course, mortals must still resolve many questions concerning what restrictions or consequences should
be placed upon choices. But those questions come under the heading of freedom, not agency. Many do not
understand that important fact. We are responsible to use our agency in a world of choices. It will not do to
pretend that our agency has been taken away when we are not free to exercise it without unwelcome
consequences.
Because choice is a method, choices can be exercised either way on any matter, and our choices can serve
any goal. Therefore, those who consider freedom of choice as a goal can easily slip into the position of
trying to justify any choice that is made. "Choice" can even become a slogan to justify one particular
choice. For example, today one who says "I am pro-choice" is clearly understood as opposing any legal
restrictions upon a womans choice to abort a fetus.
More than 30 years ago, as a young law professor, I published one of the earliest articles on the legal
consequences of abortion. Since that time I have been a knowledgeable observer of the national debate and
the unfortunate Supreme Court decisions on the so-called "right to abortion." I have been fascinated with
how cleverly those who sought and now defend legalized abortion on demand have moved the issue away
from a debate on the moral, ethical, and medical pros and cons of legal restrictions on abortion and focused
the debate on the slogan or issue of choice. The slogan or sound bite "pro-choice" has had an almost magical
effect in justifying abortion and in neutralizing opposition to it.
Pro-choice slogans have been particularly seductive to Latter-day Saints because we know that moral
agency, which can be described as the power of choice, is a fundamental necessity in the gospel plan. All
Latter-day Saints are pro-choice according to that theological definition. But being pro-choice on the need
for moral agency does not end the matter for us. Choice is a method, not the ultimate goal. We are
accountable for our choices, and only righteous choices will move us toward our eternal goals.
In this effort, Latter-day Saints follow the teachings of the prophets. On this subject our prophetic
guidance is clear. The Lord commanded, "Thou shalt not kill, nor do anything like unto it" (D&C 59:6).
The Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience. Our members are taught that,
subject only to some very rare exceptions, they must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange
for an abortion. That direction tells us what we need to do on the weightier matters of the law, the choices
that will move us toward eternal life.
In todays world we are not true to our teachings if we are merely pro-choice. We must stand up for the
right choice. Those who persist in refusing to think beyond slogans and sound bites like pro-choice wander
from the goals they pretend to espouse and wind up giving their support to results they might not support
if those results were presented without disguise.
For example, consider the uses some have made of the possible exceptions to our firm teachings against
abortion. Our leaders have taught that the only possible exceptions are when the pregnancy resulted from
rape or incest, or when a competent physician has determined that the life or health of the mother is in
serious jeopardy or that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.
But even these exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Because abortion is a most serious matter,
we are counseled that it should be considered only after the persons responsible have consulted with their
bishops and received divine confirmation through prayer.
Some Latter-day Saints say they deplore abortion, but they give these exceptional circumstances as a basis
for their pro-choice position that the law should allow abortion on demand in all circumstances. Such
persons should face the reality that the circumstances described in these three exceptions are extremely
rare. For example, conception by incest or rapethe circumstance most commonly cited by those who use
exceptions to argue for abortion on demandis involved in only a tiny minority of abortions. More than
95 percent of the millions of abortions performed each year extinguish the life of a fetus conceived by
consensual relations. Thus the effect in over 95 percent of abortions is not to vindicate choice but to avoid
its consequences. 1 Using arguments of "choice" to try to justify altering the consequences of choice is a
classic case of omitting what the Savior called "the weightier matters of the law."
A prominent basis for the secular or philosophical arguments for abortion on demand is the argument that a
woman should have control over her own body. Not long ago I received a letter from a thoughtful
Latter-day Saint outside the United States who analyzed that argument in secular terms. Since his analysis
reaches the same conclusion I have urged on religious grounds, I quote it here for the benefit of those most
subject to persuasion on this basis:
"Every woman has, within the limits of nature, the right to choose what will or will not happen to her
body. Every woman has, at the same time, the responsibility for the way she uses her body. If by her
choice she behaves in such a way that a human fetus is conceived, she has not only the right to but also the
responsibility for that fetus. If it is an unwanted pregnancy, she is not justified in ending it with the claim
that it interferes with her right to choose. She herself chose what would happen to her body by risking
pregnancy. She had her choice. If she has no better reason, her conscience should tell her that abortion
would be a highly irresponsible choice.
"What constitutes a good reason? Since a human fetus has intrinsic and infinite human value, the only good
reason for an abortion would be the violation or deprivation of or the threat to the womans right to choose
what will or will not happen to her body. Social, educational, financial, and personal considerations alone
do not outweigh the value of the life that is in the fetus. These considerations by themselves may properly
lead to the decision to place the baby for adoption after its birth, but not to end its existence in utero.
"The womans right to choose what will or will not happen to her body is obviously violated by rape or
incest. When conception results in such a case, the woman has the moral as well as the legal right to an
abortion because the condition of pregnancy is the result of someone elses irresponsibility, not hers. She
does not have to take responsibility for it. To force her by law to carry the fetus to term would be a further
violation of her right. She also has the right to refuse an abortion. This would give her the right to the fetus
and also the responsibility for it. She could later relinquish this right and this responsibility through the
process of placing the baby for adoption after it is born. Whichever way is a responsible choice."
The man who wrote those words also applied the same reasoning to the other exceptions allowed by our
doctrinelife of the mother and a baby that will not survive birth.
I conclude this discussion of choice with two more short points.
If we say we are anti-abortion in our personal life but pro-choice in public policy, we are saying that we
will not use our influence to establish public policies that encourage righteous choices on matters Gods
servants have defined as serious sins. I urge Latter-day Saints who have taken that position to ask
themselves which other grievous sins should be decriminalized or smiled on by the law due to this theory
that persons should not be hampered in their choices. Should we decriminalize or lighten the legal
consequences of child abuse? of cruelty to animals? of pollution? of fraud? of fathers who choose to
abandon their families for greater freedom or convenience?
Similarly, some reach the pro-choice position by saying we should not legislate morality. Those who take
this position should realize that the law of crimes legislates nothing but morality. Should we repeal all laws
with a moral basis so that our government will not punish any choices some persons consider immoral?
Such an action would wipe out virtually all of the laws against crimes.
Diversity
My last illustration of the bad effects of confusing means and ends, methods and goals, concerns the word
diversity. Not many labels have been productive of more confused thinking in our time than this one. A
respected federal judge recently commented on current changes in culture and values by observing that "a
new credo in celebration of diversity seems to be emerging which proclaims, Divided We Stand! " 2 Even
in religious terms, we sometimes hear the words "celebrate diversity" as if diversity were an ultimate goal.
The word diversity has legitimate uses to describe a condition, such as when one discusses "racial and
cultural diversity." Similarly, what we now call "diversity" appears in the scriptures as a condition. This is
evident wherever differences among the children of God are described, such as in the numerous scriptural
references to nations, kindreds, tongues, and peoples.
Yet in the scriptures, the objectives we are taught to pursue on the way to our eternal goals are ideals like
love and obedience. These ideals do not accept us as we are but require each of us to make changes. Jesus
did not pray that His followers would be "diverse." He prayed that they would be "one" (John 17:21-22).
Modern revelation does not say, "Be diverse; and if ye are not diverse, ye are not mine." It says, "Be one;
and if ye are not one ye are not mine" (D&C 38:27).
Since diversity is a condition, a method, or a short-term objectivenot an ultimate goalwhenever
diversity is urged it is appropriate to ask, "What kind of diversity?" or "Diversity in what circumstance or
condition?" or "Diversity in furtherance of what goal?" This is especially important in our policy debates,
which should be conducted not in terms of slogans but in terms of the goals we seek and the methods or
shorter-term objectives that will achieve them. Diversity for its own sake is meaningless and can clearly be
shown to lead to unacceptable results. For example, if diversity is the underlying goal for a neighborhood,
does this mean we should seek to assure that the neighborhood includes thieves and pedophiles,
slaughterhouses and water hazards? Diversity can be a good method to achieve some long-term goal, but
public policy discussions need to get beyond the slogan to identify the goal, to specify the proposed
diversity, and to explain how this kind of diversity will help to achieve the agreed-upon goal.
Our Church has an approach to the obvious cultural and ethnic diversities among our members. We teach
that what unites us is far more important than what differentiates us. Consequently, our members are asked
to concentrate their efforts to strengthen our unitynot to glorify our diversity. For example, our objective
is not to organize local wards and branches according to differences in culture or in ethnic or national
origins, although that effect is sometimes produced on a temporary basis when required because of language
barriers. Instead, we teach that members of majority groupings (whatever their nature) are responsible to
accept Church members of other groupings, providing full fellowship and full opportunities in Church
participation. We seek to establish a community of Saints"one body," the Apostle Paul called it (1 Cor.
12:13)where everyone feels needed and wanted and where all can pursue the eternal goals we share.
Consistent with the Saviors command to "be one," we seek unity. On this subject President Gordon B.
Hinckley has taught:
"I remember when President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., as a counselor in the First Presidency, would stand at
this pulpit and plead for unity among the priesthood. I think he was not asking that we give up our
individual personalities and become as robots cast from a single mold. I am confident he was not asking that
we cease to think, to meditate, to ponder as individuals. I think he was telling us that if we are to assist in
moving forward the work of God, we must carry in our hearts a united conviction concerning the great basic
foundation stones of our faith. If we are to assist in moving forward the work of God, we must carry in
our hearts a united conviction that the ordinances and covenants of this work are eternal and everlasting in
their consequences." 3
Anyone who preaches unity risks misunderstanding. The same is true of anyone who questions the goal of
diversity. Such a one risks being thought intolerant. But tolerance is not jeopardized by promoting unity or
by challenging diversity. Again, I quote President Hinckley: "Each of us is an individual. Each of us is
different. There must be respect for those differences." 4
On another occasion he said:
"We must work harder to build mutual respect, an attitude of forbearance, with tolerance one for another
regardless of the doctrines and philosophies which we may espouse. Concerning these you and I may
disagree. But we can do so with respect and civility." 5
President Hinckley continues:
"An article of the faith to which I subscribe states: We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God
according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship
how, where, or what they may (A of F 1:11). I hope to find myself always on the side of those defending
this position. Our strength lies in our freedom to choose. There is strength even in our very diversity. But
there is greater strength in the God-given mandate to each of us to work for the uplift and blessing of all His
sons and daughters, regardless of their ethnic or national origin or other differences." 6
In short, we preach unity among the community of Saints and tolerance toward the personal differences
that are inevitable in the beliefs and conduct of a diverse population. Tolerance obviously requires a
noncontentious manner of relating toward one anothers differences. But tolerance does not require
abandoning ones standards or ones opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of
reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination.
Strong calls for diversity in the public sector sometimes have the effect of pressuring those holding
majority opinions to abandon fundamental values to accommodate the diverse positions of those in the
minority. Usually this does not substitute a minority value for a majority one. Rather, it seeks to achieve
"diversity" by abandoning the official value position altogether, so that no ones value will be contradicted
by an official or semiofficial position. The result of this abandonment is not a diversity of values but an
official anarchy of values. I believe this is an example of former Brigham Young University visiting
professor Louis Pojmans observation that diversity can be used as "a euphemism for moral relativism." 7
There are hundreds of examples of this, where achieving the goal of diversity results in the anarchy of
values we call moral relativism. These examples include such varied proposals as forbidding the public
schools to teach the wrongfulness of certain behavior or the rightness of patriotism. Another example is the
attempt to banish a representation of the Ten Commandments from any public buildings.
In a day when prominent thinkers have decried the fact that universities have stopped teaching right and
wrong, we are grateful for the countercultural position at Brigham Young University. Moral relativism,
which is said to be the dominant force in American universities, has no legitimate place at BYU. The
faculty teach valuesthe right and wrong taught in the gospel of Jesus Christ.
In conclusion, diversity and choice are not the weightier matters of the law. The weightier matters that
move us toward our goal of eternal life are love of God, obedience to His commandments, and unity in
accomplishing the work of His Church. In this belief and practice we move against the powerful modern
tides running toward individualism and tolerance rather than toward obedience and cooperative action.
Though our belief and practice is unpopular, it is right, and it does not require the blind obedience or the
stifling uniformity its critics charge. If we are united on our eternal goal and united on the inspired
principles that will get us there, we can be diverse on individual efforts in support of our goals and
consistent with those principles.
We know that the work of God cannot be done without unity and cooperative action. We also know that
the children of God cannot be exalted as single individuals. Neither a man nor a woman can be exalted in the
celestial kingdom unless both unite in the unselfishness of the everlasting covenant of marriage and unless
both choose to keep the commandments and honor the covenants of that united state.
I testify of Jesus Christ, our Savior. As the One whose Atonement paid the incomprehensible price for our
sins, He is the One who can prescribe the conditions for our salvation. He has commanded us to keep His
commandments (see John 14:15) and to "be one" (D&C 38:27). I pray that we will make the wise choices
to keep the commandments and to seek the unity that will move us toward our ultimate goal, "eternal life,
which gift is the greatest of all the gifts of God" (D&C 14:7).
Gospel topics: abortion, agency, family, goals, perspective, plan of salvation, tolerance, unity
© 2001 Intellectual Reserve, Inc.
All rights reserved.