In a bold move just days before the upcoming General Conference of the Church, LDS leadership has rescinded policies that, for the last three and a half years, have more or less prohibited the baptism of children of gay parents and formally defined being in a gay marriage as apostasy. The announcement was posted at the Mormon Newsroom on Thursday, April 4:
Here are the paragraphs in the announcement outlining the new approach:
[E]ffective immediately, children of parents who identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender may be baptized without First Presidency approval if the custodial parents give permission for the baptism and understand both the doctrine that a baptized child will be taught and the covenants he or she will be expected to make.
A nonmember parent or parents (including LGBT parents) can request that their baby be blessed by a worthy Melchizedek Priesthood holder. These parents need to understand that congregation members will contact them periodically, and that when the child who has been blessed reaches 8 years of age, a Church member will contact them and propose that the child be baptized.
Previously, our Handbook characterized same-gender marriage by a member as apostasy. While we still consider such a marriage to be a serious transgression, it will not be treated as apostasy for purposes of Church discipline. Instead, the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way.
Here is a story that was quickly posted at the Salt Lake Tribune, followed by a quote from the article:
https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/04/04/lds-church-dumps-its/
Oaks was clear that the Utah-based faith is not revising its doctrine on homosexuality, which teaches that having same-sex attraction is not a sin, but acting on it is.
“These changes do not represent a shift in church doctrine related to marriage or the commandments of God in regard to chastity and morality,” the newsroom statement said. “The doctrine of the plan of salvation and the importance of chastity will not change.”
And here is a story that was quickly posted at the Deseret News, followed by a quote from the article:
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900063943/church-lgbt-gay-lesbian-policy-mormon-baptisms-blessings-apostasy.html
President Russell M. Nelson, who succeeded President Monson as church president, was president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in 2015. He said in early 2016 that the November 2015 policies were the result of revelation. Latter-day Saints believe that God directs the church through ongoing revelation through a living prophet, the church president. President Nelson, who became the church president in January 2018, told general and area authorities from around the world during Thursday morning’s meeting that a flurry of policy changes over the past year were inspired by revelation.
I suspect most Mormons will see this change as a very welcome move. In coming days, there will no doubt be a great deal of discussion on this change. First, if the November Policy was a revelation in 2015, un-revealing it in 2019, less than four years later, deserves some explanation. There seems to be some confusion about what is a revelation, what is a doctrine, what is a policy, and what is just an administrative decision, or whether these labels even mean anything anymore. Second, it’s still rather unclear what is the status of LDS individuals in a gay marriage. Local leaders need to get some additional clearer guidance on how to proceed.
But for today, this is great news and we all look forward to further commentary on this policy change in the upcoming General Conference this weekend.
Wheat & Tares 
I’ve been taking my vitamins, but I did not see this one coming. If only we could undo the last 3.5 years and forget that Nelson was the author of this policy (er, self-described revelator of it). I’m willing to move on, but there have been many many casualties from this policy, people I care about, and my own heart died a bit as well. The worst part of this is going to be the church members who will say that nothing has changed, and if you think anything has changed you don’t really understand or have a testimony.
The 2015 policy change was the push that sent my college-age daughter out of the church. I’m very happy about the change announced today, even knowing that this news will not cause her to say, “Oh, okay, I’ll come back.” And I’ll just throw in another “I’m very happy about this,” while noting with sadness the careful clarifying that accompanied the news. Previously LGBTQ people’s status was essentially, “you’re evil like apostates.” Being upgraded to “you’re evil like adulterers” is progress, but it still doesn’t feel like unalloyed good news.
Having said that, I feel called to widen my view by Kristine’s relevant post at BCC today. Rather than focus on the progress I don’t see yet, perhaps I can be part of progress, right where I am.
I am so happy and relieved about this change, but like Angela said, I wish we could go back and undo all the pain and suffering of the last three and a half years.
My first impression was, rather cynically, “Oh, God, changed His mind…. again?” while it’s welcome, a lot of damage has been done. Probably irreparable I’m many cases.
I was totally surprised, like most of you.
I’m pleased to see this reversal but it’s still not a step forward. The leaders haven’t changed their official stance on homosexuality. I’m of the opinion that we can no more control what we believe our our gender to be than we can control the color of our skin – the church eventually changed their position on being born black… so I’m waiting. These conundrums cause me to question whether these men really do have a pipeline to God?
di, I think they have a pipeline–it’s just the same one you and I have. What recent changes have made clear to me is that their pipeline might be slower on some issues than mine. I’m not ceding my own pipeline to theirs. I used to. But these changes have built my independence. I wish they would acknowledge the faults in their pipelines from time to time to make it a little more real. This particular fault has hurt more than others. I can follow, but I will only follow if my pipeline confirms I should. Hopefully they will now move forward.
From the Church’s website (Policy Changes Announced for Members in Gay Marriages, Children of LGBT Parents):
“… the changes reflect the continuing revelation that has been a part of the modern Church since the Restoration.”
The problem with maintaining infallibility is that the official position of the Church continues to be that the November policy of exclusion (POX) was also a result of continuing revelation. Revelation from the Lord. That change could have easily been couched in terms of a policy change, had President Nelson not gone on record stating the POX was revealed. Today’s announcement would have just been a policy update. Instead, the church has once again created an image of the Lord as a mischievous Loki type of God that relishes playing games. Sometimes I wonder if Heinlein was inspired by the LDS Church for his book “Job: A Comedy of Justice.”
I’m with other folks on this thread. It’s a relief, but further undermines, IMO, the absurd claims about revelation, God’s will, etc. That’s a pretty quick turnaround, so I wonder what God is trying to teach us having enacted three and a half years of visiting bigotry and distress upon his innocent children. And I’m also with Angela C that the obedient faithful will say nothing’s changed, etc. and then they’ll say, hey, the policy was changed, so what are you complaining about? The rhetorical effectiveness of the phrase/concept “continuing revelation” is designed to silence questions that we may ask about this sudden turnaround. Like “fake news”, it’s less a gospel concept per se and more a dog whistle for the supposed faithful. We’re still behind the curve on a lot of things, including, still, sexual orientation. I don’t think we’ll ever catch up and that’s what’s causing a lot of the younger folks to leave, I think.
Very pleased about the news.
Too little too late. Damage has already been done. This happened during what is likely the most crucial years of my dear son’s teenage life. Who has given up on the church because it rejected his beloved sister.
the Desnews article said the change was „inspired by revelation.“ So I guess that‘s clear.
Kudos to the Church for making the change, better late than never. A mild example of institutional repentance-without the saying sorry part.
I’m starting to think “inspired by revelation” means something similar to “inspired by Jimi Hendrix lyrics.”
As non-LDS, I applaud the church’s baby step regarding this policy. At the same time, I’m reminded of that scene in “The Wizard of Oz” where the Great & Powerful One intones, “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”
So which version is revelation? The most recent? Why?
Or just the version you agree with?
Well I am happy, for once, we can change hurtful policies sooner rather than later. I’m glad Pres Nelson was able to change course rather than kick the problem down the road.
My view is that God is more “hands-off” than “hands-on.” He lets us—all of us, leaders included, to fumble around, make mistakes, learn, make changes etc. apparently at our own pace.
In the end, we all will be judged by He who knows our trials, our circumstances and opportunities, our capabilities, our suffering etc. Let us be more loving, more welcoming/charitable/kind to all. He will, in the end, judge us and sort it all out in the end.
I saw this from a friend on Facebook.
“I’m actually very surprised by how angry I am by the Church’s announcement today of the November 2015 policy reversal. This policy destroyed people, blew up families, led to suicides, created a lot of “collateral damage.” And, at the time, it was called the “will of the Lord.”
Now it’s reversed. No acknowledgment of the pain it caused. No acknowledgement that it was a mistake. No explanation of why. And we’re supposed to see its reversal as a benevolent change that will lead to more constructive dialogue and better feelings. I’m sorry. I’m angry right now.
I’ll get over it. I’ve been angry before and I keep going to church. But please don’t come to me looking for my excitement about the change. Relieved, yes. But it’s all a bit too late for many people, including some people very close to me. And this is not the repentance process I taught people when I was on my Mormon mission.”
I so fully agree with you!
It seems like there were a few more parts to the POX that aren’t being commented on in these articles (something like limitations on YM receiving the priesthood if they had an LGBTQ parent and all children of LGBTQ parents having to condemn gay marriage before they could receive ordinances at 18yo). Am I remembering correctly? Does anyone know if those are still in effect?
I’m starting to think that the biggest revelation of President Nelson’s tenure is not going to be a single policy, but a profound, inspired reassessment by each believer of her understanding of the way the Lord leads the Church. That is, some, but not all the time, and you can’t always tell. Faith’s always been required to follow a prophet, but at this point, the pace of change is all but tongue-in-cheek. I can see how the resulting critical examination is valuable, but the one thing I can’t explain is why it’s valuable enough to be bought with the price of so many people’s spiritual (and physical) deaths.
To anyone hurt by the Former Policy, or by it’s change in this way, I say (though the Church won’t): I’m sorry.
“I suspect most Mormons will see this change as a very welcome move.”
Maybe here in this bubble; elsewhere probably not much notice or interest.
If you believe the president of the church makes policy from revelation, you don’t worry if it changes every 100 years or every day.
If you do NOT believe the president of the church makes policy decisions, you still don’t worry about it because you’ve gone elsewhere for church and revelations.
But if some policy is revealed and some is not, and you intend to obey only the revealed-by-God bits, then some wrestling seems appropriate.
I’m currently unsure what change this actually represents, other than that it’s tone appears to be conciliatory as opposed to the retaliatory tone of the POX, so in that sense I’m delighted. It will certainly be welcomed by my own stake high council who have been very concerned about the tone of our communications in relation to the gay community.
I suppose a bit of clarification might be in order.
The church is not MINE. Maybe there’s revelation and maybe there isn’t; does it matter? Does it matter whether any particular policy was dictated verbatim by God Almighty, or merely a hint from the Holy Ghost, or just seemed like a good idea?
Not for anything practical. Bishops do not comply with God, they comply with First Presidency directives. It is a “chain of command”. Hopefully most of the First Presidency directives are at least inspired in some way.
The world is changing. The church also changes; sometimes to align, sometimes to oppose. I do not question a policy 3 or 4 years ago and I do not question today’s policies. America of today is not America of 4 years ago. Adaptation, embrace, avoid — one cannot remain standing in one place for long. Mormons bailing out on the Boy Scouts of America was unimaginable four years ago. Then some hints of a replacement program that still seem to be hints. Mormons moving to in-home self guided church instruction. It is possible that the nation will become so hostile to religion that home is the only place that one can worship God openly, provided of course you shut off your cellphone, take out its battery (i have one where that’s still possible), unplug your Amazon and Google spy devices. Oh, and watch out for smart refrigerators and even your wristwatch is now monitoring your conversations and movements.
I believe that God’s purpose for life has never changed; but how exactly that purpose is implemented necessarily changes either from time to time, or situation to situation, or person to person (or all the above).
Michael 2: “But if some policy is revealed and some is not, and you intend to obey only the revealed-by-God bits, then some wrestling seems appropriate.” Policy isn’t always about whether you “obey” it or not. There was nothing for me to obey with the PoX, and I still found it incredibly hurtful. I’m straight and married, but I could still recognize the gap between my own personal revelation and what I was told was capital R revelation.
The church got this one right, but there is a BIG however….. Does anyone really believe the church is run by “revelation.” I do not. God did not change his mind after 4 years when he became more enlightened. The church is run by men who think they are getting inspiration from God. Time for some honest admissions from the leaders about their own “private interpretation” as to what revelation means.
“I’m straight and married, but I could still recognize the gap between my own personal revelation and what I was told was capital R revelation.”
Certaintly. Your freedom is to choose what to do about it and the church collectively also has some freedom what to do about it. That is why all this sturm und drang is puzzling to me, but as I joined the church (it did not join me) I am not tied to it in the way that a 5th generation Mormon is going to be tied to it. So while I sort of understand it, I don’t feel it.
I had a ladyfriend that was delighted when the penalties were removed from the temple endowment. Well, they weren’t really penalties, rather an admission of how much torture you were willing to accept to keep a secret. At any rate, I said that to praise the moment was to damn the previous moment and by so doing revoke the previous prophet’s authority a side effect of which is to nullify the current prophet’s authority and now where are we? Nowhere. Its like the two popes that excommunicated each other.
Put on your tinfoil hats if you have them:
Secret combinations exist, or not, being secret they tend not to be obvious until they spring their traps. Jesus faced several such traps and found clever ways to evade the trap while at times not really answering the question. Is it legal to give tax money to Caesar? Well, whose image is on the coin? It’s already Caesars’.
So I expect the Mormons will do likewise; dodge a bullet while not really changing a thing that cannot be changed.
So what’s coming? I do not know, but Oaks gave hint to it in the “Boise rescue” and moving to home church is a step in preparation that it may not be permitted to have a church at all in the near future, that the government might follow Canada’s lead and decide to repeal the First Amendment entirely or at least in practice. Freedom of speech is first to go, the rest follow.
Remember that the US government has already banned the Mormons and confiscated its property (the Edmunds-Tucker Act). It is interesting to note that prior to this, nobody needed a license from the government to be married! It just wasn’t government business (and still ought not to be government business IMO). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds%E2%80%93Tucker_Act
“This act was repealed in 1978” except that marriage licenses appear to still be required.
What they did once the can certainly do again. This time it will be some other sacred cow that provides the excuse.
The city of Houston has issued subpoenas demanding a group of pastors turn over any sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender identity or Annise Parker, the city’s first openly lesbian mayor. And those ministers who fail to comply could be held in contempt of court. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/city-of-houston-demands-pastors-turn-over-sermons
And you wonder why General Conference has become so bland lately.
Those who believe that this is nothing more than a product of continuing revelation are the same ones who inspired the South Park folks to write the following line for Elder Kevin Price in the “Book of Mormon” musical: “I BELIEVE that in 1978 God changed his mind about black people.”
Michael 2,
What the hell are you talking about? First Canada does not have a First Amendment and second having lived in Canada for my entire life, the government’s repeal of freedom of speech is news to me or being forbidden to attend whatever church we want …oh, hold on I hear police sirens outside my home, may you’re right, the police are coming to take me away for posting on a religious themed blog.
This is a welcome change – and unfortunately one which should never have been required to make.
The childish references to “vitamins” and the need to “strap ourselves in” (by the leaders) make light of a Q15 who cannot run a worldwide church and have, in their wake, a plethora of shattered lives, families who have to deal with suicide and a set of goal posts that continue to shift.
The craziness of creating a doctrinally unsound policy, falsely listing it as revelation and “selling” it as a necessary way to protect children – then to about face within a few years has been so unnecessary.
The surety and arrogance by Nelson and Oaks as they instigated the policy back in 2015 has come back to haunt them. Their actions are reprehensible. Shame. Shame on them.
I heard the news this afternoon, and I have a few long-winded thoughts and opinions, not necessarily inspired. I doubt that any of Wheat and Tares ‘ readers will be completely satisfied with what I write.
1. The change in policy is quite welcome, and in my opinion, is a step in the right direction.
2. I am comfortable accepting President Oaks’ assertion that the change was to help reduce anger, contention, and hate. I also am comfortable accepting that the change was made, after prayerful consideration by the Quorum of the Twelve. I am comfortable that inspiration from God was involved in the change.
3. Is there more to the change than Oaks’ assertion? I am confident that this is so. Anger and contention and hate, not only from outside the Church, but inside the Church, as well. I think that significant blowback from Church members played a motivating role in the decision, as an example of “trickle-up” revelation. The Church teaches that its leaders receive revelation from God. Well and good; I accept and believe that. I also believe that our ability to receive inspiration from God is limited by our human frailties. I also believe that as leaders seek God’s will, members’ views alert them to problems with Church policy, and help trigger helpful changes.
4. I believe that one of the reasons, if not the primary reason, behind the Church’s policy change, was the realization that the negative effects of the policy outweighed the perceived positives, and was hindering the Church’s stated goals vis-a-vis the Gospel (preach the Gospel, redeem the dead, perfect the Saints, and care for the needy). Even though I think that political considerations played a part in the policy change, I think we are foolish to discount the sincerity of Church leaders ‘ attempts to fulfill the Church’s missions. And I think that in the three-and-one-half years of the POX, Church leaders came to realize that the POX was getting in the way of more important things. That is tacitly acknowledged in President Oaks’ statement.
5. Is it significant that it was Oaks who released the statement? All things being equal (he could up and die tomorrow, as could all of us), he will probably be the next President of the Church—he is nine years younger than President Nelson, and appears to be in robust health.
6. Information will inevitably seep out providing more information about the policy change. Any opinions now expressed run the risk of being based on faulty assumptions, in the light of future data.
7. I regularly follow Wheat and Tares, By Common Consent, and Times and Seasons. It is clear to me that Wheat and Tares has the highest percentage of angry comments. I understand anger all too well, both on a personal and on a macro level, I lived the first 18 years of my life in Germany in the immediate aftermath of WWII. I visited concentration camps converted by the post-war government into shrines of remembrance, and heard many stories of atrocities suffered by both victims of Nazism and Germans. Nazi anger led to great destruction; anger against the Jews was gradually built, brick upon brick, until 6 million were slaughtered. The Allies were so clearly the “Good Guys” in WWII and the Nazis and Germany the villains, we too easily forget that the Good Guys also do wrong things, and commit atrocities. Did Germany merit retribution for the horrors of WWII? Yes. Did the victors also do bad things? Yes. Was the Allied victory a triumph of good over evil? Yes—but a victory made possible only by another force of evil and enslavement—the Soviet Union. God works his will through fallen man. Bad people do good things, and good people do bad things. Same with organizations.
8. So, anger can cause evil. (Please refer to the B of M’s omission of “without a cause “ in Christ’s warning about anger. ) Anger is a condition that is universal, and if unchecked, leads to disaster. The current trend in modern American politics to anger. (Trump’s policies are, in my opinion, based on resentment and anger, and degrade our politics and culture; and the frequent, strident
responses from progressives make the situation worse; each side is more like each other than it would be comfortable in admitting.)
9. So the anger in comments about the Church’s policy change is disappointing to me. Is anger justified? Yes. Does it also cause harm? Also yes. The primary reason Christ commands us to forgive, IMO, is that it saves US from its disastrous consequences. Did the Church cause damage, often great, by the POX? Yes. Has the policy change made things better? Also yes—so let us be glad. We need to forgive the Church, just as Christ forgives us. We are foolish if we do not acknowledge the evil we do, so let try to default to forgiving others.
10. To those who would say to me, “But the Church caused harm by the POX” — you are right. But I have come over 67 years of living to realize that God is on the side of the people and organizations that cause the least evil.
11. Maybe the Church can someday get to the point where it can stand to apologize for harm caused. But I am afraid that Kirton and McConkie would excommunicate the F.P. And the Q12, if the Church were to do so.
Taiwan Missionary,
The people over on Mormons Building Bridges, a public Facebook page, are seriously angry. It seems some of them were happy about the change for a second or two, and then they let the anger fly. The Wheat and Tares responses pale in comparison.
“The church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views or ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest.” J Reuben Clark, Counselor to David O. McKay
I left the church years ago, and the organization angers me still. My fault, I guess, for not putting it fully behind me. In this case, however, the intellectual dishonesty and failure to hold the organization to the same standards–repentance and admission of error–it demands of members is breathtaking hypocrisy.
In particular, there is this from Oaks: ‘The church wants “to reduce the hate and contention so common today.”
Breathtaking hypocrisy and stunning tone-deafness is not new territory for Oaks, but still. Nope. You don’t get credit for putting out a fire you were pouring gasoline on just a little while ago. I still believe these old, white men just do not get it, but more importantly they don’t seem focused on making decisions that minimize damage to members.
Michael 2, you lost me at “ladyfriend.”
Jason asks “First Canada does not have a First Amendment”
It has freedom of speech and religion in its Charter, its approximate equivalent to a Constitution.
“having lived in Canada for my entire life, the government’s repeal of freedom of speech is news to me”
As I would expect. Boil the frog slowly and it will not leap out of the pot. Various interpretations of the Human Rights charter shows that freedom of speech, religion and assembly takes a back seat to “equality” and the same is happening in the United States. Its just worse in Canada.
Migel writes “Does anyone really believe the church is run by revelation.”
Yes, and because of that I am Mormon. By that you can tell I am not 100 percent obedient. I like the word “Mormon”.
“I do not.”
You and 7 billion other people.
Dot mentions “Michael 2, you lost me at ladyfriend.”
It is a word that I use in my journal to indicate a female friend (without benefits). In this case she was in the Navy as was I, and we were both single and attending the same ward and went on a few hikes and to a couple of movies together.
It is a rare thing and worthy since it meant I could explore the thoughts of the opposite sex without creating an expectation of relationship and all the burdens and complications that go with it. Still, I was hoping for a relationship but when it didn’t happen at least I had not invested so much into it….
Ah so, light bulb.
There’s no wrath like that of a woman scorned. And why is there wrath? Because of that investment. I’m a “convert”, not that much invested. I could as easily join the Lutherans. Nice chapels and at least where I have visited in Scandinavian America, charitable and friendly. But weak on gospel doctrine; they haven’t even decided whether Jesus was actually divine.
Lutherans are Nicene Creed Christians. The Council of Nicaea was convened specifically to decide the issue of the divinity of Jesus, with the conclusion being overwhelmingly in the affirmative.
Lutherans believe Jesus is God because Jesus is God.
Mormons believe Jesus is God because God said so.
Taiwan Missionary: I LOL’d at #11. I have to say, I was also surprised at your assertion that comments here are more negative, not than T&S which is more orthodox than our site, but at BCC! But then I remembered that BCC (where I also blog) mods the heck out of the haters, something we don’t generally do here, and that I OFTEN wonder if we should.
John, drifting slightly from topic but why not, writes “Lutherans are Nicene Creed Christians.”
They are also Athanasian creed followers. At any rate, I was reading my grandmother’s catechism books on the topic and it seems there’s about a 60 percent consensus among her particular flavor of Lutheran that Jesus was divine. The 40 percent believe he was a man on whom came the spirit of God and transfigured him, more or less, which is also true (by which I mean “makes sense to me!”) but says nothing about whether he, in person, was unique apart from that endowment of God’s spirit.
The question arises in part by answering the question, or trying to: To whom was Jesus praying in the Garden of Gethsemane?
This is probably the most deciding factor for my left-brain to decide the Mormons have the most sensible answer. Jesus was praying to God. Who is Jesus? Jesus is the Son of God. Says so right in the book.
With Angela’s comment, I now understand BCC and this site so much better! Still working on both, though.
I think part of the reason people are upset is that in the years since the pox, it is appearent that the proposal that the opposition to gay marriage was to defend straight marriage, has been proved to be rubbish. So it is appearent that those opposing gay marriage, just want to discriminate against gays. Times have changed and the place they moved from in 2015, isn’t there to go back to.
After spending nearly twenty eight years in the LDS church and serving a Genealogy Mission, I have found that the so called revelations that the leaders say they get from God really are not from God. They are decisions that men make. God doesn’t discriminate. He loves each of his children. It is churches and those that run them that discriminate based on their warped beliefs. When Joseph Smith started the church, there were many black people in the church, many having high ranking positions in the priesthood. When Brigham Young took control, he said he had a revelation from God that all blacks could not hold the priesthood. It seems that there was a black member who was having sexual relations with a white woman and Brigham didn’t like it so he himself issued the so called commandment. Many years later, when the church was growing in Africa and there were not enough priesthood holders, the church needed to allow blacks to hold the priesthood. So, they said God gave them another revelation. I have seen too many bad things occur in the church by supposedly GOOD Mormons, and now that I am no longer a member, I have a much clearer understanding of how the church discriminates against all those that don’t fit into their mold. Organized religion is run by men. When ever men run something, you can be guaranteed that there will be corruption.