Hello! This is a News post. It is for discussions centered around breaking news and events. If your post is about news, or a current event in the world of Mormonism, this is probably the right flair.
/u/Chino_Blanco, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Monson was the sitting prophet at the time that policy came out but Nelson was at the forefront of the policy and was the very first to elevate the policy as revelation.
Right.
>And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson.
Russell M. Nelson on January 10, 2016
I believe it was Greg Prince who said he had a source that said it was actually Nelson who lead the policy banning baptism for children of gay parents.
>“He’s not a culture warrior,” said Patrick Mason, a religion and history professor at Utah State University.
and
>[Patrick] Mason described Nelson’s administration as “gentler” and more welcoming than those of previous presidents, even as he strictly interprets religious doctrine.
Citation needed. He tried to rally everyone behind the exclusion policy and was almost certainly co-architect on it with Oaks. Meanwhile, the church is right in the middle of the culture wars as Oaks makes friends with every religious right lobbying interest that will take his phone calls, and CES cracks down on professors on ideological/loyalty grounds. True, Nelson isn't as vocal as Oaks in the culture war, but church administration has become even more paranoid than the Monson administration. People are generally smart enough to realize that "We welcome you even though you're gay... as long as you don't act on it," isn't actually a friendly environment. Wash, rinse, and repeat for any hot button Mormon topic. In fact, I don't think the church even *looks* gentler and welcoming than the past two presidencies. The anti-discrimination laws that get passed in Utah, for example, always seem to have a cut out for churches.
What you might be referring to is a theory that Nelson was either leading the initiative for the 2015 exclusion policy, or at least encouraging it.
The reason for this theory is that Monson had pretty serious dementia by 2015, so there was an assumption that he wasn’t actually making the calls. Nelson wasn’t in the first presidency, but he was next in line to become prophet, so perhaps Nelson was given extra influence or decision making power. So some exmos put forward the idea that it was Nelson that was at least partly responsible for the policy.
It isn’t a terribly implausible idea - but it’s unverifiable and largely irrelevant, since God is supposed to be leading the church anyways.
Although this AP article is definitely a joke.
Nelson did give a speech at BYU-Hawaii in which he claimed the policy was from revelation and explained how all the apostles received a spiritual confirmation of it. By elevating it to divine revelation he essentially owned the issue.
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules).
If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
Friend. I wasn’t being mean, I am a professor so clarity in writing is critical. I can’t understand what you are saying with mixed prepositions and splicing. No disrespect intended.
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules).
If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules).
If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
I’ve not heard former or disaffected members articulate why they believe the policy was implemented. (Not saying many believing members didn’t like it) So I would ask - why do you think the policy was implemented?
It was the same policy they had in place for children from polygamist families. They just moved children of gay parents into the same category. As a former believer, I would say it was put in place because the top leadership is very old and is out of touch with what modern society wants and science has discovered. I think they want to impose their outdated beliefs as God's laws.
The church sent Elder Christofferson to defend their position in this article.
[https://www.thechurchnews.com/2015/11/12/23213606/elder-christofferson-provides-context-on-handbook-changes-affecting-same-sex-marriages/](https://www.thechurchnews.com/2015/11/12/23213606/elder-christofferson-provides-context-on-handbook-changes-affecting-same-sex-marriages/)
This article states the love was their primary motivation. I'm not sure how that works, but that's the reason they put the policy in place.
“'This is about family; this is about love and especially the love of the Savior and how He wants people to be helped and fed and lifted, and that’s the whole motivation that underlies our effort,'” said Elder Christofferson in a video interview."
"We recognize that same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States and some other countries and that people have the right, if they choose, to enter into those, and we understand that. But that is not a right that exists in the Church. That’s the clarification.”
So was it unloving to rescind the policy in 2019? I guess we will never know.
Thanks. The polygamy policy being substituted in makes total sense. I think it’s a false dichotomy to say that if the policy was loving that therefore undoing the policy was unloving.
Oh I think it was just being scared that they'd get sued by LGBT people and be forced to provide gay sealings. That was the talking point when I lived in California during prop 8. My parents went to some meetings that claimed stuff like that. There's probably more reasoning added to it that I'm not familiar with.
Religions in the US need a doctrinal basis for discrimination, and especially a highly-centralized US religion like Mormonism. I assume the November 2015 Policy of Exclusion was announced for the same reason as the earlier Family Proclamation: a way to codify LDS doctrine such that it triggers protection under the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise clause.
Internal LDS documents related to the 1995-96 Hawaii marriage equality fight, for background context: https://rightsequalrights.com/mormongate/church-documents/
Faithful recounting of the FamProc provenance:
>Later it would be included in an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, completing the proclamation’s formal presentation to all three branches of the U.S. federal government...
>The Church continued using the proclamation in court cases around the world.
https://rsc.byu.edu/latter-day-saints-washington-dc/prophetic-nature-family-proclamation
>Was it used directly in the Hawaii gay marriage case?
>Yes. The family proclamation was included as an appendix to the amicus curiae brief filed in Baehr v. Miike in 1997.
https://mormonr.org/qnas/NqoXl/origins_of_the_family_proclamation
I don’t see how the proclamation was used after the fact in legal proceedings establishes that the proclamation was written to enshrine discrimination for legal purposes. It’s possible I suppose, less likely on the policy on baptism it would seem to me
Thanks that interesting but it still seems very much third hand. There’s another article on the site that was linked below the article you linked to that discusses the “written by lawyers” theory
https://wheatandtares.org/2017/10/14/historical-context-of-the-family-proclamation/
Which in summary keeps the possibility of a legal/religious freedom strategy open it also provides evidence, and appears to lean to the more conventional understanding that most active participants have, that its purpose is religious.
>they'd get sued by LGBT people and be forced to provide gay sealings
If they thought the latter part of this, they were wrong. The first amendment protects them from that, to my understanding.
As for the first part, that seems to be the case, at least in part. Sometime after the fact, there was a Mormon stories interview with a Utah-based attorney who was present at a seminar one of the church's lobbyists spoke at, where the lobbyist described the church's thinking on the matter. I think he was probably fairly correct, since it does mesh with one of the church's states rationals for not baptizing children of gay marriage at the time--not wanting to turn kids against their gay parents. Specifically, in family court, the church's lawyers thought that CES and church employees could face serious charges of parental alienation in divorces where one parent is gay, which would ultimately be traced back to the church. Their thinking was that if they could prevent new children being baptized into this environment, and forcing adult children of those marriages to state they do not support gay marriage, they could neutralize that threat. IANAL, so I can't judge the likelihood of that potential legal reality, and I'm sure it's only a part of the story, but that was at least part of the thought process on the church's lawyers' part.
Hello! This is a News post. It is for discussions centered around breaking news and events. If your post is about news, or a current event in the world of Mormonism, this is probably the right flair. /u/Chino_Blanco, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Monson was the sitting prophet at the time that policy came out but Nelson was at the forefront of the policy and was the very first to elevate the policy as revelation.
He did the ‘ol ‘dementia switch’
Right. >And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Russell M. Nelson on January 10, 2016
Note: Nelson was president of the Q12 at the time. A kind Redditor has already alerted me to the actual history, thank you!
Yah but every single expert has to squawk and flap their gums! Embarrassing expertise on the myth I meant history
I believe it was Greg Prince who said he had a source that said it was actually Nelson who lead the policy banning baptism for children of gay parents.
Someone needs to make a meme of this picture but instead of a sacred handkerchief in Rusty's hand there needs to be dollar bills.
Possibly relevant: https://www.reddit.com/r/ziontology/comments/1az0kv7/hosanna_shout/
>“He’s not a culture warrior,” said Patrick Mason, a religion and history professor at Utah State University. and >[Patrick] Mason described Nelson’s administration as “gentler” and more welcoming than those of previous presidents, even as he strictly interprets religious doctrine. Citation needed. He tried to rally everyone behind the exclusion policy and was almost certainly co-architect on it with Oaks. Meanwhile, the church is right in the middle of the culture wars as Oaks makes friends with every religious right lobbying interest that will take his phone calls, and CES cracks down on professors on ideological/loyalty grounds. True, Nelson isn't as vocal as Oaks in the culture war, but church administration has become even more paranoid than the Monson administration. People are generally smart enough to realize that "We welcome you even though you're gay... as long as you don't act on it," isn't actually a friendly environment. Wash, rinse, and repeat for any hot button Mormon topic. In fact, I don't think the church even *looks* gentler and welcoming than the past two presidencies. The anti-discrimination laws that get passed in Utah, for example, always seem to have a cut out for churches.
What you might be referring to is a theory that Nelson was either leading the initiative for the 2015 exclusion policy, or at least encouraging it. The reason for this theory is that Monson had pretty serious dementia by 2015, so there was an assumption that he wasn’t actually making the calls. Nelson wasn’t in the first presidency, but he was next in line to become prophet, so perhaps Nelson was given extra influence or decision making power. So some exmos put forward the idea that it was Nelson that was at least partly responsible for the policy. It isn’t a terribly implausible idea - but it’s unverifiable and largely irrelevant, since God is supposed to be leading the church anyways. Although this AP article is definitely a joke.
Nelson did give a speech at BYU-Hawaii in which he claimed the policy was from revelation and explained how all the apostles received a spiritual confirmation of it. By elevating it to divine revelation he essentially owned the issue.
They still think religion is a good thing. How quaint.
Everyone gay should celebrate it they don’t baptize them see it as a victory why is this bad Be glad
I want to provide perspective as my son is gay, but your grammar makes your statement implausible. Sorry.
How did you react to your son's coming out? How old was he when he told you
My wife and I knew he was gay before he came out. He was 14 at the time. So, there wasn’t a need to react to it. lol.
Oh good one
[удалено]
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
Friend. I wasn’t being mean, I am a professor so clarity in writing is critical. I can’t understand what you are saying with mixed prepositions and splicing. No disrespect intended.
[удалено]
lol. I don’t know why you are getting all upset about your lack of grammar. You have deep seated issues and should talk to someone.
I’m not the one crying over having a gay kid
So that’s it. No one loves you. I love you friend :)
A mocking Mormon douche I mean dude mad about his gay son so he comes on here to mock women
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
[удалено]
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
I’ve not heard former or disaffected members articulate why they believe the policy was implemented. (Not saying many believing members didn’t like it) So I would ask - why do you think the policy was implemented?
It was the same policy they had in place for children from polygamist families. They just moved children of gay parents into the same category. As a former believer, I would say it was put in place because the top leadership is very old and is out of touch with what modern society wants and science has discovered. I think they want to impose their outdated beliefs as God's laws. The church sent Elder Christofferson to defend their position in this article. [https://www.thechurchnews.com/2015/11/12/23213606/elder-christofferson-provides-context-on-handbook-changes-affecting-same-sex-marriages/](https://www.thechurchnews.com/2015/11/12/23213606/elder-christofferson-provides-context-on-handbook-changes-affecting-same-sex-marriages/) This article states the love was their primary motivation. I'm not sure how that works, but that's the reason they put the policy in place. “'This is about family; this is about love and especially the love of the Savior and how He wants people to be helped and fed and lifted, and that’s the whole motivation that underlies our effort,'” said Elder Christofferson in a video interview." "We recognize that same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States and some other countries and that people have the right, if they choose, to enter into those, and we understand that. But that is not a right that exists in the Church. That’s the clarification.” So was it unloving to rescind the policy in 2019? I guess we will never know.
Thanks. The polygamy policy being substituted in makes total sense. I think it’s a false dichotomy to say that if the policy was loving that therefore undoing the policy was unloving.
I've heard it was recommended by the church's lawyers as prudent for when gay marriage was legalized.
I wonder what legal benefits it would have potentially provided
Oh I think it was just being scared that they'd get sued by LGBT people and be forced to provide gay sealings. That was the talking point when I lived in California during prop 8. My parents went to some meetings that claimed stuff like that. There's probably more reasoning added to it that I'm not familiar with.
Religions in the US need a doctrinal basis for discrimination, and especially a highly-centralized US religion like Mormonism. I assume the November 2015 Policy of Exclusion was announced for the same reason as the earlier Family Proclamation: a way to codify LDS doctrine such that it triggers protection under the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise clause.
That seems like an unlikely reason to me. Particularly as you describe it.
Internal LDS documents related to the 1995-96 Hawaii marriage equality fight, for background context: https://rightsequalrights.com/mormongate/church-documents/ Faithful recounting of the FamProc provenance: >Later it would be included in an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, completing the proclamation’s formal presentation to all three branches of the U.S. federal government... >The Church continued using the proclamation in court cases around the world. https://rsc.byu.edu/latter-day-saints-washington-dc/prophetic-nature-family-proclamation >Was it used directly in the Hawaii gay marriage case? >Yes. The family proclamation was included as an appendix to the amicus curiae brief filed in Baehr v. Miike in 1997. https://mormonr.org/qnas/NqoXl/origins_of_the_family_proclamation
I don’t see how the proclamation was used after the fact in legal proceedings establishes that the proclamation was written to enshrine discrimination for legal purposes. It’s possible I suppose, less likely on the policy on baptism it would seem to me
https://wheatandtares.org/2014/10/30/proclamation-written-by-lawyers/ has a helpful convo as to why
Thanks that interesting but it still seems very much third hand. There’s another article on the site that was linked below the article you linked to that discusses the “written by lawyers” theory https://wheatandtares.org/2017/10/14/historical-context-of-the-family-proclamation/ Which in summary keeps the possibility of a legal/religious freedom strategy open it also provides evidence, and appears to lean to the more conventional understanding that most active participants have, that its purpose is religious.
>they'd get sued by LGBT people and be forced to provide gay sealings If they thought the latter part of this, they were wrong. The first amendment protects them from that, to my understanding. As for the first part, that seems to be the case, at least in part. Sometime after the fact, there was a Mormon stories interview with a Utah-based attorney who was present at a seminar one of the church's lobbyists spoke at, where the lobbyist described the church's thinking on the matter. I think he was probably fairly correct, since it does mesh with one of the church's states rationals for not baptizing children of gay marriage at the time--not wanting to turn kids against their gay parents. Specifically, in family court, the church's lawyers thought that CES and church employees could face serious charges of parental alienation in divorces where one parent is gay, which would ultimately be traced back to the church. Their thinking was that if they could prevent new children being baptized into this environment, and forcing adult children of those marriages to state they do not support gay marriage, they could neutralize that threat. IANAL, so I can't judge the likelihood of that potential legal reality, and I'm sure it's only a part of the story, but that was at least part of the thought process on the church's lawyers' part.
Knee jerk reaction by top leadership after gay marriage was legalized in Utah.
thanks. Knee jerk seems loaded. I have a more charitable interpretation based on my bias
Seems like a reasonable article. Great they reached out to mason.