The LDS Church published changes in its handbook and made this available to general membership for the first time. Previously, the handbook was private and only available to general and local leaders.
I haven’t had much time to read up on these changes, but while I was at the gym this afternoon, I noticed there was a new podcast episode reviewing the changes. John Dehlin, the podcaster reviewing these changes and a notorious critic of the Church, summarized some of the changes. From what I understand, most of these changes especially related to excommunication/apostasy/church discipline and also some issues related to LGBTQ members sound pretty positive and will be a blessing for church members. But I was a little triggered by the language Dehlin used especially related to the motives and reasons the Church made changes.
I believe change in the Church is made by a process of revelation. The prophet and general leaders of the Church pray to receive guidance from God on current issues and do their best to understand the will of God in order to make doctrine and policy change.
John Dehlin believes the Church is making changes due to being humiliated by church critics. A random assortment of some of his comments:
This is something we’ve criticized the church about. We’ve embarrassed the church… I did my best to highlight this to the news media…the church probably heard this loud and clear… We embarrassed the church about this and noted that, so the church had to change its criteria for apostasy… It’s so fun for me personally to see the church changing on things we explicitly called the church into account for. It just shows how much the church is sensitive to criticism… It’s as if internet critics and activists are becoming the prophets of the church. Because we are literally now changing and creating and amending policy for the church… In some ways the critics are running the church. And that’s great. Kudo’s to the church for listening to critics…
I strongly disagree with these statements. I heard Greg Prince once say that critics like to take credit for change the Church makes from time to time, but they actually often set back change due to creating a hostile environment that pits Church leaders against Church critics and makes it more difficult for Church leaders to ascertain the will of God. I’m not sure about that. If I had to bet, I might say Church critics do have an impact on change in the Church, but I would describe it a different way.
I write often that I hope for various changes in the Church. But I don’t criticize or advocate against Church leaders for the purpose of trying to force that change. I think it’s important that when these changes happen, faithful LDS that support the brethren thank them for their humility and willingness to seek the will of God in revelation, rather than chastise them for not doing it sooner or mock them for giving into critics.
Borrowing also from Greg Prince, I would describe the revelatory process like this. The prophet becomes aware of an issue, prays about it, receives revelation from God, makes change. Church members, the LDS Body of Christ, have an important process in this. Historically, both the prophet and God seem to be swayed by the Body of Christ, in deciding which issues to pray about and what to change. See the story of Zelophehad’s daughters, the time Israel requested a king (Saul), and more recently, when so many members petitioned President Kimball to ask God to consider reversing the priesthood ban. This is called “trickle up revelation”. I have written about this a few times over the years, since change has been such a topic in the Russell M. Nelson presidency. If church critics want to take credit for this, that’s fine. I can see that sometimes they might raise visibility on a certain issue that also either either with causality or randomly might become visible to the faithful LDS Body of Christ. But it’s the LDS Body of Christ that’s the key driver for change, in my view.
I believe President Nelson and our other general leaders have listened to the LDS Body of Christ that is pushing up these issues, especially related to LGBTQ members, and they are with humility and honest intent seeking to understand the will of God. I believe these changes in the handbook represent one more example of God and his prophet listening to and honoring his people.
Wheat & Tares 
“I think it’s important that when these changes happen, faithful LDS that support the brethren thank them for their humility and willingness to seek the will of God in revelation, rather than chastise them for not doing it sooner or mock them for giving into critics.”
I don’t know why it has to be one or the other but I suppose a little ego stroking can go a long way towards getting the next change.
I’m more interested in whether the changes moves the organization in a positive direction than I am with who gets the appropriate kudos for the change.
Gosh, you make it sound like the Q15…and God, did the LGBTQ community a big favor by replacing the word ‘apostate’ with ‘serious sinner’ in the handbook. We’re still expected to stay single and celibate our entire lives to receive the full blessings of the Gospel. Tell me…have YOU tried that lately? I didn’t think so…
The November 2015 policy revelation and the recent revelation reversing that policy after 3.5 years! Not sure I buy your the arguments in this post.
Thanks for the post, Church is true. I like Wheat and Tares because it offers non-traditional viewpoints, and wanders all over the place. I love a free exchange of views in a civil way. I am glad that Church is true contributes; his believing attitude is similar to my own, and it makes W&T less of a progressive echo chamber, and I hope we treat him with respect .
It is not either revelation OR response to critics. It can be both. Revelation is mostly interactive: it usually comes as a result of our dealings with others.
I learned in 40-plus years of working for the federal government that there are two basic rules of management: (1) when you realize that what you are doing is not working, you double down and continue to pound the square peg into the round hole. Keep shooting that dead horse; and (2) you punish and react angrily to the first group of people who point out the problem. Then as more people speak up, you realize that there IS a problem, and you try to remedy it. The Church is no exception to this basic foible of human nature, particularly if the leader has a rigid personality.
But change does happen. SWK by all accounts was a humble and down-to-earth guy, and I believe that is why he received the Priesthood revelation. RMN is a surgeon and has a surgeon’s matter-of-fact personality: you see a problem, and take steps to fix it. You might cause some heartburn along the way (the POX and it’s subsequent withdrawal), but good things do happen (2-hour church, temple ceremony changes). We have unrealistic expectations of our leaders if we refuse to accept that they are also subject to the two-steps-forward-one-step-back rule. I do not think that revelation means you are infallible and never wrong. You can be wrong and still seek and receive inspiration from God.
I appreciate Church is True highlighting John Dehlin’s and Greg Prince’s analysis of how changes happen in the Church. Perhaps I am being unfair, but I sense a certain egotism in Dehlin’s remarks; . Dehlin’s reactions reeked of disdain. Dehlin has reacted with disdain in the past to other church critics who have dared question him. Very often, critics are one-way, liking to dish it out, and not at all willing to take it. So much for the free and civil exchange of ideas.
I much prefer Prince’s approach. He is hardly a starry-eyed idealist about the Church, but he seems objective and fair-minded about how Church leaders attempt to deal with change; he assumes that they are decent if flawed men of good will, trying to do what God wants.
I appreciate that the Handbook is now available to all. I remember dealing with Bishops and SPs who guarded the Handbook’s contents as they were Ensign Peak investment portfolios. I appreciated one Bishop, who, when I had a question on birth control, said, let’s see what the Handbook says, and I had a very open and cordial discussion with him about what the wording meant.
I think the new version is an improvement. Not perfect, but definitely better:.
I think both the Church and the critics overstate their case, but mostly the Church. When John Dehlin states that the critics are running the Church, he is grossly exaggerating. And it’s true that if you back the Church into a corner, that can slow down progress. But the Church exaggerates even more than JD. And it starts from the top.
President Nelson likes to use the word “revelation” or derivatives of that word more than any prophet in my lifetime. And he’s managed to strip the faith of some members who used to believe that revelation was a real thing and a big deal. When the Church makes changes, why can’t the leadership be honest and admit that they are looking at ways to make the Church more inclusive, less burdensome, etc. instead of pretending like the Lord himself wanted a 2-hour black and the elimination of home teaching? We have a boy-cried-wolf phenomena in which many members are kind of ignoring the prophetic words of President Nelson because he simply overstates the case so often. When members are told that Satan is happy when we use the word Mormon, for example, you’re going to have many members simply tune out.
Now, to respond directly to your question about who leads the Church to change: I agree that the body of Christ, a.k.a. the members of the Church, raises issues that help the Brethren understand where they might focus their energy. But you really understate the influence of the progressive members. It’s not as bad as John D. claims, like I said. But do you think it’s a coincidence that in recent years we’ve had modifications to the temple ceremony (hello women), modifications to the Handbook (hello transgender), modifications to the BYU Honor Code (hello gay community), a web site dedicated to gay members (hello gay community), changes to the Sunday School manual (hello Native Americans and inclusion / diversity folks), modification to child interviews (hello kids and parents), modification of marriage / sealing policy (hello part-member families), modification to missionary phone call policy (hello early-returning missionaries). These changes didn’t take place just because the Q15 received revelation to do so. They came from the bottom up a.k.a. critics and progressive members.
Watch for the FBI uniforms missionaries are required to wear to be next on the chopping block. And watch for new 6 and 12 month full-time missions (hello on-the-fence future missionaries).
Whether it’s leaders getting revelation based on their own personality styles or response to public opinion I have trouble seeing the hand of Heavenly Father in the flip flopping around looking for ways out of cruelty that has been doing ENORMOUS damage and should not have been taught in the first place.
Before we get too worked up about who to pat on the back for this progress, perhaps we should take stock of what has changed. By my count, it’s one step forward and three steps back.
Forward: transgendered individuals who have had reassignment surgery are no longer automatically apostates. Still subject to “membership” councils for serious transgression.
Back: Before only surgical measures could get one in hot water. Now, “medical” measures – presumably including hormone therapies are violations.
Back: Social transitioning, including a gender-based name change and using different pronouns, are also reasons for possible discipline.
Back: Intersex is officially acknowledged as a thing that is complicated, ambiguous, and tricky, but nevertheless, genitals (even though expressly stated that they can be ambiguous) is the standard by which gender and sex are determined.
These changes do nothing to help transgendered people feel safer, more loved, welcomed, and accepted by the Church. It is, in fact, doubling down against transgender individuals and developing new guidelines for intersex individuals that are woefully inadequate for such a complex issue.
They threw out a bone with one hand while the other hand is twisting the knife. No applause from me for making progress.
Over the years there have been several blog posts here and at BCC about laundry lists of changes people want, and things that I have spoken for have included:
– shorter church
– publish the handbooks
– end the one year wait for temple marriage after civil marriage
– end the PoX
– use modern translation of the Bible
Among others that I don’t yet remember.
You know what? We’ve got four out of five of those. I never would have expected it. I don’t feel much better about where things are headed, but I gotta give credit where credit where credit is due; I never expected this much happen.
I haven’t heard Dehlin’s podcast yet, but I can imagine what he said. I’m sure there’s a few people inside the church who want progressive changes. Well, we don’t really know how many because a lot of them might be afraid to speak up, or afraid to use their real names.
I can see why Dehlin’s podcast can be triggering. He is outspoken and critical, and perhaps he is taking credit for more than is due.
On the other hand, it’s ironic that the OP refers to the body of Christ while panning Dehlin’s influence. You see, the whole point of Paul’s metaphor about the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12) is that you can’t exclude people. The hand cannot say to the foot, and all that. One can argue that it doesn’t apply, that after his Withdrawal of Records council (nee Excommunication) Dehlin no longer counts as part of the body of Christ, but in that case I wouldn’t use the methaphor, which is primarily about inclusion, and turn it into an example of exclusion.
Dehlin overstates. But he has a point. Some changes undoubtedly have come in response to critics in an effort to blunt the effects of their attacks.
My understanding is that if the prophet recieves a revelation it becomes a declaration. Like dec 1 and 2. What RMN is calling revelation is very different. Sometimes getting 15 yes men to agree. We seem to be in the process of redefining revelation. I started warching Bedinar which came up on my facebook. He claimed that David O Mackay saying “no success can compensate for failure in the home” was not needed in his time it was for our time, because on TV there was something about beaver.
In Mackays day when a woman went to the police with family violence problem they refused to interviene in another mans domain. That was not a problem? When you had to prove adultry to get a divorce. Not a problem? But gay marriage the family is under threat.
That was as much as I could take.
He also talked about personal revelation which he inferred would be a regular occurance. We had a discussion about how many times we had felt we had personal revelation in priesthood. The consensus was about 3 times in a lifetime.
Maybe the next thing we have to live up to is personal revelation 3 times a year. Guilt trip?
I think there should be a disconnect from the Trump party, since his vindictive responce to Romneys moral stand. Perhaps it could be time for a moral stand by our leaders about something other than homosexuality. No revelation required, just moral judgement. If we could get the extreme right wing politics out of the church we might see the gospel again. Can only hope.
Jeremiah 5:30-31.
Like others, I think critics do play a role, but you have to have Church members (and then leaders) willing to listen. Church leaders don’t listen to critics. They listen to people who have proven their loyalty to the Church. Critics can get the attention of outside media, but if they are too abrasive, it will turn off both Church members and leaders. I think critics can bring attention to a problem, but it’s the members at large that need to become convinced (through the critic’s argument as well as personal experience). It’s when leaders start hearing concerns from people they trust that bottom-up change happens.
I think bottom-up change is quite rare in this Church, but it’s clear that the rescinding of the POX was a bottom-up feat. It was the rescinding of the POX that convinced the brethren to treat both homosexual and heterosexuals under the same Law of Chastity rules, and that was what ultimately led to the change in BYU’s honor code. I DON’T think this is in any way a “typical” avenue to change.
I think President Nelson has proved that change in this Church is more often driven by the personalities and experiences of those at the top.
Kudos to Mary Ann’s spot-on analysis. Church leaders will not listen to people whom they think wish the Church ill. Leave aside whether or not a particular Church leader caused the ill-will,in the first place, or whether he made a bad decision. Leave aside what I mentioned earlier, the default defensiveness of almost all leaders, inside the Church and out.
I have seen what Mary Ann said on the Ward and Stake level. If leader Elder X or Sister Y always gets flak, the natural default is to tune it out. (I have seen a man in my old ward threaten the Bishop to his face to report the Bishop to the police because he disliked the Bishop’s insistence that the Ward help pay for boys who could not afford to attend scout camp (socialism!). I have seen a woman scream full-force into the face of the Bishop, only inches away, because he had made a change to the Ward YM leadership that she disliked.
So anger over bad policies and decisions may be justified, but anger almost never helps. Which is more important: venting our anger, as some Church critics do, or staying in the game and speaking up when appropriate and trying to be a force for good?
My ward RS President once made a vicious anti-gay crack to my face about a lesbian Ward member, and I calmly told her that Christ loved that Ward member, even if she hated her, and that I hoped that she would have the decency to treat the lesbian sister as she would the rest of our Ward family, and that was what our Church leaders wanted, and she was the woman’s RS Pres., for crying out loud. The RS Pres. was not pleased, but I don’t think she ever tried to pull that stunt, in Church again.
I acknowledge the power of the body of Christ to effect positive change in the church. We as a people share a collective conscience that is capable of moving the institution forward.
But this concept also unsettles me because it contradicts the prevailing narrative of “the Brethren” as the Church’s source of revelation. Not only that, the prophet’s revelation is often celebrated as contradicting the desires or opinions of mere members . How many times have we heard that prophets reveal “hard truths.” What does it mean when the membership, and not the prophets, are revealing those hard truths, and the leadership is lagging behind?