The Second Apostolic Coup: November 5th, 2015

[_Gadianton]

Never have I read so many words that say so little.

He must have said more than you wish to admit given this is the first time you've commented on anything other than JD and R. I mean wow, how could anything be so good as to pull you away from JD-R for a sentence?

[_Symmachus]

Never have I read so many words that say so little.

Well, I can't please everyone, even someone whose punctuation is as creative as Rosebud's (and in the same ways). I am sincere when I say that you deserve credit just for reading "so many words" in one sitting (I presume) when the topic isn't John Dehlin, even if their meaning didn't live down to your standards or eluded you.

[_kevensting]

Never have I read so many words that say so little.

Well, I can't please everyone, even someone whose punctuation is as creative as Rosebud's (and in the same ways). I am sincere when I say that you deserve credit just for reading "so many words" in one sitting (I presume) when the topic isn't John Dehlin, even if their meaning didn't live down to your standards or eluded you.

It was just a completely overwrought way of presumably demonstrating your intellectual superiority, even though it was all amusingly delivered in hindsight. I'd love to see your 12-page treatise predicting the policy change, given how obvious you found it to be as a next step for the church.

What's that? You didn't predict it? You only criticized everyone who found it surprising after the fact?

Huh. Interesting.

Hey, how about since you seem so in tuned to how predictable the church is, maybe can really put your money where your mouth is and fill us in on the next major policy change?

[_Grudunza]

I’ll play... The next policy changes, er, REVELATIONS!!, will include some or all or none of the following:

- removing the restriction for waiting a year to get married in the temple
- length/type of mission options expanded or changed
- apostles and maybe even FP allowed some type of retirement or emeritus status
- women’s talks at General Conference deemed fully unnecessary, continue to be phased out (/s)
- study materials will gradually include more things like the seer stone, and Joseph’s polyandry, described in a way that makes it sound like of course we always knew about that stuff and it’s totally normal
- statistical report, which as of this year was no longer stated in April conference but still published on LDS.org, will no longer be published on LDS.org
- continued emphasis on how the church being 0.2 percent of the world is prophetic fulfillment, as opposed to the stone rolling forth/church filling the Earth
- the “hastening of the work” will turn into the “belt-tightening of the work”
- Book of Abraham and D&C 132 quietly phased out of next scripture editions
- 116 pages restored; Martin Harris’ handwriting praised
- Sealed Portion unveiled, found to contain even more amazingly specific prophecies of things that happened prior to 1830
- cave of artifacts in Palmyra opened to coincide with release of Indiana Jones 5
- second coming imminent, even more imminent than it was 150 years ago
- this next generation to be declared “a special and chosen generation,” not like those last several generations who were erroneously told the same thing

[_Symmachus]

It was just a completely overwrought way of presumably demonstrating your intellectual superiority, even though it was all amusingly delivered in hindsight. I'd love to see your 12-page treatise predicting the policy change, given how obvious you found it to be as a next step for the church.

What's that? You didn't predict it? You only criticized everyone who found it surprising after the fact?

Huh. Interesting.

Hey, how about since you seem so in tuned to how predictable the church is, maybe can really put your money where your mouth is and fill us in on the next major policy change?

I'm sorry I'm not impressed with "Professor Park" as much as you are, but I'm not required to join in with your delusions of other people's grandeur.

The only superiority I claim is that, unlike him and you, I can tell the difference between a podcast and a social movement, between Facebook and real life, criminality and self-promotion. I'm sorry your feelings were wounded by Dehlin's not being able to grant you a sense of salvation through his own moral perfection and that his selfish desire to control his own project was so shattering to your sense of right in the world, but on the other hand there is such a thing as growing the “F” up.

Perhaps "predictable" wasn't the best word, but it is often used as a synonym for "of a piece, typical, unsurprising," which is obviously how I used it. And yes, it is predictable in that sense. Between 2009 and 2015, liberals online—particularly people such as yourself who have trouble putting things like Mormon Stories in to perspective—became great tea-leaf readers and interpreters of the small things like, for example, women wearing pants to Church and praying in conference and vague platitudes uttered by Uchtdorf: all evidence, we were told, that the Church had somehow "moved on" past Proposition 8, as if it was no big deal to mobilize thousands of people and millions of dollars to deprive citizens of rights and one just forgets about that because a podcaster hasn't been excommunicated for interviewing Michael Coe.

One couldn't predict the particulars of a policy (I didn't claim to do that, though obviously you don't read so well) but the general line was entirely predictable in the strict sense of the word, and I'll predict it right here: to the extent that it is able, the Church will continue to pursue policies that undermine and attack rights and the legitimacy of non-heterosexuals. The form the policies take is wholly irrelevant, as it was in 2015, because the intended effects have been the same for thirty years. Apparently you thought that was somehow on hold between 2008 and 2015.

Of course, I can only speculate on why—just like everyone else. I could be wrong in that speculation, and too bad there's no way to check. But my post was really about dismantling the idea that there was anything special about the way in which the policy was implemented as alleged in the OP, based on what we do know about how the Church is administered. I admit that it is a slight difference from what you think I said, though it is a significant one, but it's not my fault you have problems distinguishing between X and Y.

[_Gray Ghost]

Historian Devery S. Anderson, known for his book about Emmett Till and several works of Mormon history, has dropped a bomb about the November Policy with pretty profound implications:

Three years ago today the LDS Church implemented a policy that prohibited children of parents in gay marriages from being blessed or baptized into the church. The reasoning was that they would received one message at home and another at church, and thus, this is their way of protecting children. This reasoning alone has been quite problematic--children of parents who hate the church are welcome to be baptized, as well as those in any number of situations where children could receive mixed messages. To the best of my knowledge, no one has explained why children of gay couples are being singled out (I know it applies to children of polygamists also, but it does not apply to a whole host of other situations where "mixed messages" may be heard by children). I have seen only damage done by this policy and have not seen or heard of anything good to come of it. I can't imagine in a million years ANY good coming because of it.

Equally problematic to me is that then apostle and now church president Russell M. Nelson said that the policy came by a revelation from God to then church president Thomas S. Monson. "Each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation," Nelson said in a speech to a group of young adults. "It was our privilege as apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson."

I have talked to someone who is in a position to know the backstory and I know others who have done the same who are adamant that this is not how this went down. The stories I and others heard from the very sources who would know is that First Presidency counselor Dieter Uchtdorf and apostle Jeffery R. Holland were out of town, church president Thomas S. Monson was mentally incapacitated, and apostles Nelson, Dallin Oaks, and M. Russell Ballard were the driving forces behind the policy and getting it implemented and into the general handbook. I do know that not all of the apostles were then—and I assume, are still not—on board with it, but have (as would be expected) kept silent on it.

If what Mr. Anderson says is true, then three of the twelve apostles have foisted a false revelation on the LDS Church, and one of them, who knows it was not revealed to President Monson, has lied to pass it off as a Monson revelation. If true, this would be perhaps one of the greatest acts of religious fraud in 21st century Mormonism. If true, then Nelson, Oaks, and Ballard should be removed from their positions.

This is pretty despicable if true. Do you have a link to Devery Anderson's statement?

[_Stem]

Never have I read so many words that say so little.

I disagree I think he made some really relevant and interesting points. I appreciate the thoughtful responses that come from those who take the time. Whenever I get an inkling to chime in I feel rushed and just spit something out quickly so I can move on to my next moral obsession or obligation. So here goes:

I'm not sure 2015 was really the same world as 1978 when the priesthood ban was lifted. Someone being out of town doesn't really make them unaware or un-intune with the happenings back at HQ. if Dieter was out of town he was about 50 forms of quick easy communication away, and it's likely on the very day anything was pushed in regards to this policy change, he had 10 or more communications in some form mentioning it. It's possible he was with family, or tired from meeting with people or travels and was not really paying attention, I suppose. But I find the excuse of him or others who might possibly object being out of town, thus the policy came about, unfulfilling. Whatever the case, i still say it sounds very reactionary. And even smart people can be stupid. It's likely, Monson was out of it, Eyring has no backbone, Uctdorf quietly stated his discomfort, but most were feeling like it was a great move to make.

"I motion to pass this policy because we can't simply sit idly by and let gay marriage impact our people. It is a great travesty that satan has grasped the hearts of our fine land. His grip is tight and his pants are loose."

"all raise your hand and say 'yea'"

"yea"

I still find the whole of it sloppy. Part of that is probably because they hoped to slide the policy change out under everyone's nose into a handbook that most don't pay attention to. I really don't doubt, though, that Oaks and Nelson were behind it.

[_Gadianton]

What's that? You didn't predict it? You only criticized everyone who found it surprising after the fact?

Not the right sense of "predictable" but nevertheless a good question to move the discussion along. As clarified above, nobody will predict Trump's next executive order pulled from thin air, but whatever it is, it will be predictable. I'd say he's exactly right, and that the baptism rule is what we'd expect from a tub of washed-up old fogies out of tune with modern times and of extremely limited self-awareness. However, I may disagree with Symmachus somewhat or Ben Park or Rev Kish, depending whose mental content I have right or wrong, as I'm speculating a little here. I'm not sure I believe that Ben Park was surprised by the policy either. I think he may have also found it predictable in the very sense Symmachus says it's predictable. With all due respect to professor Symm, pointing out the policy is predictable is a bit like pointing out Big Foot doesn't exist -- the possible criticism here is fully opposite of what Kev stated -- although I for one, would love to read Symmachus on Big Foot, as a person with his command of language knows how to twist the dagger just right to make it satisfying.

To me, feigned shock over the policy and the myth that goes along with it is a natural way of expressing disappointment. An example might be a parent who says, "I trusted you! I wasn't following up on you Friday night, I was fully confident you'd do the right thing -- the news came to me from..." when the reality is the parent was likely sweating bullets Friday night and cautiously optimistic by Saturday morning having heard nothing yet. Now should a neighbor, upon reading such a statement made between walls of Facebook (I don't know how it works) disagree with the parent and point out all the reasons why the parent shouldn't have trusted his child and how obvious it is that the child isn't trustworthy?

This analysis probably isn't news to anyone, I suppose I bring it up because I'm pulled in both directions -- the myth that trust exists might not in fact be a myth for some of the participants; the myth that trust exists is acceptable for showing disappointment, to my mind; the myth that trust exists might be overplayed, and could in fact become quite annoying if overplayed.

Anyway, might make for a good topic for the new MI to kick around.

[_Holy Ghost]

Nelson stanched the bleeding of criticism to the November 5, 2015 corporate policies by declaring it a few months later to have been a revelation. For the LDS, this took it out of the boardroom of the 15, and elevated its sourcing as from God. Any murmuring by the TBMs abated immediately. Nelson was then the President of the 12, but learned how useful invoking the "revelation" notion could be.

Also a lesson learned was that the top of the bureaucracy cannot just plant seeds down among the grass roots and watch them grow. That was exactly what was tried by quietly slipping the policies into the handbook for stake presidents and bishops was attempting. The 15 assumed that all stake presidents and bishops would play along, and keep it quiet. Nope. It leaked out. The sleight of hand from the top, to plant the policies in the grassroots to make them look to the church as a whole that it was organic and commonly held ideas didn't work. That too just reinforces for the 15, and especially Nelson since his ascension, that you declare your brain farts to be revelations from God and the TBM sheep will accept them.

[_Meadowchik]

Even if this is par for the revelation course, it's not everyday we're bystanders to church-wide revelations. Aside from directional things like new temples and missionary age changes, this may be the first big one many have been old enough to witness in its unfolding.

Theoretical knowledge is one thing, experiential knowledge another.