This episode covers the announcement from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in April 2019, which essentially reversed its prior policy of labeling those in same-sex marriages as apostates and banning their children from Church ordinances such as baptism and baby blessings. In this episode we explore the context of the original policy that went into effect in November 2015.
Featuring special guest scholars Cristina Rosetti and Paul Reeve.
MORGAN: So Patrick, we’ve had another major national news story hit regarding the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and once again, as one of the key scholars and go-to sources for the media you were quoted in a many national news sources… New York Times, USA Today, Time Magazine… to help put context to what is going on. And as I understand it, you were traveling again when the news hit and all these reporters were calling you?
PATRICK: Yeah, the same thing happened when the Church first announced the emphasis on the name last August. I was traveling with my family, so I had to peel away into a bedroom to talk to the New York Times. So this time I was talking to the New York Times in the back seat of my realtor’s car because we were up in Utah looking at houses for our relocation. So I guess the moral of the story is that I should never go on vacation, because then the Church does big things.
MORGAN: So when is your next vacation, just so we know when to expect the next big Church news?
PATRICK: I’ve actually canceled everything, I’ve cleared the books. So it will be status quo.
MORGAN: The big news we’re referring to this time was the reversal of the November 2015 Church policy regarding LGBT parents and same-sex marriage, a policy which had previously classified same-sex married couples as apostates, and which prevented children of LGBT parents from being blessed as infants or baptized at 8. On April 4, 2019 just 3 ½ years after it was put in place, the First Presidency announced that the policy has essentially been reversed, such that same-sex and LGBT couples are no longer automatically categorized as apostates, and their children are no longer automatically barred from baptism or baby blessings. The national coverage on this was widespread, with every major news outlet running articles.
We’ve got some amazing guest scholars who are going to help us break down the context and key issues of this complicated story.
CRISTINA: This policy actually mirrors the policy of polygamist families.
PATRICK: Of course, the thing that I think struck so many of us was how quickly this policy was reversed, in really the space of only 3 1/2 years.
PAUL: I think a lot of Latter-day Saints were relieved. But they also immediately started trying to figure out what it meant.
CRISTINA: A lot of LGBTQ Mormons had a very different response than what a lot of progressive or faithful Mormons had to say about it.
MORGAN: All this, on our upcoming episodes of Latter-day Landscape.
MORGAN: Thank you for joining us on Latter-day Landscape, the podcast formerly known as Mormonism Magnified. My name is Morgan McKeown, and my co-host is Patrick Mason, who is currently the Howard W. Hunter Chair of Mormon Studies at Claremont Graduate University where he is also the Dean of Arts and Humanities… at least for another few months, before he moves to Utah State to become the Leonard Arrington Chair of Mormon Studies. We talked a little bit on our last episode about how with our name-change and with Patrick’s move, that we would be changing up the format of our podcast just a bit. Specifically, we’re going to try to do shorter and more frequent episodes, with the same guest scholars across a few episodes. And we will still feature many scholars associated with the Claremont Mormon Studies program, but will feature other scholars as well.
On this show, for instance we’ve got two tremendous scholars who bring some amazing and diverse perspectives to the topics at hand. The first is Christina Rosetti.
CRISTINA: I’m a doctoral candidate at the University of California Riverside, just finishing up my dissertation. And I write and research a lot about Mormon fundamentalism.
PATRICK: I’m lucky enough to be on Christina’s dissertation committee which means I’ve had the opportunity to read her dissertation, and it’s fantastic. And it will be exciting for other people to be able to read it too. So we’re looking forward to Christina being the next doctor.
MORGAN: I should point out that Christina is not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but is really one of the amazing up-and-coming scholars of Mormonism – she is really tied in with what’s happening in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but also with the fundamentalist groups that still practice polygamy, and she is doing some great scholarship and bridge building with those communities. And her insights are especially relevant for the topics we’ll be discussing here. Our second guest is Paul Reeve…
PAUL: …professor of history in the history department of the University of Utah, and Simmons professor of Mormon Studies at the University of Utah.
PATRICK: Paul’s been a long-time friend and colleague, and he’s currently serving as the President of the Mormon History Association, and doing a bang-up job there. So make sure everybody goes to MHA in Salt Lake City this summer. And Paul’s done some of the most important research in the historical experience of African Americans and other racial minorities within the Church, so terrific scholar, colleague and friend.
MORGAN: Paul’s one of the most highly esteemed scholars in the field of Mormon Studies, and he’s done some very impactful research about the Church. He also the author of a great essay which shows up on multiple sites online entitled, “I’m a Believer, but I Don’t Just Believe.” The title of that lecture is a reference to the Book of Mormon Musical which sarcastically mocks the supposed blind-faith of Mormons…
Book of Mormon Musical: “I’m a Mormon, and Mormons just believe.”
MORGAN: The song is clearly intended to poke fun at Mormon belief of course, but quite clever and catchy in the way that it juxtaposes fairly universal religious beliefs….
Book of Mormon Musical: “I believe that the Lord God created the universe”
MORGAN: …with oversimplified versions of obscure or controversial Latter-day Saint beliefs
Book of Mormon Musical: “And I believe that the Garden of Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri.”
MORGAN: And so Paul’s essay directly addresses that stereotype, but elaborates on how his scholarship, research, and thoughtful approach to life has actually strengthened his belief in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It’s definitely worth a read, and it’s actually quite applicable to what we’ll be discussing in the upcoming episodes, especially in the context of how Latter-day Saints interpret revelation.
So we’re thrilled to have Christina and Paul and the diverse perspectives they bring to be with us over the next few episodes as we talk about the reversal of the November 2015 same-sex marriage policy, the BYU Honor Code, and some of the key topics of interest that came out of April 2019’s General Conference. On today’s episode, we’re going to set the stage for the April 2019 reversal announcement by revisiting the November 2015 policy, and understanding the context of what happened when that original policy was released. And then on our next episode we will dig more into the recent news.
So let’s go back to November 2015, and talk about the context for that controversial policy that emerged at the time, which categorized same-sex marriages as apostasy and banned children of LGBT parents from Church ordinances.
CRISTINA: A key important piece of context is that, when the policy was first instated, it wasn’t publicly discussed at a press conference. The policy was leaked. That’s a key component of this. A lot of people – most people that I know that are faithful members of the Church found out by just scrolling on social media, and saw that Mormon Leaks had leaked part of the Church Handbook of Instruction 1, and people didn’t believe it. And then later on the Church spokesperson came out and said, “It is true.” And then later on it was revealed as revelation. So I think that’s important context to give, is how the policy was learned by members of the community.
PATRICK: It was done as an insertion or a revision to the Church’s handbook of instruction. And of course, that goes out to literally thousands of people around the world.
MORGAN: And just to clarify, that Handbook of Instruction 1 goes just to the local leader of the Church including Bishoprics and Stake Presidencies, but not to the general Latter-day Saint population.
PATRICK: And then, those relevant passages were leaked online. And so that’s how the news got out. So the Church wasn’t out in front of this in terms of announcing that these policy changes were going to happen. And so that put them in a kind of reactive mode in having to explain these changes, that once they were leaked, it caused quite a bit of an uproar.
MORGAN: Let’s discuss what policy was actually covered in that manual change.
PATRICK: The policy announced by the First Presidency in November of 2015 did a couple of different things. First, it said that any member of the Church who entered into a same-sex marriage, that that was categorized as apostasy according to the Church handbook, and therefore subject to those kinds of Church discipline, including potentially excommunication. Of course, apostasy is one of the most serious charges that the Church can level against any of its members. And then of course, the other aspects of the policy had to do with the children being raised in homes where there’s same-sex marriage, or by same-sex parents. And so the policy barred those children from being baptized at age 8, even if they desired to and even if their parents desired for them to be baptized, and said that if they wanted to go on a mission, once they were legally an adult, they would essentially have to declare that their parents’ marriage was out of harmony with the doctrines of the Church in order for them to do that.
MORGAN: I think the one other relevant item worth mentioning was that the policy also prevented baby blessings for children of LGBT parents. Now, another of the key factors here is that the language and structure of that November 2015 policy wasn’t created from scratch, but that is essentially borrowed from a similar policy that has been in place for decades pertaining to polygamist families.
CRISTINA: … so the language of the 2015 policy is the exact same language for polygamist families, which is a challenge because there have been very public cases of public fundamentalist families who have children who want to be baptized LDS, and we’ve seen it play out when these children need to publicly denounce their parents, and their parents’ lifestyle and their parents’ religion… which is challenging. I have fundamentalist friends who their children are currently serving LDS missions, and had to publicly denounce their parents’ religion. And so there’s still a lot of heartache and struggle in that regard.
MORGAN: So that Church language of treating those who enter into a type of unsanctioned marriage as apostates, and not allowing their children to be baptized until they are 18, and then only if they denounce their parent’s beliefs… that’s all essentially a cut-and-paste from the longstanding polygamy policy. And that argument was used by the leaders of the Church when they did discuss their rationale. What do we know when the Church’s policy on polygamy was put in place?
CRISTINA: I don’t know when it was put in place, but it really became strongly supported by the Church and was really made public in the 1970’s when a lot of LDS people were joining the Apostolic United Brethren.
MORGAN: And just a quick note that the Apostolic United Brethren is a polygamous group with an estimated 10,000 members primarily in Utah and Mexico who tend to integrate with mainstream communities much more than some polygamous groups.
CRISTINA: And the Apostolic United Brethren still has a pretty open position, that they have their members get baptized in the LDS Church, and a lot of them do their endowment in the LDS Church. Some even get sealed to their first wives in the LDS Church. And because the Apostolic Brethren has that in place, and many members of the AUB go to LDS Church – many independent fundamentalists go to the LDS Church – because there’s so much crossover in the 1970s when the ban was lifted and a lot of people were becoming fundamentalists, it was really strongly put in place by the LDS Church.
MORGAN: I think this is a very important point, we know from psychology as well as just from our personal experiences that the way we frame questions can make a huge difference. In this particular case, if the way the question came framed to the leaders of the Church was, “Should we apply a long-established policy from polygamous marriages to same-sex marriages?” as opposed to “Should we ban children of LGBT parents from getting baptized?” it’s easier to see why that framing and that long-established policy may have biased anyone’s approach to this. Now, this polygamy policy had been in place for decades, but it wasn’t until 2015 until those policy principles were applied to same-sex marriage and LGBT relationships. Let’s talk about the broader context for why the timing in 2015, was it an expected step for the Church, or how was it received by the various people that it impacted?
PATRICK: This came on the heels of the United States Supreme court legalizing same-sex marriage, and so a lot of people saw this as the Church responding to that, and wanting to draw a clear, bright line in terms of how it felt about same-sex marriage and the people who were in it. The policy took a lot of people by surprise, because in a lot of ways it was a detour from what had previously been a trajectory of greater openness and engagement with the LGBTQ community on behalf of Church leaders. And so it took a lot of people by surprise, and there was a lot of pain and hurt, and a lot of upset members of the Church, not just LGBT members of the Church, but their friends, and family, and allies who saw this as unnecessarily hurting children.
PAUL: I think even though there was national political context for the policy, I think it did catch Mormons in the Pew by surprise and set a lot of Latter-day Saints reeling, trying to figure it out, trying to make sense of it. And I think the Church itself also was caught by surprise, because as Christina pointed out, the way that it was leaked. So they were unprepared for the kinds of questions that immediately arose among practicing Latter-day Saints about how this would play out in the very complicated lives of Latter-day Saint families, some of whom were divorced from spouses who had gone on to marry in same-sex relationships, and what would this mean for their children? And the institutional Church didn’t seem to have ready answers for those kind of questions, what it would look like in practice. And there was, following a few days after the announcement, a video with Elder Christofferson attempting to address some of those questions. But for many people it came across as very stiff and awkward. And so it still left a lot of questions unanswered, and did not sit well with Latter-day Saints.
PATRICK: And in that interview, Elder Christofferson said that ultimately these policy changes were done primarily with the welfare of the children in mind. They were thinking of the conflict that would happen for children in families with same-sex parents, and being pulled between the parents and the Church. And so he said that by delaying these decisions until the age of 18, they were actually acting in the best interest of the children.
MORGAN: Here’s a bit from that interview, which was a discussion between Elder Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and Mike Otterson, who was at the time head of Church Public Affairs.
Michael Otterson: Why are the children of these same-sex partners an issue here?
Elder Christofferson: Well, in answering or responding to your question, let me say I speak not only as an apostle in the Church, but as a husband, as a father and as a grandfather. And like others in those more enduring callings, I have a sense of compassion and sympathy and tender feelings that they do. So this policy originates out of that compassion. It originates from a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years. When, for example, there is the formal blessing and naming of a child in the Church, which happens when a child has parents who are members of the Church, it triggers a lot of things. First, a membership record for them. It triggers the assignment of visiting and home teachers. It triggers an expectation that they will be in Primary and the other Church organizations. And that is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting where they’re living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple. We don’t want there to be the conflicts that that would engender. We don’t want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different. And so with the other ordinances on through baptism and so on, there’s time for that if, when a child reaches majority, he or she feels like that’s what they want and they can make an informed and conscious decision about that. Nothing is lost to them in the end if that’s the direction they want to go. In the meantime, they’re not placed in a position where there will be difficulties, challenges, conflicts that can injure their development in very tender years.
The situation with polygamist families, for example, and same-sex marriage couples and families really has a parallel. For generations we’ve had these same kinds of policies that relate to children in polygamist families that we wouldn’t go forward with these ordinances while they’re in that circumstance and before they reach their majority. That’s the same sort of situation we’re dealing with here, so it’s something we have had a history with. It’s a practice that really is analogous that’s been the case over many generations.
PATRICK: Shortly after that, about a week later, in mid-November of 2015, the First Presidency issued a letter that this was the kind of formal announcement about the policy. And they made a very similar argument, they said “Our concern with respect to children is their current and future wellbeing and the harmony of their home environment.” So they made very similar arguments to what we heard from Elder Christofferson.
MORGAN: Let’s talk about one of the other major aspects of this story, which was instigated by President Nelson, just a few months later in January 2016, in a worldwide devotional to the youth of the Church.
PATRICK: When President Nelson who at the time was President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles went to speak to students in Hawaii, he explicitly said that the policy came about by way of revelation. That wasn’t the original framing of it. As Christina pointed out, originally it was just included in the handbook, and then went out to people. Of course that meant that it had the imprimatur and had the approval of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, but when President Nelson spoke of it as coming by way of revelation, that was a second surprise to people. Because a lot of people had said, “This is a policy, it’s not a doctrine. They didn’t say that it came by revelation.” And obviously it seems to me that Church leaders heard those kinds of comments and wanted to address that and say no, in fact this came as part of their role as Prophets and receiving revelation for the Church.
MORGAN: Here’s President Nelson in that 2016 devotional:
President Nelson: “This prophetic process was followed in 2012 with the change in minimum age for missionaries and again with the recent additions to the Church’s handbook, consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries. Filled with compassion for all, and especially for the children, we wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter. Ever mindful of God’s plan of salvation and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children, we considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise. We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration. 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. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process, and so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation.”
PAUL: I would add, as Latter-day Saints I think we’re attempting to figure out what that all meant. And I think that President Nelson attempting to shore up the policy when he made that declaration in Hawaii… other people pointed to the notion that he was the only one that made that. He was speaking to a limited audience, not a general conference audience. People were trying to ferret out what that all meant. And just trying to understand, was there unity in the Quorum of the Twelve on this? Where did this come from? Where did this originate? And still unsettled, even with Nelson’s declaration of revelation. Was it only Nelson who viewed it that way? Did other members view it that way? And he was the only who ever made that kind of declaration.
CRISTINA: I would just add to that, the policy was added to seminary manuals as an example of modern-day revelation. So it wasn’t just President Nelson’s comments in Hawaii, but it was added as a primary example of what revelation in the LDS Church looks like today. And so that’s somewhat important to remember.
MORGAN: And apparently there was some back-and-forth on the inclusion of that example in seminary manuals, where it’s been modified in and out of the curriculum.
PATRICK: I think it raises the very difficult question of “What is revelation?” And this is a topic that Latter-day Saints will often kind of tip-toe around. Because revelation is a word that has considerable authority within the Church and within the culture, especially if it’s identified with the senior leadership of the Church. But people are a little unclear about how this works. What’s the difference between revelation or inspiration, or simply praying about something and then feeling like it’s the right thing to do. Latter-day Saints are quite familiar with this, because in their own lives, or if they serve in callings in their own wards, they will often talk about receiving inspiration or even revelation within their callings. And so they know how this works, and they know that it normally doesn’t come by way of a crystal clear voice or directive straight from heaven, it comes through impressions and feelings and thoughts. And that’s what Church leaders have talked about for a long time. And so, I do think that a lot of members of the Church think that when senior leaders of the Church talk about revelation, or when they make a decision, that somehow there was like an email from the Celestial kingdom. And they’re just reading it off. And I think still among the general culture of the Church, that there still needs to be some grappling with what it means to claim that these are prophets, seers, and revelators that lead the Church by revelation… but do they really have a hotline to the throne of God?
MORGAN: And that stereotypical Latter-day Saint belief of direct-line communication between the prophet and God was even poked fun of in that song we mentioned previously from the Book of Mormon musical.
Book of Mormon Musical: “And I believe that the current President of the Church, Thomas Monson, speaks directly to God.”
MORGAN: Of course, as we’ve discussed, many Latter-day Saints have developed or are developing a much more nuanced and deeper interpretation of what revelation means, especially as it applies to the leaders of the Church and the expectations we have of them, and that’s something we’re going to explore even more on our next episode when we dig into the April 2019 reversal announcement. But let’s close out our discussion in this episode by acknowledging some of the negative repercussions of the November 2015 policy, and what are some of the reasons why the leaders of the Church may have been motivated to change it so quickly?
PATRICK: In the aftermath of the November 2015 policy, it caused a lot of pain and confusion among Latter-day Saints and their LGBT friends and family members and allies. And really went in a couple of different directions. Obviously those who are themselves LGBT or who have family members who are felt an enormous amount of pain. They felt like this was the Church marginalizing them, labeling their marriage as apostate, which is one of the most serious sins in the Church’s handbook and in terms of the Church’s discipline. And so they felt like this was a very strong statement against them. It also spoke about their ability to parent, and their ability to raise children in the Church. It essentially cut them off from the opportunity of allowing their children to receive ordinances, even if they desired that for their children. So for a lot of people, especially as this played out over time, it caused a real rupture between the Church and many of the LGBT members, many of whom felt rejected by the Church. Many of them felt judged by the Church. A lot of people have pointed to a number of suicides that happened. I think we shouldn’t be too rash to go from point A to point B, but certainly the overall climate and context for LGBTQ members within the Church, it became much chillier, and many of them experience that as a real act of hostility towards them. And in addition to that, and of course all of that pain is understandable and easily explainable, there was also a lot of pain and confusion from long-time, orthodox, straight members of the Church, some of whom had gay or lesbian family members, and so they felt their pain, and were allies and advocates for them. But even for others who didn’t, they felt confused by the policy. And I talked to a number of different people who said, “I’ve never disagreed with Church leadership on anything, or at least anything serious my entire life.” This was the first thing that they did. I think some of them felt confused by the theology behind it, because the second article of faith says the children are not accountable for the sins of their parents. And so I think people were confused on those lines. But also just because this seemed like such a departure, such a detour from what had otherwise been a trajectory of increased openness and engagement between the Church and the LGBTQ community. And so I think that people just experienced this as really as an abrupt and sudden and unexplained departure from the Church’s practices in previous years.
PAUL: I think a lot of questions remained unanswered over the course of the three years that the policy was in place.
MORGAN: Indeed, we’ve still got a lot of questions. But now that we’ve discussed the context for the original 2015 policy, we’re ready to dive into the news from April 2019 and the reversal of the policy, and we’ll do that on our next episode which will be released soon.
PATRICK: So that raises lots of questions for people: Why was it right 3 1/2 years ago, and even defended as revelation, and now it’s not?
CRISTINA: So when the policy was reversed, my question was, the policy for polygamist parents is still very much in place, and so why is it that the LGBTQ policy is being revoked, rescinded, but not the policy for polygamist parents.
PAUL: One thought that I had was just on the nature of how it was announced. The timing of it coming before General Conference, and then no one actually speaking on it at General Conference.
MORGAN: We’ll discuss all that and more, on our next episode of Latter-day Landscape.
As we close this episode, we want to take a moment to say thank you to so many of you who have sent us messages about how you value what we’re doing, and for downloading our podcast thousands of times already. Some of you have asked how you can support our efforts here. Patrick and I have made the decision to entirely self-produce and self-fund this podcast ourselves, and our goal is to continue that so that we never have to ask for a single penny from you. Of course, we’re trying to raise awareness of the amazing and sometimes underappreciated Mormon Studies programs at Claremont Graduate University, Utah State University, or the University of Utah, just to name a few, that help create the outstanding scholars that we feature on our show. And if you do want to show your appreciation for what we’re doing, we ask you to take a minute to give us a five star rating on iTunes or Stitcher, and especially to share this podcast with a friend, or all your friends… anyone who you think would appreciate it. And we’ll see you again on our next episode of Latter-day Landscape.
Latter-day Landscape is an independent production, and is not formally affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Claremont Mormon Studies, or the Utah State Mormon Studies programs. We can be found on the web at latterdaylandscape.com, spelled with or without a hyphen, or by email at latterdaylandscape@gmail.com. Thank you for listening.