The Second Apostolic Coup: November 5th, 2015

[_Stem]

If the policy change came and went without a notice, because it was put slyly into a book that very few pay attention to, then I doubt Nelson would have ever felt the need to defend it by calling it revelation, trying to put a stop to any infighting. The policy change seems a reaction to marriage for all, the labeling of it as revelation seems reaction to people questioning it.

If it were truly meaningful revelation, if such really does exist, you'd think they would have called it out from the start. they wouldn't have tried to stuff it in the back door waiting for a couple months before calling it revelation.

Nelson hasn't revealed, he's merely labeled any and all movements by the church revelation, showing clearly the emptiness of the church claiming to be lead by latter-day revelation.

[_Meadowchik]

If the policy change came and went without a notice, because it was put slyly into a book that very few pay attention to, then I doubt Nelson would have ever felt the need to defend it by calling it revelation, trying to put a stop to any infighting. The policy change seems a reaction to marriage for all, the labeling of it as revelation seems reaction to people questioning it.

If it were truly meaningful revelation, if such really does exist, you'd think they would have called it out from the start. they wouldn't have tried to stuff it in the back door waiting for a couple months before calling it revelation.

Nelson hasn't revealed, he's merely labeled any and all movements by the church revelation, showing clearly the emptiness of the church claiming to be lead by latter-day revelation.

This eerily reminds me of polygamy and the evolution of the "revelation." Huh.

Eta Thanks, Stem, for the keen observations.

[_Kishkumen]

I want to thank both Symmachus and Stem for their observations and critique of my initial post. Now that I have a little more time to comment on this, I have a few follow up items to add.

I agree with Symmachus that this is apiece with methods and policies enacted by LDS leadership in the past. In other words, yes, this has not come completely out of left field. I take issue, however, with the characterization of Official Declaration #2 here. Maybe I am wrong. But, my understanding is that President Kimball had grappled with the issue of extending the priesthood for some time, and that, even though there were clear legal problems staring down the LDS Church, there was the sense, coming from more than just one person in the Q15, that this had been a revelation.

I am sympathetic to the dismissal revelations that are, at the end of the day, mundane business decisions. There is a sense in which any decision made by the leadership is dubbed a revelation, to the absurd point that exigencies of day to day operations and the resolution of problems within the organization that occur somewhat mechanically are falsely clothed in the aura of revelation. Astute observers have known about this for some time.

That said, I feel pretty confident that Kimball did what he represented himself as doing, and that Official Declaration #2 was in fact felt by more than one leader of the Church to be a revelation.

By contrast, I don't see that at all in this policy. It is telling that Nelson was both a principal mover of the policy and the first person to attribute falsely to Monson a revelation when people raised concerns about it. If I recall correctly, Elder McConkie was one of the men who testified that the Spirit affirmed to him that the policy of Declaration #2 was a revelation to Kimball. Here, McConkie had been staunchly in the camp of those who did not believe blacks should/would get the priesthood. Look at the original Mormon Doctrine on the question. Nelson's role as both originator and witness is suspicious.

In other words, just because business decisions can be pawned off on the Church as though they were revelations does not mean that some of these things are not genuinely felt to be so. I understand and share a lot of cynicism when it comes to the working of LDS leadership. That said, I have also seen sincere, decent leaders who really did pray and really did feel they received revelation regarding the business of the Church. And, yes, some of it was mundane business.

In this case, however, dressing up the policy as a revelation is more clearly an ex post facto strategy for dealing with opposition to it that was bafflingly unexpected by the Q15. The historical specifics here matter, and I think putting the 1978 revelation side-by-side next to this policy change, which has been spuriously passed off as a revelation, probably yields different conclusions. I know it does for me. I can't speak for everyone, but it does for me. (And I know about the Brazil temple headaches and all of the practical reasons the priesthood policy had to change.)

It does also matter that Nelson was not the prophet when the policy was changed. Before Nelson shared his tall tale about a revelation to Monson, no one claimed Monson had any such revelation. And, it is very unlikely he did. A staunch conservative and racist like McConkie was moved to affirm the revelation to Kimball partly because he believed a revelation had occurred and partly because he believed in a robust role for the prophet. Nelson really occupies a different quorum. I would call it a post-Proclamation quorum, in which there have been real questions about the leadership of the prophet against the bloc of the Q12. The Proclamation came out under the banner of the Q12. It is the most significant document of 21st century Mormonism.

It may thus be less surprising to find that apostles were emboldened to push the policy of denying baptism to the children of gay parent(s). At the time, however, it was perceived by some as a real overreach. And I think that matters. No matter how much certain apostles felt justified in enacting such a policy, the attempt to attribute it to Monson shows that, at the end of the day, the prophet was still needed. Now, of course, that Nelson is the "prophet," he can take advantage of that sentiment to dig in his heels regarding the same policy.

So, despite the wise caveats of Symmachus, I still think there is enough here to be shocked by. And being shocked is not just about being a "liberal Mormon." While I revere and respect our dear consul, I differ with him on key issues regarding Mormonism and the LDS Church. With sincere respect, I see a valuable role in the voicing basic Christian outrage in the face of such acts as the policy and the fabrication of this phony revelation to buttress it. If the Church wants to own Jesus, then it must contend with all of Jesus, both the Jesus of the Bible and the Jesus of the popular imagination. If the Church wants to claim revelation, then it must be ready to defend its revelatory power in a convincing way.

We can take "progressivism" out of the picture entirely (yes, let's do just that!), and I think there is a necessity to call attention to the LDS Church's rather strategic and cynical use of the children of gays to shield itself from future legal consequences and to appear tough to fellow combatants in the culture wars.

[_Kishkumen]

In response to Gray Ghost’s question, I cannot provide a link to Anderson’s statement because he made it on Facebook.

[_Symmachus]

Well, you're right, Dean Robbers: the conversation has certainly advanced.

It never occurred to me, Gad, that there might be some level on which the Parks of Mormondom have feigned their disappointment: it's genuine on some level, but overdone for rhetorical effect. For someone constantly parading his status as a historian, my question was: how could a historian not know better that this reflects what the Church is? That implies he's lacking in some historical perspective. If I read you right—and perhaps I don't—there is an element of insincerity here that I'm not appreciating but that answers that question: he does know better, but it's not useful for him to lay those cards out at the moment. That may be, but I have my doubts on his historical judgment for several other reasons, not least his presumptuous brushing aside of the magisterial work of Mike Quinn because the latter doesn't offer a "persuasive narrative, argument, or interpretation." In any case, perhaps he is a topic for another thread another time.

I think you're right that I'm not saying anything that insightful, nor am I trying to: that an anti-gay Church has an anti-gay policy isn't exactly headline-worthy. But why the reaction? Probably the fact that children are involved (well, at least hypothetically) is part of it, but I wonder: how many conservative members who pay tithing and believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon were disturbed by this policy?

Stem and Kish might be right that Nelson was being cynical in calling it a revelation, but I'm not sure I agree (though I'm not sure I disagree either). It's hardly ever clear when a policy is a revelation or just a policy. 1978 is an example of how this works both ways. Everyone was convinced that this policy was divinely imposed through revelation, though that had no historical basis; the belief was so widespread, that it was accepted that only a revelation could end it, whatever its historical origin. Why? Because 1) Mormons believe that what the leaders say might be revelation, even if they don't say so explicitly and particularly if they agree with what the leaders say, and 2) Mormon leaders never admit that something they've uttered is not a revelation. It's a very ambiguous zone that works to their benefit. Nelson so far appears to be unsatisfied with ambiguity and has opted for activism: he is a firm believer that the mind of god is indistinguishable from the mind of the prophets. And though he himself was not the president of the church, apostles are sustained by the membership as prophets. I take him at his word when he claims it was a revelation because I have no reason not to and because, as president of the Church, he has already put the stamp of revelation on something as mundane as the word "Mormon." Small things take on big meaning for these people, and everything I've seen about this fits a pattern of the revelatory process I've seen described elsewhere by other prophetic revelating seers.

I quote here from an earlier post of mine:

I found an interesting video (see here) posted in the comments. In it, President Eyring is discussing his first experience, as the recently appointed president of Ricks College, of a Church meeting at the highest levels. It is a window in to how the highest lucid leader of the Church today conceives of revelation (it's a process, not a miraculous epiphany or theophany...so not really revelation as most people understand that word). He discusses how unexpected it was to him that the meeting with the then president of the church (Lee) was an open and vigorous debate, not an audience awaiting a divine but geriatric fiat. Obviously, many here are well aware that certain Church leaders have been trying to emphasize this aspect of revelation—process and compromise, which are in fact rather ordinarily human and mundane—as a counterbalance to the impossible expectations they rub into the minds and of average Church members through subtle insinuations ("through experiences too sacred to relate...").

What struck me in this is Eyring's testimony-ish reaction (i.e. excessive sentimentality and emotionalism) to what happened in this meeting: President Lee apparently decided to postpone a decision on whatever the matter was, because he "sense[d] that someone in the room [was] not yet settled" (see circa 1:55 and following in the video). Eyring was deeply moved by this prophetic gesture, although a less spiritually in-tune sensibility (like mine) would see this as a subtle and manipulative attempt to forge unanimity: a guilt trip. Despite the appearance of the pearls before swine like me, Eyring tears up as he recounts this; his eyebrows stand at erect attention and his throat clenches as he tries to delay a premature but manly Boehner-esque sob. "Truly, this was a prophet of God in Israel!" one can almost hear him ejaculate.

And that is why the Church will fail in its claims of a prophetic mantle. Only a business mind like Eyring's could taste a divine savor in the CEO's decision to delay a meeting, and it says much about what sorts of evidences and experiences the Brethren believe are impressive to them, and should be to everyone else. There are lots of business types in the Church, of course, and pretty much all the hierarchy are in or connected to business in some sense, but I don't know that the membership, especially the younger membership, engages with reality from an American corporate premise. We of little business faith need a bit more salt in our miracles.

Well, there you have it again: the decision to postpone a decision is taken as a revelatory experience—and basically Lee is saying, wait till this person is gone! Thank god these guys don't do wedding planning, but in any case, one starts to see a pattern.

Eyring was then and is now in the presidency, now along with Oaks. Based on his interpretation of what revelation is like and its wide applicability, on Nelson's fondness for claiming even a stationary update as a revelation, the fact that members rarely make a distinction between policy and revelation, and the safe assumption that Church leaders themselves believe they do have special access to god's mind through their own thoughts—they are sustained as prophets, everyone of them—I don't see why I should doubt Nelson's sincerity. I don't see cynicism at work, just Mormonism.

As for the point that the outrage is justified, Reverend Kishkumen: I don't think it isn't, I just find it a bit baffling. I was most shocked in 2015 by the way this became a turning point for so many people. I mean, Jesus Christ, 2008 wasn't a turning point? The policy of 2015 can affect so few people that it's practically a a hypothetical and only involving people who, for god knows what reason, want to join the Mormon church of their own free will. But 2008, while it wasn't qualitatively different, was so much more extensive in the way that the Church used its muscle to impose policy on people who had absolutely nothing to do with Mormonism. It was an example of the lengths the Church was willing to go. Religious liberty and protection from state interference is one thing, but it is another thing to interfere with the state in order to attack the liberty of people who have no connection to Mormonism. The Church threw so much into that and it had real effects on people's lives: one day, your married in California, then the next you're not because, you know, some Mormons in Utah need their sense of liberty. No, I would say that was qualitatively different, actually. A policy on paper is one thing, but a political campaign is something other. A policy can be changed—revelation!—but I don't see how that campaign can be forgiven. For me, it was revelation of just what the Church is and what its values are.

That's my point of comparison. It seems much more significant in its aims and its successes (despite ultimate failure at the Supreme Court) than the November 2015 policy.

[_Kishkumen]

I would push back against the idea that there is a single event that reveals a church or religion for what it “is.” At the same time I respect the right of anyone at any time to define their own relationship with such an organization as they like. Speaking of my own experience, yes, 2008 was a punch to the gut. I effectively quit the LDS Church then, having reached essentially the same conclusions you did. I never paid tithing again.

Still, is it completely unreasonable for those who remember 1978 to hope for a positive “revelation”? Other possibilities? “Liberals” advocated for that change and paid a steep price for doing so, and yet the Church eventually changed in accordance with that conscience. Was their advocacy for nothing? I don’t think so. I think it is important for Mormons who have conscientious objections to state them, not because they are rewarded with immediate success but because they show others inside and outside the organization the goodness of Mormon people. It magnifies possibilities for other expressions of the religion.

Some people remain more attached to the good they see in their religion. They don’t give up on it. I don’t see this as simply being a stubborn quixotic impulse to make over Mormonism in a “progressive” image. From the beginning many Mormons have been motivated by noble aspirations to do noble things. I believe that such naïve optimists today honor that legacy when they push back against the unjust decisions and actions of their leaders and fellow Mormons.

In response to the question, “What did you expect?,” they might say, “I demand better regardless of what I should expect, and I am just as Mormon as Russell M. Nelson in doing so.” I say that, and I admit I am one of those weirdos who considers William Law a Mormon hero.

[_Symmachus]

You raise some reasonable points, Reverend. I don't expect you to be persuaded by my views, but I hope at least I can clarify what they are.

I would push back against the idea that there is a single event that reveals a church or religion for what it “is.” At the same time I respect the right of anyone at any time to define their own relationship with such an organization as they like.

Firstly, I'm not talking necessarily about the multiplicity of experiences of the millions of people who call themselves Mormons, which are almost entirely inaccessible. I'm largely talking about the thing which takes those members' experiences into account secondarily to its own interests: the institutional Church, which is pretty narrowly defined as the institution headquartered in Salt Lake that directs the policy and collects the taxes/tithing. Like any institution (or individual, for that matter) it can be understood in terms of its behavior. Consequently, if I want to know what it is about (its nature), I look at what it does against what it presents itself as doing.

Secondly, I'm not sure why there are quotations around "is." I mean, sure every human society is complex such that individuals within it will not interpret their interactions with that society in the same way or even identify that society in the same way as other members would. But there are common patterns, and there are essential components, otherwise there isn't a society. Some components tend towards the center, and some towards the periphery, but something must constitute it. A religion "is" something, so I think there's nothing wrong with trying to say what it is by identifying essential components and common patterns, both near the center and at the periphery.

In the case of the Mormonism, the gravitational pull of the whole thing is the LDS Church in Salt Lake. One can define one's relationship with it only to a limited degree, not however one likes, because relationships are by definition at least two-sided, or else there's not a relationship. That means the other side has some say about the nature of the relationship, too. But the problem is that Mormonism isn't just whatever Mormons say it is, because the individuals that comprise Mormonism are not equally placed; there is no Mormonism without the LDS Church, so Mormonism is to a very large degree what the LDS Church says it is. It is a very lopsided relationship. Until there is something institutional or at least something ideological to replace the Church or to serve as its alternative, you simply can't talk about Mormonism without the Church.

As to a single event defining that Church: 2008 was a culmination of several incursions into the political sphere beginning in the 1990s, but it was telic: the campaigns in the 1990s, the Proclamation on the Family, hundreds of references in conferences—all these were groundwork for a grand campaign that would inevitably force a confrontation in the Supreme Court. They lost, but my, what they were willing to do to win! Both the goal and the methods used to achieve do say a lot about the nature of an institution, as of an individual.

But I said 2008 revealed the Church's nature because it was also continuous. The Church was beaten back severely in 1890 from its theocratic pretensions, but the will towards politics has been there since the 1830s; 2008 was only the most vigorous manifestation of that urge in recent times. Its forays into politics tend to take the tenor of the age: in the 19th century, Mormon political activity was centrally directed block voting (not unlike what happened elsewhere in the country) and colonization. In the late 20th and early 21st, its in the courts. The form alters with the times, but 2008 suggests to me that the political drive remains.

But 2008 is revealing also because it is coterminous with Mormon doctrine. One can't just erase what Mormons and especially Mormon leaders have been saying for nearly 200 years. There really are religious claims that the institution makes and insists that its adherents make to maintain the membership in the society—and so many of them do. These are not peripheral, and unfortunately these claims are rationally incompatible with the idea that two men or two women can enter into a marriage contract.

There is a lot more I could say about this to fill this out, but the short of it is that 2008 is revelatory because it was the end result of a series of moves, moves that reflect a long term trend in LDS institutional history and that are buttressed by the core teachings of the Church. It gives you at once both a synchronic and a diachronic example of the goals, methods, and justifications of the institution. It wasn't a one-off or random but reflected something significant about the nature of the institution.

Still, is it completely unreasonable for those who remember 1978 to hope for a positive “revelation”? Other possibilities? “Liberals” advocated for that change and paid a steep price for doing so, and yet the Church eventually changed in accordance with that conscience. Was their advocacy for nothing? I don’t think so. I think it is important for Mormons who have conscientious objections to state them, not because they are rewarded with immediate success but because they show others inside and outside the organization the goodness of Mormon people. It magnifies possibilities for other expressions of the religion.

I certainly don't have a problem with people voicing their disapproval of anything. But two things.

I simply don't agree that liberals or anyone else outside the leadership had all that much effect on the 1978 policy. That was mostly luck. Some church leaders were opposed to the ban, or at least didn't think it was doctrinal and therefore could be changed as a matter of policy. It is true that someone like Lester Bush had some influence on Kimball, but that influence came after Kimball's mind was already headed in that direction, not least because of the headaches Brazil would cause, but also because of his own personality. It is not like Kimball was a hardliner or a segregationist as Benson was—and Lee. People forget that Lee was in his early 70s when he died, he was deeply opposed to Hugh B. Brown (an advocate for removing the ban, and the Uchtdorf of his day), and he was publicly insistent on continuing with the ban, one of those who said it had been revealed and would never change. Now, suppose he had lived as long as Benson, Hinckley, Monson, and Nelson: he would have been Church president until the early 1990s. It is very possible, then, that the LDS Church would still have had this in place until that time or even later—even today. That is hypothetical, of course, but Lee was thought to be healthy and vigorous (by the standards of Church leaders), so it largely due to an accident of health that this issue even came up as possibility in the 1970s, and it gives you some sense of how little liberal agitators had to do with anything (unless they were responsible for his death).

But that was with something relatively minor compared to same-sex marriage: it was neither a foray into the political sphere, nor did it really present any serious doctrinal problems, and it certainly wasn't the culmination of a long-sighted policy begun years before. It had much more to do with internal administrative headaches that would have resulted—were resulting—from a bone-headed idea of Brigham Young's. But Mormon doctrine wasn't going to collapse into incoherence, whereas the idea that celestial marriage for the purpose of procreating can happen between two guys kind of presents a problem. Removing the ban had only benefits; what benefits will come from rendering Mormonism totally incoherent simply to satisfy a small but loud chorus of liberals who don't believe that much in the Church's claims anyway?

Some people remain more attached to the good they see in their religion. They don’t give up on it. I don’t see this as simply being a stubborn quixotic impulse to make over Mormonism in a “progressive” image. From the beginning many Mormons have been motivated by noble aspirations to do noble things. I believe that such naïve optimists today honor that legacy when they push back against the unjust decisions and actions of their leaders and fellow Mormons.

In response to the question, “What did you expect?,” they might say, “I demand better regardless of what I should expect, and I am just as Mormon as Russell M. Nelson in doing so.” I say that, and I admit I am one of those weirdos who considers William Law a Mormon hero.

Well, I don't know what to make of William Law because I haven't studied him enough. From what I have read, I have a hard time seeing heroism, though. But I’m largely ignorant on this and haven’t studied his own account. I suppose my first question to him would be: "what did you expect?"

As for those who demand better while enduring the disappointment of staying and paying, they present a very strange sight to me, like a vegan clad in buckskin. It is very easy to get better by going to another religion, and that is why I am skeptical of their nobility. If what you really want is a better church that matches your values, what is stopping you? Community of Christ would love to have you. And they are dead wrong if they imagine they are as representative of Mormonism as Russell M. Nelson. Hierarchies don't work that way. Where did they get the idea that they are so important? So, for me "I'm really important" + "I would rather this big clumsy institution with its own history and doctrine change rather than me having to find a new church" doesn't impress me as noble. I probably don't see the full story though; I just get what they write in blogs.

[_Kishkumen]

If I had more time, this discussion would be less frustrating on my end and perhaps yours too. I agree with you for the most part. In a way, I think you misunderstand me because I am unclear.

1. I did not say that liberals were motivating change in the LDS Church. Let’s say, hypothetically, all of those high leaders who opposed the priesthood ban had simply walked, and no one was there to act when Lee fortuitously passed. Someone who will do the right thing must be in place when there is an opportunity to do it.

2. I regret not going through the history that led up to 2008 and 2015 because I could have saved you the time. Yes, this started ca. 1990. I heard about it on my mission in California. I was a zone leader in Rancho Cucamonga at the time. We were told that the Church was going to start cooperating with other churches on moral issues. In other words, the leaders had decided to enter the culture wars in earnest. That line does lead to 2008 and 2015.

However, this was not always the case. The leaders were emboldened by their earlier success fighting ERA, I suppose. But there is also a long history of not doing these kinds of things, and the general Mormon inclination has been more libertarian, so to speak. Usually Mormons were a live and let live kind of group and probably so because they wanted to be left alone to live their religion.

So, to point to the 1990s to the present as indicative of the Mormon character or its institutional character is somewhat shortsighted. The leaders made a decided effort to mainstream theologically (on the surface, at least) and join the culture wars at a particular point in time. Those efforts set off the subsequent chain of decisions and actions that landed us here. They were not inevitable. The apostles most involved in these efforts from 1990 on are probably the same three Anderson referred to.

I have to continue this later . . . .

[_Stem]

I simply don't agree that liberals or anyone else outside the leadership had all that much effect on the 1978 policy. That was mostly luck. Some church leaders were opposed to the ban, or at least didn't think it was doctrinal and therefore could be changed as a matter of policy. It is true that someone like Lester Bush had some influence on Kimball, but that influence came after Kimball's mind was already headed in that direction, not least because of the headaches Brazil would cause, but also because of his own personality. It is not like Kimball was a hardliner or a segregationist as Benson was—and Lee. People forget that Lee was in his early 70s when he died, he was deeply opposed to Hugh B. Brown (an advocate for removing the ban, and the Uchtdorf of his day), and he was publicly insistent on continuing with the ban, one of those who said it had been revealed and would never change. Now, suppose he had lived as long as Benson, Hinckley, Monson, and Nelson: he would have been Church president until the early 1990s. It is very possible, then, that the LDS Church would still have had this in place until that time or even later—even today. That is hypothetical, of course, but Lee was thought to be healthy and vigorous (by the standards of Church leaders), so it largely due to an accident of health that this issue even came up as possibility in the 1970s, and it gives you some sense of how little liberal agitators had to do with anything (unless they were responsible for his death).

God works in mysterious ways.

But that was with something relatively minor compared to same-sex marriage: it was neither a foray into the political sphere, nor did it really present any serious doctrinal problems, and it certainly wasn't the culmination of a long-sighted policy begun years before. It had much more to do with internal administrative headaches that would have resulted—were resulting—from a bone-headed idea of Brigham Young's. But Mormon doctrine wasn't going to collapse into incoherence, whereas the idea that celestial marriage for the purpose of procreating can happen between two guys kind of presents a problem. Removing the ban had only benefits; what benefits will come from rendering Mormonism totally incoherent simply to satisfy a small but loud chorus of liberals who don't believe that much in the Church's claims anyway?

I'd wonder how many members living prior to the ban would have disagreed with this. In the late 40s when Lowry Nelson started questioning the leadership and pushing the Church on this, the Church leaders couldn't conceive of making the change it seems to me. If say, the Church changed upside down on the LGBTQ issues in a couple years, and two men sealed together into eternity became a practice, perhaps their families become less biological, and more adoptive. I don't see a collapse nor incoherence if so. It's simply an opening up. "oh wait...maybe two gods having sex and conceiving of a child doesn't produce a spirit baby? Well...I'll be"

Perhaps the notion that there are no spirit babies at all, but spirits are formed and sex in eternity, though may happen, loses it's usefulness in creating billions of spirits. As it is many in the Church may argue, today, that God and his wife or wives didn't have sex to make 200 billion or so spirit babies.

Just a side note mostly, I"m eager to see what Kishkumen responds with more fully. Yous guys are out of my league.

[_Gray Ghost]

In response to Gray Ghost’s question, I cannot provide a link to Anderson’s statement because he made it on Facebook.

Thanks, just wondering!