The Second Apostolic Coup: November 5th, 2015

[_I have a question]

If anybody at this point thinks the policy revelation is defensible on any reasonable grounds whatsoever, doctrinal, procedural, organisational, moral, etc, feel free to speak up. Because if a key criteria for a Childs baptism is that the parents only give messages consistent with the gospel at home, child baptisms would cease overnight. It also seems designed to protect the Church against a problem that didn't exist, and which wouldn't conceivably exist except in extremely isolated (think 1 in a million) cases. When you consider all the facts, it can only be viewed as a childish reaction by immature people who didn't get their own way revelation.

[_Grudunza]

I have a sense that what Anderson claims is probably true, but some more verification or proof would be nice. And potentially also devastating.

I had been hanging on to some threads of belief for a long time when the policy was announced. That was terrible enough, but somehow, watching Nelson’s “it was revelation” declaration a couple months later was even worse. I remember getting a feeling of darkness (in the way a Mormon would describe it), and thinking that more than just being a well-meaning-ish religious organization founded on some very iffy beliefs, this was actually and actively hurtful and manipulative and evil. Four months later, after being inspired to take a deeper look at what I was really believing and the organization I was a part of, I was done.

Nelson’s ascension to the presidency and subsequent flurry of “revelations,” and Oaks’ continued homophobic rhetoric, have only backed up the feeling from that day.

Great version of that song, kish!

[_kevensting]

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.

Agreed. Literally everyone I have talked to about this issue who actually has a heart, whether they ended up staying in the church or leaving, saw this as a fundamental turning point for their faith. Some were able to put the pieces back together, albeit quite a bit differently than before. Some weren't.

[_Stem]

Do we all remember the sloppy mess the policy was when it first was leaked, or whatever you call it (having been put into the handbook without particular notice)?

It was a stupid mess. It took a couple of clarifications afterward. It seems to me someone tried to just shove it out there hoping no one would make a fuss about it. I wouldn't doubt this trio did it while Monson was out of it. Considering Uchtdorf's demotion, I wouldn't doubt he objected or at least quietly spoke out against it to the crew.

Nelson trying to sneak in the appellation of revelation under Monson's nose is pretty slimy if all this is true though.

[_Stem]

I wonder if they bullied or manipulated their system to get the junior member Christofferson to speak out on it. "We can't be at the head of this thing" the three of them said, "we need one of these junior upstarts to get their voice out there...and that one guy is pretty well-spoken and has a gay brother. Let's trick him. He'll love the attention". Oaks rejoins, "yeah well..i remember when I was a junior member and Packer came at me..It really put me in the right way. I am eternally indebted to him for letting me appear front and center of these issues."

[_I have a question]

I wonder if they bullied or manipulated their system to get the junior member Christofferson to speak out on it. "We can't be at the head of this thing" the three of them said, "we need one of these junior upstarts to get their voice out there...and that one guy is pretty well-spoken and has a gay brother. Let's trick him. He'll love the attention". Oaks rejoins, "yeah well..i remember when I was a junior member and Packer came at me..It really put me in the right way. I am eternally indebted to him for letting me appear front and center of these issues."

They picked him specifically because his brother is gay.

[_Symmachus]

This revelation is entirely predictable and unsurprising, and it is entirely credible because it fits the pattern of policy-making we can see in the historical record. I don't see the big deal here. Pushing through policy changes when certain apostles are out of town is in no small part how the 1978 revelation came about (an experience also described by those present in terms quite like those used by Nelson), and what else would we expect in a governing body whose overriding principle is the appearance of unanimity? Policiy changes are probably not generally unanimous but merely appear so; for all we know, there was deep opposition to the change in missionary age and it was changed only when Uchtdorf was out shopping at Costco. Nor should it be a surprise that certain senior apostles took advantage of the mental absence of the president of the church; Hinckley and Monson governed that way for eight years, under the inspiration of the third member of the governing trinity, President Ezra Taft Autopen. The same happened during the later years of David O. McKay's presidency, and of Spencer W. Kimball. What should we have expected?

Despite my confusion at their surprise, I intend no disrespect to my fellow posters when I say: to be surprised that this policy was enacted under the typical administrative regime of the church is to forget one's historical knowledge (or not to have it) and implicitly to accept the claim that there is such a thing as revelation in the Mormon sense. Mormons call revelation things that most other people would just call decision-making. Putting that under the rubric of revelation is how traditional believers maintain any sense that there is charismatic element to a Church that is otherwise as inspiring as a board meeting of General Motors in 1973 (although at least they could smoke). If you don't believe in that sort of thing, what did you think happened? But this theory also implicitly suggests that there are some good guys and bad guys in this. If Dieter Uchtdorf is such an inspiring proponent of Mormonism for liberals, he should grab hold of his member next conference (just to remind himself it's there) and lay this all out for the members and make it clear where he stands in unambiguous language. In a system whose authority relies on the appearance of unanimity, maintaining that appearance is equivalent to initiating the policy.

I do understand the urge to forget that this is just how the Church works: it appears to be a vicious policy to those more committed to progressivism than to Mormonism. Who wants to be part of vicious Mormonism and not progressive Mormonism? Quid ergo Dehlinianis et FARMSianis? It may be vicious but to me its viciousness seems in any case aspirational rather than actual: how many kids with gay parents are going to look at Mormonism and say, "gee, I think I'd like to be a part of that"? A country where there are families with same-sex parents is not a country where people are joining Mormonism anyway, let alone the children of same-sex parentage.

But I think I also understand something of the urge behind it, even if it is viscerally repugnant to me. If it is true that Oaks was a primary driver, it would be interesting to know what the legal angle on this might be. Oaks is a reactionary conservative but not a stupid one, and pointless viciousness is stupid. So what is the point? I think conservative fears about the judiciary are justified to a certain extent to anyone who looks at the history of law in the 20th century: law's footprint in society grows ever deeper, and even liberals (e.g. Bruce Ackerman) have started to worry about how large that footprint will become as regulatory bodies assume greater and greater law-making power. Liberals haven't cared much about this because it has been largely to favor their policies and driven by them, but that could change. Even so, given the Church's growing activism in courts over the last thirty years (that is, since about the time Oaks came in), I wonder if this might not be part of a larger strategy to foreclose any attempt by a future regulatory or legislative body to update the Church to 21st century social morality. A winning case must be a consistent one if nothing else, so the Church at least has to make it very clear that its policies are consistently opposed to sex-marriage in every respect.

This might be all wrong, since I'm an amateur. But if I have no heart, as Kevensting would say, because I cannot be shocked by this policy, then perhaps I over-rely on my head because I cannot abide a weak explanation of it, and that head, puny as it might be, can find no satisfaction in the theory that a group of arch-conservatives, who are just not tailgating Jesus closely enough, surreptitiously changed a policy while the noble Uchtdorf was shopping and the forgetful Monson was sleeping. Unfortunately, though, I am not an American historian, just some one from Parowan named Symmachus, so I really wish I could get a scholar of American history and Mormonism to provide some insight. I have been told that no one serious takes Mike Quinn seriously, so, hmmm, where could I go for some insight? Ben Park!

What does "Professor Park" tell me? Unfortunately, nothing but his emotional state, which, despite many words, can be reduced to a very simple "me no like." No analysis of what happened, no context for what happened, and no explanation of how it happened (that is, what a historian is supposed to do). What really bothers me is this:

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.

Well, first he claims this is just an a personal post, but then why invoke your status as a historian unless to suggest that this really is shocking—so shocking, that even a historian couldn't see it coming? But how could a historian of Mormonism not see this coming or be surprised by it when it did come? Was he awake in 2008, when the Church waged an active political campaign to deprive a small class of citizens of their legislatively protected rights?

I leave it to the scholars at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Interpreter to investigate Park's claims to being a believer, but even someone who is not a believer but has read a conference talk or two over the past, say, twenty years could see that baptizing the children of gay parents was inimical to the church's core values, the most prominent of which is removing the legal and social possibility that there could be such a thing as gay parents. If nothing else, to baptize their children under 18 is to invite the participation of gay parents, Mormon or not, into Mormon life. Having Tyler's two dads show up beaming with delight when he gets his Eagle Scout (or whatever the replacement is) or Brooklynne's two moms cry with pride when she gets her Young Women's Recognition Award just might make them look like normal people with normal families and the leaders look like uninspired greatgrandpas with tired ideas. But what in Mormon history or doctrine would suggest that the Church would want that? Everything tends in the exact opposite direction. It may be, in fact, that there is not a legal logic but simply the logic of Mormon doctrine that is behind this policy.

And as a congregant, where is his congregation? By Common Consent? No one reading this has to work very hard to conjure up awareness of the bigoted and socially conservative culture of the membership of a fundamentalist religion like Mormonism.

The real mystery is why someone who wears his progressive heart so conspicuously on the sleeve of his academic regalia would continue handing it over to the LDS church in the first place.

[_Kishkumen]

Great version of that song, kish!

Thank you, Grudunza! I am honored by your compliment.

[_Kishkumen]

It strikes me as inconsistent to say that too few children were impacted by this policy for it to be truly vicious but enough children were worth impacting to keep their gay parents away from Scouting award ceremonies. Either the latter was perceived to be a real threat because there were a sufficient number of kids to have these gay parents or there were not; they don’t suddenly explode in number for awards ceremonies but magically evaporate at baptism time.

The real shock here is not that the Church opposes gay marriage. The shock is that it would blatantly defy popular understanding of broadly held Christian doctrine—so much so that the super-liberal (?) Catholic Church made a point of saying that they would happily baptize children in the same circumstances. (I suppose that could have been about cultivating a fresh crop of victims?)

[_kevensting]

This revelation is entirely predictable and unsurprising, and it is entirely credible because it fits the pattern of policy-making we can see in the historical record. I don't see the big deal here. Pushing through policy changes when certain apostles are out of town is in no small part how the 1978 revelation came about (an experience also described by those present in terms quite like those used by Nelson), and what else would we expect in a governing body whose overriding principle is the appearance of unanimity? Policiy changes are probably not generally unanimous but merely appear so; for all we know, there was deep opposition to the change in missionary age and it was changed only when Uchtdorf was out shopping at Costco. Nor should it be a surprise that certain senior apostles took advantage of the mental absence of the president of the church; Hinckley and Monson governed that way for eight years, under the inspiration of the third member of the governing trinity, President Ezra Taft Autopen. The same happened during the later years of David O. McKay's presidency, and of Spencer W. Kimball. What should we have expected?

Despite my confusion at their surprise, I intend no disrespect to my fellow posters when I say: to be surprised that this policy was enacted under the typical administrative regime of the church is to forget one's historical knowledge (or not to have it) and implicitly to accept the claim that there is such a thing as revelation in the Mormon sense. Mormons call revelation things that most other people would just call decision-making. Putting that under the rubric of revelation is how traditional believers maintain any sense that there is charismatic element to a Church that is otherwise as inspiring as a board meeting of General Motors in 1973 (although at least they could smoke). If you don't believe in that sort of thing, what did you think happened? But this theory also implicitly suggests that there are some good guys and bad guys in this. If Dieter Uchtdorf is such an inspiring proponent of Mormonism for liberals, he should grab hold of his member next conference (just to remind himself it's there) and lay this all out for the members and make it clear where he stands in unambiguous language. In a system whose authority relies on the appearance of unanimity, maintaining that appearance is equivalent to initiating the policy.

I do understand the urge to forget that this is just how the Church works: it appears to be a vicious policy to those more committed to progressivism than to Mormonism. Who wants to be part of vicious Mormonism and not progressive Mormonism? Quid ergo Dehlinianis et FARMSianis? It may be vicious but to me its viciousness seems in any case aspirational rather than actual: how many kids with gay parents are going to look at Mormonism and say, "gee, I think I'd like to be a part of that"? A country where there are families with same-sex parents is not a country where people are joining Mormonism anyway, let alone the children of same-sex parentage.

But I think I also understand something of the urge behind it, even if it is viscerally repugnant to me. If it is true that Oaks was a primary driver, it would be interesting to know what the legal angle on this might be. Oaks is a reactionary conservative but not a stupid one, and pointless viciousness is stupid. So what is the point? I think conservative fears about the judiciary are justified to a certain extent to anyone who looks at the history of law in the 20th century: law's footprint in society grows ever deeper, and even liberals (e.g. Bruce Ackerman) have started to worry about how large that footprint will become as regulatory bodies assume greater and greater law-making power. Liberals haven't cared much about this because it has been largely to favor their policies and driven by them, but that could change. Even so, given the Church's growing activism in courts over the last thirty years (that is, since about the time Oaks came in), I wonder if this might not be part of a larger strategy to foreclose any attempt by a future regulatory or legislative body to update the Church to 21st century social morality. A winning case must be a consistent one if nothing else, so the Church at least has to make it very clear that its policies are consistently opposed to sex-marriage in every respect.

This might be all wrong, since I'm an amateur. But if I have no heart, as Kevensting would say, because I cannot be shocked by this policy, then perhaps I over-rely on my head because I cannot abide a weak explanation of it, and that head, puny as it might be, can find no satisfaction in the theory that a group of arch-conservatives, who are just not tailgating Jesus closely enough, surreptitiously changed a policy while the noble Uchtdorf was shopping and the forgetful Monson was sleeping. Unfortunately, though, I am not an American historian, just some one from Parowan named Symmachus, so I really wish I could get a scholar of American history and Mormonism to provide some insight. I have been told that no one serious takes Mike Quinn seriously, so, hmmm, where could I go for some insight? Ben Park!

What does "Professor Park" tell me? Unfortunately, nothing but his emotional state, which, despite many words, can be reduced to a very simple "me no like." No analysis of what happened, no context for what happened, and no explanation of how it happened (that is, what a historian is supposed to do). What really bothers me is this:

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.

Well, first he claims this is just an a personal post, but then why invoke your status as a historian unless to suggest that this really is shocking—so shocking, that even a historian couldn't see it coming? But how could a historian of Mormonism not see this coming or be surprised by it when it did come? Was he awake in 2008, when the Church waged an active political campaign to deprive a small class of citizens of their legislatively protected rights?

I leave it to the scholars at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Interpreter to investigate Park's claims to being a believer, but even someone who is not a believer but has read a conference talk or two over the past, say, twenty years could see that baptizing the children of gay parents was inimical to the church's core values, the most prominent of which is removing the legal and social possibility that there could be such a thing as gay parents. If nothing else, to baptize their children under 18 is to invite the participation of gay parents, Mormon or not, into Mormon life. Having Tyler's two dads show up beaming with delight when he gets his Eagle Scout (or whatever the replacement is) or Brooklynne's two moms cry with pride when she gets her Young Women's Recognition Award just might make them look like normal people with normal families and the leaders look like uninspired greatgrandpas with tired ideas. But what in Mormon history or doctrine would suggest that the Church would want that? Everything tends in the exact opposite direction. It may be, in fact, that there is not a legal logic but simply the logic of Mormon doctrine that is behind this policy.

And as a congregant, where is his congregation? By Common Consent? No one reading this has to work very hard to conjure up awareness of the bigoted and socially conservative culture of the membership of a fundamentalist religion like Mormonism.

The real mystery is why someone who wears his progressive heart so conspicuously on the sleeve of his academic regalia would continue handing it over to the LDS church in the first place.

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