DiscussMormonism.com

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.

I resonate with the sense of despair Ben Park felt when he learned of the policy during a trip to Utah.

See https://professorpark.wordpress.com/2016/11/05/november-5/

The policy shook the very foundations of my understanding of the LDS Church. As a historian, I did not foresee Mormonism’s trajectory moving so far in that particular direction. As a believer, I could not conceive of leadership implementing such an odious policy so clearly antithetical to our core principles. As a congregant, I would have never assumed that my fellow members would accept, let alone defend, a practice so fundamentally counter to the ideals that I believed bound us together. All my previous conceptions of and justifications for the Church seemed inadequate. I no longer felt like I knew the gospel that I believed, the church that I supported, and the community that I loved. I was unmoored.

I am sure I am not alone in feeling that something was lost that day. I was relatively at peace with the idea that Mormonism might not be true in the literal sense but still capable of doing good and molding good people. My lingering faith in Mormon goodness was permanently damaged that day and it has not since recovered.

In holding on tightly to old assumptions, Nelson, Ballard, and Oaks have violated the nobler truths of Christian faith. Indeed, they have demonstrated a disturbing lack of faith and compassion. They chose fear of gays over faith in the Gospel as Jesus taught it in the New Testament.

Odd how Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. He did extend his great love to children. Now a Church that bears His name has chosen its historically recent paranoia about gays—where were such concerns in the revelations of Joseph Smith?—over the ancient and timeless teachings of Christ, particularly those about children.

Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:14, KJV).

Shame. It is an unforced error, a self-inflicted wound, a sin against God, a harm to innocent children.

It permanently killed any intention I continued to hold to remain connected to the LDS Church. No matter what the LDS Church advertises as its distinctive blessings and special truths, all of these things wither in the harsh blast of their loss of Christlike faith, love, and compassion. Some teachings and values are so fundamental that to abandon them is to dim the lights and call into question the viability of the rest of the edifice. The November 5 policy threshes the Church. Those who support it compromise their claim to Christian faith.

I always suspected that the November policy was a childish reaction to the loss in the Supreme Court. They took their ball and went home, lashing out at innocents along the way. No wonder so many right thinking people left as a result. Their man-made enterprise was exposed for all to see on this one if one had any questions prior.

Exiled wrote:I always suspected that the November policy was a childish reaction to the loss in the Supreme Court. They took their ball and went home, lashing out at innocents along the way. No wonder so many right thinking people left as a result. Their man-made enterprise was exposed for all to see on this one if one had any questions prior.

It was a tragic development, regardless of what one thinks of Mormon truth claims. The harm done to the collective Mormon conscience is difficult to calculate, not to mention the harm done to those children denied the gifts they seek from God.

I am not confident that the tone is right—it probably isn’t—but given the fact that this was done on Guy Fawkes Day, I decided to update the old rhyme:

Remember, remember!
    The fifth of November,
    The Policy treason and plot;
    I know of no reason
    Why the Policy treason
    Should ever be forgot!
    Russ and his companions
    Did scheming contrive,
    To pull the wool over our eyes
    While Monson was yet alive.
    Three apostles, all aglow,
    To complete the prophet’s overthrow.
    Where was Providence to stop them,
    Still we do not know!
    Some ink and a pen
    To slip false oracles in,
    And force little ones to go it alone.
    I'll take my leave,
    The better for me,
    And the worse for you.
    A rope, a rope, himself hanged the false Pope,
    We gave him plenty to choke on,
    And a pint of beer to wash our grief down,
    With a jolly good fire in our bosom.
    Holloa, boys! holloa, boys! make the bells ring!
    Holloa, boys! holloa boys! Christ is King!
    Hip, hip, hooor-r-r-ray!
The bells of freedom ring today!
Half Nelson pissed the Church away.

The original has a celebratory spirit, which in this version is tinged with sadness and regret.

Yeah, leave the children out of it. This is why it was such a childish reaction to their loss. Real chicken ____ stuff. And then they push it further with the invented religious freedom attacks to pretend that some sort of good v. evil is involved when they are on the side of evil in this scenario. No, there isn't any inspiration involved in this, just a wannabe outsider organization wanting to have a place at the big boy table thinking that leading the charge against the weak will somehow give them street cred.

Poor Dieter Uchtdorf, how dejected he looked as the new FP was announced with his being booted from the FP.

What secret oaths and contracts might exist to keep one such as he from crying out foul? To sell one's soul, likely unwittingly at first, with full hopes of receiving the second comforter. At what cross roads have they really made their deal of unfailing loyalty and silence?

RockSlider wrote:Poor Dieter Uchtdorf, how dejected he looked as the new FP was announced with his being booted from the FP.

What secret oaths and contracts might exist to keep one such as he from crying out foul? To sell one's soul, likely unwittingly at first, with full hopes of receiving the second comforter. At what cross roads have they really made their deal of unfailing loyalty and silence?

I have zero sympathy for Dieter - He is complicit by his silence and therefore equally culpable.
The fact that he allowed the "Dieter The Hi-Jack Hero" official biography to stand tells you all you need to know about him.

Kishkumen wrote: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 part "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," was my reflexive defense when the policy came out, as I was a believer at that time.

It was apologetics, though, and not something that occurred to me before the policy was leaked. I am certainly not convinced that it was the motivation for the policy. I would not be surprised if it was borrowed as an excuse from armchair apologists like me during the moments between the leak and the more official pronouncements. But I do remember my thinking during that time. I was genuinely concerned about the impasse presented by the ban on homosexual marriage in the church and the existence of decent, good, loving same-sex couples. Doubling down on hard treatment of gay couples was a completely opposite direction from decent and loving intentions.

I agree that the policy seems to come from a place of bitter defensiveness and spiritual violence, not from divine inspiration.