The Policy of Exclusion is often abbreviated as POX on the bloggernacle to describe the exclusion of children of gays from blessings, baptism, and ordination. I sat down with Greg Prince when he visited Salt Lake in September, and we discussed both his upcoming book, as well as his feelings about “the policy.”
Greg: I think this policy has done a lot of damage, and that’s not just a supposition. You can put real numbers behind that. I don’t like to be in the position of explaining to the president of the seminary[1] why my church is whacking infants. But I didn’t explain that. I said, “David, I don’t understand this anymore than you do.” Because there is nothing in LDS theology that I know of that justifies whacking infants; they are pure and sin-free. We are punishing them with this policy.
In discussing gay marriage, the history of marriage in the LDS Church for heterosexual couples came up, and I think Greg has an interesting point right at the outset that you may find interesting.
Greg: Up until 1960s within the United States you could have a civil wedding ceremony and go to the temple the next day to be sealed.
GT: Until the ‘60s.
Greg: Yeah, late ‘60s.
GT: Wow.
Why did that change?
We’ll also discussed the common questions: will the LDS Church be forced to marry gay members in the LDS Temples? What does Greg Prince think about that?
Greg: I’m telling you it’s an empty justification. It’s scare talk. It has no basis in reality…. it’s a bankrupt argument.
Greg is currently writing a book about the history of LDS policy towards gays. He notes that there is both good and bad moves by the LDS Church toward gays.
Greg: In [2015][2] the [Utah] Legislature with a big public push from the church (otherwise it couldn’t have happened), passed Senate Bill 296 which forbade by law discrimination against LGBT people in the areas employment and housing. That was a big step forward because Utah still is the only state whose legislature and gubernatorial chair are occupied by Republicans that has passed that kind of legislation.
GT: Oh really?
Greg: Yeah, but then later that year, the Church came out with “the Policy” and so it was another low point. We just seem to be in this cycle of a step forward and a step back, and the LGBT population in particular, since they are the ones who are most affected by these things is wondering, are we really moving forward, or are we just kind of being batted back and forth?
GT: What do you think the answer is to that?
Greg: I don’t know yet.
GT: I know that November Policy was hard for a lot of people. Why do you think that the policy came out in the first place?
Greg: Oh I know why it came out because I talked to a couple of the Brethren who very clearly said it was a response to the Supreme Court decision in June of that year. In March of that year you had SB 296. That was a high water mark. That was good news.
Check out part 1 and part 2. What are your thoughts about the POX? Is it against LDS theology? Are children being punished for their parents sins when they aren’t blessed, baptized, or ordained? Do you agree with Greg’s point that the church has both good and bad moves towards gay members?
[1] Greg is on the board of directors for Methodist Church Seminary. It is the largest Methodist seminary in the nation.
I feel like I’ve said this a number of times lately (so forgive the repeat), but I do see the POX as hurting children under LDS doctrine. Baptism is suppose to mean something. If it does not, then why not wait until ALL children are 18 to be baptized so that they can make an informed, adult decision themselves to join the church without undue pressure from or difficulty of parents who aren’t ideal? (also, waiting would cut down on our abysmal retention rates.)
But what really bugs me is that the POX infantilizes parents. It says that they should not be the ones to decide what is right for their children; the church should get that responsibility. I don’t think the church set out to do this (I think they just copied the polygamy rules when SSM became legal, with very little thought to the repercussions), but it is what they did. I believe parents have a duty and responsibility to love, cherish, and raise their children as directed by God. The church should support that rather than undermine it.
I believe church leaders don’t want to do anything which mainstreams LGBT marriage/relationships. In their minds, if those who are LGBT form families and are allowed to have children blessed/baptized then that will just lead to greater acceptance.
In contrast to church support for SB296, we also have the church filing/joining an amicus brief in the Masterpiece cake case on the side of allowing discrimination against gay/lesbian weddings.
So on balance, I would say church response is more negative than positive.
Prop 8 significantly damaged our relationship with the church. My husband resigned his position in the bishopric once he saw leaders (local, regional etc) were willing to use untruthful and demonizing material in the fight against Prop 8.
I wonder if the civil marriage/temple sealing policy change in the 60’s is related to that era of the “sexual revolution.” Perhaps they didn’t want people ( maybe engaging in premarital sex) getting a “quickie” marriage followed by a temple sealing.
What Lois said. It may vary from ward to ward but en balance the church doesn’t want to have a happy same sex couple sitting in church giving members the impression that successful marriage doesn’t have to be heterosexual. Any doubly so if there are any kids involved.
GBSmith is 100 percent correct.
When I was growing up LDS, l truly believed that “wickedness never was happiness” and that people “are that they might have joy.” I couldn’t understand why extended family members said the church hated fun or was trying to restrict people’s choices, because I knew the commandments were given to us so that we could be happy. And that a lot of the world’s problems stemmed from people not obeying the commandments.
Then I had an absolute nervous breakdown from trying so hard to be Mormon, and spent the next ten years of my life with crippling “emotional problems.” Which largely came from being shamed by my parents and excluded from coming-of-age rituals, like a mission, because I was honest about masturbating. I’m just glad that I didn’t kill myself over it, the way Kip Eliason did.
Everyone in this church is so anxious trying to be something that they’re not. We’re ashamed of ourselves, ashamed of our bodies, ashamed of our romantic feelings, and terrified that if we “give in” we’ll become hateful monsters. The sight of people who “gave in” but are kinder, more loving, and more well-adjusted would break our minds, if we opened our hearts enough to ask why they are like that.
Some of us can’t help but ask, and all the hateful stories and lies in the world can’t change that.
When the policy was first announced i thought it was harmful and against scripture. I still see it that way.
I think the harmful effects of this policy goes beyond that done to the children of ssm families. I loathe what the policy teaches to children in heterosexual marriage families: that they are somehow better than the other children. This policy encourages bigotry from infancy, imo, by selecting a group of children as not acceptable to partake in blessings we claim necessary for salvation.
The Church’s “good and bad moves” toward gay people seem, to me, to be primarily “bad” moves with just enough highly publicized and limited-in-scope “good” moves to keep up a facade of tolerance. SB296, for example, was neutered by religious exemptions, while the recent “Love Loud” festival was little more than empty air. I think there might also have been a small donation a little while ago toward LGBT homeless youth, or something like that. Compare those acts to POX and other church policies, which demonstrate a callous disregard toward LGBT families; the amicus brief filed in Masterpiece Cake Shop, which, for all its words about accommodating both sides, came down firmly on the side of the baker; and any number of statements from the Church’s general authorities condemning gay people. The comparative import of these words and actions is huge.
By fostering an image that could plausibly be interpreted as both LGBT-friendly and anti-LGBT, the Church appeases all its members. Conservative members are happy because the Church isn’t yielding any significant ground, and liberal members are happy because there’s always *hope* for the Church to become more accommodating. It’s a balancing act.
This is coming from somebody who struggles with SSA I don’t think it’s a good idea for children to see two men and two women holding hands in the church, this would have the Will and Grace effect of normalizing homosexuality.
1.) I am 100% against the exclusion policy.
2.) I feel It is against current theology, but Mormonism is adaptable. I’m sure if it stays on the books long enough, creative General Authorities can come up with doctrinal justification: “children born to gay parents were less valiant in the pre-existence” or “we’re more valiant in the pre-existence”. We have learned by sad experience that there is no policy so ugly doctrine can’t be made up in its support.
3.) I believe this is self-evident.
4.) Yes, but more bad than good. It’s like a relationship with an abuser: he may bring you flowers (usually after beating you) but at the end of the day, no matter how much he says he loves you with his words, his actions speak his true feelings towards you. You should probably leave him.
*were not we’re
(stupid autocorrect)
Personally, in one sense, I felt like the POX was kind of a concession on the Church’s part, and mostly for the greater good of the child. Additionally, in response to the cynic, it kind of goes against the narrative that the Church is simply out to increase its net worth by gaining as many tithe payers as possible. I see a few different scenarios in families in which same-sex relationships or attractions are involved. It’s a list that is in no way exhaustive.
1. Same-sex couples fully believe being in the relationship they’re in is perfectly fine. A Church that does not profess that is not of God, if a belief in God even exists still at this point. Keeping their children or potential children away from that Church is in their best interest. The Church’s action simply made that decision that much easier, despite how disgusting their actions may be
.
2. Same-sex couples believe the Church is right about everything except everything to do with homosexuality. They want their kids raised in the Church despite the fact it’s wrong on this one point. They are disappointed they can no longer do so.
3. Members with SSA simply want to live the Gospel to the best of their ability and are willing to make whatever sacrifice to do so.
In my own, admittedly limited, experience with members with SSA, I’ve only seen scenarios 1 and 3. I’ve only encountered scenario 2 in the bloggernacle. It no doubt exists, but I don’t feel like it’s as prominent as people like to make it out to be.
There was also the issue of the welfare of the family and child before the POX. So many SS relationships start out from broken hetero relationships. A SS couple may feel the Church is destroying the relationship they have with a child from the previous relationship. Or if the child was from the SS relationship to begin with and ended up getting baptized he or she will automatically start to feel at odds with the parents and the Church as they get older. I’ll concede there is also a legal aspect involved in the POX in which the Church has absolved itself of all potential legal actions SS parents might take against them for indoctrinating their children. But since heartache is almost inevitably felt on both sides of such actions, the Church has simply spared people the effort of going through it in the first place. I look at the struggle kids go through just from a hetero divorce, especially when one parent has left the Church. I can’t imagine children of SS relationships would have it much easier if the Church was involved.
If you had the choice and ability to deny baptism at the age of accountability to the entire demographic of children of SS relationships, or let them go through baptism with the confidence that for the majority of them , it would only bring pain, sorrow, confusion, and be a wedge in their family relationships (no matter what that family looks like) throughout their entire childhood, what would you do? Again, no scenario is the same as another, but in the end, I’d go with the former.
I can understand why so many view the POX as an act of discrimination at first glance. I’ve personally come to view it as a reluctant act of concession, but also an act of overall concern for the child and family, and I do believe it is inspired.
Additionally, as one who sincerely believes we are all children of Heavenly Parents, not for one minute will I allow my children to believe they are somehow better than children of SS parents. I know of no one who plans on teaching their children otherwise.
Eli –
” If you had the choice and ability to deny baptism at the age of accountability to the entire demographic of children of SS relationships, or let them go through baptism with the confidence that for the majority of them , it would only bring pain, sorrow, confusion, and be a wedge in their family relationships (no matter what that family looks like) throughout their entire childhood, what would you do?”
And yet this is true of kids in all kinds of situations. My daughter’s BFF’s mother fought her getting baptized for years and years. She eventually caved to her daughter’s pressure (and the multitude of missionaries/ward members who worked on convincing her) and now they fight about it endlessly, with the mom trying to talk her daughter out of attending church, keeping the sabbath holy, paying tithing, etc. I can’t imagine what it is going to be like if the daughter chooses to be married in the temple. Under your logic, this girl also should have been barred from being baptized. If it is SO important that the church not create wedges in families, why not bar all such situations, not just kids with parents in SSM?
The church NEVER denied baptism to blacks, despite the so-called “doctrine” of racial superiority. Baptism is the gateway to the Celestial Kingdom. To deny baptism is to deny the Celestial Kingdom.
I agree with Prince. The policy banning children of gays or polygamists is against LDS Theology. These children are being punished for the parents sins, not their own (infants can’t sin in the case of blessings), and breaks the 2nd Article of Faith.
This is completely wrong-headed, and I can’t wait until we have a leader that recognizes how harmful this policy is, how against theology is, and kills the policy. It is anti-Christian and needs to go 2 years ago. We apparently have no theologians among the brethren, but simply bureaucrats who are doing what their told, not evaluating theology.
ReTx – In your response to Eli, you bring up the same point that I brought up on an earlier post (Remember, remember the 5th of November). I obtained no answer from a commenter named Stan and he subsequently disappeared from the discussion. I suspect you’ll receive no answer. This is the one issue that supporters of the policy have not answered, why the double standard? My wife joined the church at the age of 16 as the only member of the church in her family. She sat in YW classes and sang “Families Can Be Together Forever” with tears in her eyes because this was not her reality. According to LDS theology, she was going to be separated from her parents, aunts, uncles, etc. upon death. You can’t tell me that this didn’t cause confusion for her. It did, but the church didn’t see the need to protect her from this pain. There is a double standard here and there is no logical explanation for it.
Eli – “If you had the choice and ability to deny baptism at the age of accountability to the entire demographic of children of SS relationships, or let them go through baptism with the confidence that for the majority of them , it would only bring pain, sorrow, confusion, and be a wedge in their family relationships…”
What if the collateral damage of denying baptism to save children from some perceived confusion and sorrow is that previously active and faithful latter-day saints are equally confused and sorrowful over such a policy and they leave the church; driving a wedge in their family relationships in many cases? I suspect that the net result of this policy has been more confusion, sorrow, and church resignations than what would have resulted from not instituting the policy and allowing the children of SSM couples to go forward.
Troy Cline “I suspect you’ll receive no answer.”
I wonder what gave that impression. I may not have responded right away. I do work nights (just woke up and should still be sleeping), but I always try my best to give a respectful response when prompted.
ReTx “If it is SO important that the church not create wedges in families, why not bar all such situations, not just kids with parents in SSM?”
For one, I don’t think all living conditions, lifestyles, and sins are viewed by the church as being the same. Again, no scenario is the same, but given the current political and judicial climate I think the Church felt it made the best decision for all parties involved.
Additionally. I think the Church does make a habit of avoiding such situations, even if they fall short of barring other demographics. When I served a mission, we received explicit instructions from the area authorities, emphasized more and more throughout my two years, to do all in our power to baptize entire families. If that was not possible, we were to make sure everyone in the family would be okay and supportive of those who chose to be baptized. If there was no support, individuals who were not minors and still desired baptism were considered for admittance prayerfully. I never did see the last situation. Having served in one of the lowest baptizing missions in the world, this policy did annoy some Elders and Sisters, but I felt it was the right thing to do. I imagine the Church may only become stricter now in these regards.
MH “To deny baptism is to deny the Celestial Kingdom.”
Baptism is still waiting for them if they want it as an adult. I’ve seen so many people who choose to be out of the Church but work so hard to have the influence of the Holy Ghost in their lives that they practically have the gift of the Holy Ghost with them already. If SS couples want to do all in their power to have that influence in the life of their child I trust that child will make the right decision as an adult.
Eli, then why baptize at 8? Anyone can be baptized as an adult. (Except for those who die in car accidents or other things, and then we can baptize for the dead, so why baptize anyone at all if it doesn’t really matter?)
Lance Allred was a child of polygamists and couldn’t get baptized until later. He said,
See https://mormonheretic.org/2015/11/23/blacks-and-gays/
You seem to completely ignore these consequences, and almost make it sound like baptism doesn’t matter. Does baptism at age 8 matter? If not, why not. If so, why? Honestly those aren’t rhetorical questions. Please answer them.
MH, I was not in any way trying to lessen the importance of baptism. I do think it is an important ordinance. Just as importantly, I think it’s an outward sign of inner commitment to come closer to Christ. The more often this can happen at the age of accountability, the better.
I sincerely feel the Church is all about bringing people closer to the Savior (preferably through baptism), and strengthening family relationships (preferably of the nuclear type). If baptism creates a wedge and contention in those family relationships, then neither purpose is accomplished.
Really, the Church is damned either way, which is way I labeled it more of a concession in the first place. If it indoctrinates children of SSM then it gets criticized for being a potential or outright wedge in the family relationships. If it denies these children baptism it gets criticized for not freeing them from the hardships of the life of a nonmember. Happiness in either of those situations is largely dependent on the family. The decision to be happy can now be made without interference from the Church, and the Church has no new members because of it. And although I firmly believe the Church and the Gospel enhances and elevates all aspects of life, I’ve learned that Church members have no monopoly on happiness, family relationships, or a basic relationship with the Savior, all of which have the potential to grow later in life.
Again, I still fee like we’re talking about a very small demographic. If I’m a parent in a SS relationship, and I feel the Church is wrong on SS relationships and therefore not true, why would I want my child baptized in it? If I struggle with SSA but feel the Church is completely true, why would I not be living every standard it sets forth? The existence of a SS relationship is non-existent. If I feel the Church is true on everything but homosexuality, how do I honestly explain that to my children and expect them to honestly adhere to Church teachings? Even if I plan having them get baptized only to ignore the Church’s teachings on homosexuality, can I feel honest about having them join the organization in the first place? Even if I just felt such policies were from the frenzied minds of a few old men, I can’t help but think a lack of honesty would be eating away at a small part of my conscience. What does that teach my children about me and my partner? In some ways, the Church has spared families those feelings as well. I’ve encountered a few of the first two scenarios. I have yet to encounter the last one. I’m sure there has to exist a few SS couples who want their kids raised in the Church and to instill in their children a desire to follow all its teachings but are saddened by the policy’s affect on their children. I do think the Lord is mindful of these children.
“Even if I plan having them get baptized only to ignore the Church’s teachings on homosexuality, can I feel honest about having them join the organization in the first place? Even if I just felt such policies were from the frenzied minds of a few old men, I can’t help but think a lack of honesty would be eating away at a small part of my conscience.”
Hmmm…. Under this definition, then my children shouldn’t be baptized either. I am not in a SSM, but I am teaching my kids that the church is wrong about SSM. Interestingly, the wedge isn’t between my kids and I, but my kids and the church. And I would think that is true of children of SSM.
Of course my daughter’s BFF is the opposite of this. It will be interesting to see who wins the girl’s loyalty long term – her mom or the church. (I hope she chooses God over either of those two.)
Eli, when I wrote ‘I suspect you’ll receive no answer,’ I wasn’t meaning to express doubt that you specifically wouldn’t respond. I can see how my comment could be interpreted that way, so I apologize for my lack of clarity. I’m willing to agree that the church feels that it made the best decision. Doesn’t mean it actually WAS the best decision and, thinking about how this was rolled out, I feel it was sloppily done. At any rate, I wish the church would have erred on the side of mercy and permitted individual families to be the ones deciding what is best for any given child.
Eli, the church creates all sorts of wedges. How many stories have you heard about a person that is disowned by their (Catholic, protestant, atheist) family because they joined the LDS Church? There are countless stories.
You’re arguing a strawman here. The gay parents want the kid blessed/baptized/ordained. Why is this a wedge? It’s not. The gay parents BELIEVE in the LDS Church (unlike the Catholic, protestant, atheist parents.) Yet the church has no problem creating wedges with Catholic, protestant, atheist families. So calling this a wedge is an inaccurate representation. It’s not. Gay parents BELIEVE which is why they want the ordinances. This “wedge” you’re arguing doesn’t exist for believing gay parents.
It’s a completely nonsensical policy, and I haven’t heard you make sense of it, but instead talk about wedges that (1) don’t really apply, and (2) the church routinely disregards in other situations. It’s inconsistent and hypocritical, and no you haven’t logically explained the rationale that is completely against LDS Theology.
I’m sorry I’m not making sense. I feel like I completely understand where you are coming from and can even understand how absurd I may sound on many levels. The whole wedge thing made the most sense and felt right to me after a lot of pondering, I do think the Church is starting to be more mindful of avoiding wedges even beyond children of SS couples. At least it was during my mission. Although I felt that was one of the primary reasons for the policy, I don’t think it was necessarily the only one. I’ll admit I haven’t given it much thought beyond that. I am sorry if I came across as insensitive as well.
As with most disagreements about Church policy or doctrine, I guess it almost always goes deeper into how we really view what the Church actually is and how it’s run. I believe Church leaders are inspired of God and receive revelation–no matter how simply it may be given–on a regular basis. I believe most every major decision the Church makes is for the purpose of benefiting as many of Heavenly Father’s children as possible. I do think the Lord allows his servants a great degree of autonomy at times, maybe even most of the time, and as mortal men and women I do think they make some mistakes now and then. However, when it comes to the salvation of children, faith prevents me from believing the Lord is incapable of stopping His servants from employing a policy that so seemingly goes against LDS theology. On the contrary, for such a sweeping policy to be employed it would take nothing less than a belief that the Lord approved of it in order for me to accept it and hopefully, at some point and level, understand it as well. I’ll admit it didn’t take me long to accept it under that mindset. Faith leads me to believe that no matter how counter-intuitive or awful that policy may initially seem, the Lord has shown the watchmen on the tower something on the distant horizon that I’m not currently seeing, and maybe won’t entirely in mortality. I would hope to come to an understanding of such an implementation, and felt I had somewhat with the wedge issue, but I have no doubt I’m not seeing everything. Since inspiration and revelation is a bedrock of LDS theology, I would say the policy fits within that theology. I understand that others may feel differently.
Thank you for tolerating me throughout this discussion.
“Faith leads me to believe that no matter how counter-intuitive or awful that policy may initially seem, the Lord has shown the watchmen on the tower something on the distant horizon that I’m not currently seeing, and maybe won’t entirely in mortality.”
That’s truly an awful thing to admit. I hate to come out with the same old questions, but would you:
*kill your son if God commanded it? (like Abraham)
*Marry a second wife (or 32nd)? (like Joseph Smith)
*participate in the Mountain Meadows Massacre if leaders asked you?
God gave us a brain. If God asked me to do these things, I would rather go to hell. I would refuse to worship a god who told me to break his commandments. If you would do those things “through faith”, your faith is vain, you have ceded your free agency, and the god you worship is the devil.
” I do think the Lord allows his servants a great degree of autonomy at times, maybe even most of the time, and as mortal men and women I do think they make some mistakes now and then.”
Name one.
I’ll name more than one MAJOR mistake:
*polygamy
*the black ban
*the Policy
*scriptures supporting slavery and rape in the Bible
*the Martin-Willey Handcart disaster
I refuse to believe that God “signed off” on these unchristian policies. I will agree with you that God does grant a large degree of autonomy. But God didn’t give a revelation to ban blacks, the Policy, and while parts of D&C 132 are inspired, other parts flatly conflict with scripture. I’d throw that section in a lake of fire and brimstone if I could.
I encourage you to follow Ballard’s advice. See https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865692742/Elder-M-Russell-Ballard-tackles-tough-topics-shares-timely-advice-with-BYU-students.html
Having just read the post about Haidt, I’d say that Eli has a conservative brain and highly values ‘authority’ as a virtue with the church leadership innately holding moral authority. MH has a liberal brain and values ‘care’ and sees moral leadership as something to be earned. Would you guys say the same about yourselves though?
(No attacked intended toward either of you. Reading your comments makes me more aware of how this all works and how sometimes I get caught up in ‘my side.’ (errr… I also clearly have a liberal brain.))
While I have never been comfortable with the term “liberal”, yes ReTx, I think you nailed the differences between me and Eli. (And I enjoyed Happy Hubby’s post.)
ReTx
I know a lot of it comes down to semantics, but believing in a God whose actions occasionally and initially challenge my current notions, understanding, and assumptions of theology strikes me as a more liberal view. However, since we are talking about the actions of leaders, and where I have a hard time separating their major actions with the will of God, I can understand how I’d get slapped with the label of having a “conservative” brain.
As far as authority goes, I’ve never felt like a blind follower. I heard “follow the Prophet” a lot in my youth. But more often, I heard variations of the counsel to “Never take anything the Prophet says for granted. Study it out, think about, ponder over it, and pray for guidance.” I’ve taken that counsel to heart. There do exist a lot of “sheeple” in Church. I don’t consider myself one of them. I think they are that way by choice, not because of what they’ve been taught. The very most free-thinking people I’ve met in life have almost always been LDS.
MH
I’m not going to respond to your examples point by point. I have no doubt each, in your eyes, would make me look twice to fool you already believe me to be. I do believe there are certain actions and requests that if made by God would cause Him to cease to be so. I do believe there are things God is incapable of, but I don’t think we’d agree on all of them. And by faith, I’m not talking about some form of misguided blind adherence. At the simplest level I’m talking about pure knowledge implanted from the Spirit that God knows something I don’t, but can trust. At the deepest level I’m talking about a faith developed so powerfully and necessarily that for a brief moment God would allow me to know a portion of what He knows in order to accomplish His purposes. I’m obviously on the simplest level, and even struggle there often.
“God gave us brain.”
I fail to see where having faith and a brain are mutually exclusive. Developing faith means that I have to have done my homework. The notion that because I view things differently than another means I haven’t thought them out in the first place grows tedious. Still, I’ve been guilty doing it with others. My moral agency is alive and well sir.
“Name one.”
I suppose I owe you that much. Although nothing as drastic as your examples, the first thing to come to mind was quick baptismal tactics of the 60s and 70s. I think the failure to prevent them was a failure on many levels of leadership. I think a large reason Church growth has slowed is because the Lord wants us to get it right first time and keep the people we have. I remember Elder Ballard expressed similar sentiments at a conference my dad attended in the mid-90s.
I’ve no doubt you’re growing tired of this conversation, but you’ve definitely got me wondering what role you believe God has in the Restored Church, if at all. After careful thought, study, pondering, and prayer, I’ve come to believe Heavenly Father is a being who is doing everything in His power to bring us back into His presence as He is, short of ripping away the veil, our faith, and agency. Operating under that premise, I feel He is fully capable of calling Servants He can give a great degree of autonomy to, but also lead, guide, and censure whenever He sees fit. You’ve got the sardonic side of me having the Lord say “Well brethren, I certainly didn’t see that coming. I guess my hands are tied at the moment. Guess I’m going to have to raise up more child-loving leaders in the future who have a conscience, aren’t homophobes, and think baptism is actually important. Can’t believe I didn’t get it right the first time.” More seriously, I do realize that mortal people change, while the Lord doesn’t, but I don’t think the Lord is limited by His Servants, despite the fact mortality is as much a test for them as it is the rest of us. I realize the majority reading this probably believe the Lord isn’t involved with this at all. One could ask them further what value the Church has at all, whether or not the Lord even claims it anymore, or any number of related questions. Such disagreements then go so much deeper that the real conversation is no longer about a policy anymore, if it ever really was.
In the end, again operating under the premise Heavenly Father is doing all in His power to bring His children back to Him, if one cannot at the very least entertain the idea that He is capable of doing something that challenges a current theological worldview while still maintaining all those virtues that make Him God, nor entertain the idea that His actions have some underlying virtue and purpose that cannot immediately be understood (but in which a quest for such understanding is welcomed), then he or she has done nothing to convince me they are any less narrow minded than you’ve made me out to be. Such a standard is equally applied to things that challenge both a “liberal” theological worldview, as well as a “conservative” one, and I doubt many of us will get through this life without struggling with at least one or two of these challenges.
Thank you for the links. I did read them.
Troy, I’m sorry I misunderstood you earlier. No need to apologize. I’m glad we have at least a little common ground.