See One, Do One, Teach One

Seems legit.

In the medical education system you start out as a medical student with no real power to execute orders, to a resident physician with the ability to make decisions, order tests, and prescribe medications ... so long as your full-fledged attending physician signs off on them. Finally, after board certification and completion of residency you're the real deal. You fly solo, all power and liability is on you.

In medicine we also have a "See one, do one, teach one" motto. When you're a medical student your job is to mostly observe what the doctors do. You might interview patients and write notes, but those things don't really count in the medical record. When you're a resident you have a bit of a safety net under you and this is when you start doing real things under supervision. By the time you're an attending physician the idea, in an academic setting, is to mostly teach the residents and medical students.

So why am I giving you the inside scoop on how the medical field works? It's because I suspect President Nelson, a physician surgeon, applied these academic principles to Church policy creation and that's how we got The Policy (re: gays and their children) and its reversal. Here's why:

In 2015 President Thomas S. Monson had severe dementia. The Church was being run (as is its policy in such cases) by the combination of presidency keys. We see Boyd K. Packer die in July 2015 and The Policy go into effect November 2015. What happened in the interim? Russel M. Nelson became Quorum (of the Apostles) President (QP). For context, everyone at this time knows Nelson is next in line to become prophet and Dallin H Oaks is positioned to become the next QP or higher (as would become the case).

If we view this in terms of:

apostle = med student

QP = resident

Prophet = attending physician

It would be no surprise then if Russell M. Nelson as QP jumped at the opportunity to use executive power for something that he could say was the will of the Lord, but policy only (i.e. not offical doctrine). This would be practice for the big role for which he was slated. And we know he moves quickly, wasting no time. The Policy would be his "do one."

When the Chief strikes down your order.

But what one man wants and what the Lord wants are often not the same thing.

What was supposed to happen is President Eyring and President Uchtdorf with new QP Nelson, along with the sustaining and authoritative power of the remaining apostles, were to turn their keys in confirmation of what was taught to them by the Spirit.

What I think happened is a couple of things. I think Eyring and Uchtdorf, having worked for some time now without a functional President of the Church, slipped into the mode of "I sustain our [future] prophet." They wanted him to get practice as QP and succeed. Also, let's be honest, they knew they were a geriatric heartbeat away from answering to President Nelson for the remainder of their ministry. I'm guessing that factored in.

I suspect something went wrong right away. For starters, why focus on "the gay issue"? Especially right out of the gates? It seems like Nelson saw an obvious problem between homosexuality and Mormon Latter-day doctrine and wanted to fix it. I don't doubt he sought the will of the Lord, but it appears he landed on the side of legalism. And just who persuaded him to choose justice? Who likely pleaded for mercy instead (but ultimately relented)? I'll let you decide.*

*Worth a thousand words

In the end there needed to be apostolic consensus, but my guess is at least one presidency member drew near to The Policy with his lips for the sake of unity, but his heart (and key) were turned away from it. In contrast, I can see Nelson receiving guidance from someone who was close enough and practically there in terms of having presidential keys such that his input was valued more than it was worth. We see this happen from time to time in medicine, too. Senior resident and 4th year medical student start a surgical case without the attending surgeon and the patient bleeds out.

The patient in this case is everyone affected by The Policy. We can never say for sure how many LGBTQ members died by suicide as a result, but my gut and reasoning tells me the blood of this generation cries out.

The Silver Lining to a Large Black Cloud

I think three big things have/will come out of this: 1) We have learned how to discern right from wrong, 2) We now know which members will accept/reject false doctrine, and 3) More women will be brought into policy-making decisions at higher levels in more official ways.

1) I've said it before and I'll say it again, we must look for the tokens and signs Father promised to send us. When the leaders of the Church teach us a principle we should pray on it, consider it, and feel within us a confirmation that it's true. Then, when we act upon it, we should see good fruit. There was never any good fruit from The Policy. Only bad, heartbreaking, rotten products. Moreover, when it comes to church-wide policy, ALL presidential keys need to turn in agreement. This is tricky because The Policy was touted as coming from a unanimous voice, but I recall discussions at its onset about how this just didn't seem like something a certain key-holding apostle would support, at least not in his heart.

So let's say we were early saints and Peter, James, and Thaddeus approached us with new policy... Stop right there. That's not right. Perhaps the next time it came from the original First Presidency (Peter, James, and John), but they had no tokens and (good) signs to give... Thanks, but no thanks.

We need both: The actual presidency and the correct tokens and signs.


2) I remember after The Policy each and every woman I knew had a hard time with it. Even the most "totally believing Mormon" (TBM) types felt sick in the stomach thinking about babies being turned away. But within the same day of its announcement, these women and their male counterparts posted and preached about how, "if you look at it this way," The Policy is actually about love!

These members were wrong. They are dangerous. They need to learn from this and change.

3) I've looked back at my journal of impressions and the letter I gave my bishopric pleading for an end of at least one aspect of The Policy. My feeling is that this episode has made it clear that women need to be involved in policies that affect the family of God. And since that touches everything, I do expect an announcement this weekend during General Conference.


Closing Thoughts

Going back to that image I've painted of the confident resident and eager med student, I know and I hope you know they had no intent to harm. We also know the outcome was catastrophic. As "ancillary staff" did you take orders and facilitate a wrongful practice or did you run things up the chain to a higher authority?

Next time --because humanity assures us there will be a next time-- let's not accept a broken protocol nor leave the operating room; let's do all that we can. Together. Because now, as President of the Church, Russel M. Nelson is teaching us that we can learn from our mistakes and become better. Much better.

The Proclamation: A Bait and Switch for This Convert

When I joined the church, the reasons new converts gave for their conversion sounded like this most of the time:

• I know the Book of Mormon is true
• I have a testimony of The Restoration
• Joseph Smith was a Prophet
• This Church has priesthood authority

When Prop 22 rolled out in California, there was a renewed focus on The Proclamation, and I started to hear these reasons more and more:

• I love my family
• I love my boyfriend/husband
• I love tradition

Though not given as THE reason for adopting Mormonism, I have heard from convert men that the Church's strong stance against homosexuality through The Proclamation was definitely a draw for them. (Oddly enough, such commentary also paves the way for racist opining... Are these the recruits we want to shoulder the priesthood moving forward?) 

And while I don't have sound data on this, my personal observation has been this irony: With the Proclamation focusing on the heterosexuality of a marital union rather than the priesthood power to perform sealings, I have seen more marriages occur outside the temple (with sealings to follow in a year) than before its emphasis.*

Actual results for #lds

When I joined the Church, Instagram wasn't a thing (man, I'm getting old) but when we conjured up imagery of being a good Mormon it mostly centered on preaching the Gospel and helping others across the globe. Now when we seek #lds, #mormon we are bombarded with pictures of women looking "modest is hottest" in gender-traditional clothes and cute couple selfies. That's all correlation not causation, of course... But seeing as the Book of Mormon (written for our time) says next to nothing about marriage, homosexuality, and looking #totescute you might begin to understand why I find this abrupt shift in priorities so alarming and make an association. 

WHERE IS THE CHURCH I JOINED?!

In Sunday school I would rather discuss the implications of, say, the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood or overcoming poverty, but instead we're talking about how it's Us against the World, and by marrying a man I really "defended the family." Defended how, from what, from whom?

With Utah as our canary in the Mormon coal mine, shouldn't its high(est) rates of sexual violence and child sexual abuse, pornography use, and its push for perfection through plastic surgery alongside sky-rocketing mental illness all be signs of where we should focus our talks on family values? My wearing lady-like skirts with lipstick and passively not being gay in accordance with The Proclamation doesn't add anything to over-coming these challenges. And while you might point out that document does contain condemnation of abuse, that has hardly been the focus of our discussions on it.

Moreover, if the point of belaboring The Proclamation is to remind homosexuals they do not fall into Gospel ideals, I would like to speak on their behalf and say they're already well-aware. Like, so much so we lose precious human beings to suicide routinely in our church.

INSPIRED?

In Elder Oak's talk yesterday he mentioned that it was important for us to know about the origins of The Proclamation. He happened to confirm what Chieko Okazaki had said, that this document about families was created without any insight from women. He then used indirect wording to describe The Proclamation's origins: "Language was proposed, reviewed, and revised," and "a proposed text was presented to the First Presidency," which is a missed opportunity to snuff out reports that The Proclamation was conceived in partnership with the law firm Kirton McConkie in anticipation of legal challenges to same-sex marriage. --A fight that was solidly lost here in the USA. 

Finally, Elder Oaks posits that embrace of The Proclamation is a measuring stick for converted Latter-day Saints. Given that this document is not canonized, never received by common consent, I was taken aback by this suggestion. It's true, I don't display this document in my home... But I keep the covenants I made when I joined the Church, which includes mourning with those who mourn the Gospel they once knew and recognized.

*Not that I personally have a problem with that, but I know the Church cares a lot about temple marriages. 

An Open Letter Regarding "The Policy"

To whom it may concern,

I am submitting this letter of appeal as a faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a mother, and a child of God. No doubt you have received countless other messages from concerned Latter-day Saints and members of the community since the announcement of new policies regarding the children of same-gender unions. I imagine not all of them are kind and supportive. It is my prayer, however, that this one will leave a good impression because it comes from the heart and it is filled with hope.

To paraphrase Nephi, I know God loves his children, but I don’t know the meaning of all things (1Nephi 11:17). Such were my thoughts on November 5^th 2015, when I learned of changes to the Church Handbook of Instructions that would bar certain children from receiving a name and a blessing, and prevent them receiving the ordinances of salvation without additional approval. My heart ached for those children. The image of an innocent baby being turned away from a circle of love brought tears to my eyes. Since then I have pondered much and wrestled with the Spirit. I also did my research. My mind now understands, or at least supposes, that these changes came about as a response to the recent expansion of legal marriage to same-gender couples in the United States of America, with the goal to prevent official recognition of gay unions on record, and to make clear our stance that marriage between man and woman is God’s unchanging standard. The timing and method used to reach those goals, I don’t expect to understand, nor is that important to me at this moment.

What is critical, and the reason I felt compelled to write this letter, is to address an unintended offense created in the new policies. Namely, the turning away of babies from the naming and blessing ordinance. As I have just stated that I understand the likely purpose of the new changes to the Handbook, perhaps my returning to this issue is puzzling at this point. To clarify, I should start by explaining that this is the one restriction I know is unnecessary for your purpose, especially as it is not an ordinance of salvation and does not demand the prior existence of the parents’ membership. In fact, by clearly stating those in same-gender relationships are apostate –thereby valid membership is removed–  this would mean that their child would require parental consent prior to the giving of a name and blessing in the Church, thus negating the concern that following up on this child of record would be awkward or cause tension in the family as it has already been addressed.

With all that in mind, I can proceed to discuss something that is most sacred to me. As a daughter of God, I have taken to heart the knowledge that I came to earth with gifts not found in common with men, even pre-mortal endowments. I have returned to the temple regularly to lift the veil of my remembrance of these experiences and have had many profound moments, but none as sobering as when a pre-mortal token was violated. I regret to inform you that this is what I experienced when I envisioned the child being turned away from the blessing circle.  Though not intended, such imagery mocks divine motherhood, which centers on cloistering the children of men. And I know I’m not alone in that sentiment. Each woman I’ve spoken to, when first learning how the aforementioned policies affect the children, has described a heaviness in her heart. Even those not of our faith can feel it, and I believe that is explained by our shared instruction prior to this existence. We know, at least inherently, that turning away the newborn child is contrary to the emblem of the hen gathering the chicks beneath her wings. To expand that description further would be to go beyond the limits of this medium. But I can tell you that to uphold the barring of babies from a blessing in the Church, whatever their life circumstances may be, would put me at odds with holy covenants I made as a woman prior to coming to this earth. I simply cannot bear to be in this position. Please reconsider this aspect of the new policies so as to free me and my sisters from this predicament.

I add that, moving forward, proclamations and declarations regarding the family unit on earth would gather more strength and power if brought to light through the unity of both men and women. I am by no means vying for ordination of the sisters in the church, but rather a cooperative paradigm at moments like this, which echoes the truth that it is not good for man to act alone (Gen 2:18). The Church is edified and Satan rebuked when the daughters of Eve and the sons of Adam proceed together in the world. In the future, could not the brethren making these expansive changes consult with righteous women for the greatest outcome? (If I’m mistaken in concluding that this decision-making was without female input, then please forgive me.)

Finally, I leave you my testimony that I know this Church is true, it is led by a living prophet, and was restored in these days to bless the earth and bring His children unto Christ. It is because I care that I have expounded these things in appeal, as a wife does for her husband (and vice versa), in love and with concern. Please consider the things I have shared. Pray and ponder them for yourself, knowing that I have written this in charity.

Yours in Christ,

Sister Monique _____

You're not Angry with Gays; You're Frustrated with God

America recently suffered a terrible tragedy in Charleston when nine African-American people were gunned down in their church during Bible study. I expected the uproar from the general public to be much more than what it was, and my hope that fellow Latter-day Saints would speak up against this was tempered by reality. Asking around, I learned that this tragedy was rarely mentioned in our meetinghouses the following Sunday.

In contrast, lately it seems that every lesson we have connects back to gay marriage and the recent Supreme Court ruling that upholds this practice. This topic seems to be at the forefront of LDS minds, so much so that I'm starting to feel like this is the Church of the Heterosexual Family of Latter-day Saints. Because when it comes to participating in civil discourse, this one topic alone seems to motivate Church members to participate.

There are obvious factors that make marriage-equality front and center in Mormon conversations. Our Church's doctrine rests on the divine powers of each gender working together. We have The Proclamation hanging in our homes. Our Prophet had even urged us to vote for propositions limiting the definition of marriage as heterosexual in nature. But the trigger, the agitator causing this explosion of commentary, I suspect it's rooted in something else.

I believe most of us are afraid to wrestle with God. Scared to acknowledge that His one true church preaches a plan of happiness that fits the privileged (i.e. heterosexual, married, fertile), but is devastating to its outliers, at least in this lifetime. And it is with that fear and those unsettled feelings that so many Church members react, projecting their insecurities onto homosexuals and their sympathizers.

Because the truth hurts. And here it is:

Klinefelters Syndrome

Gender (XX = female; XY = male) is central to God's plan for His children. And yet He co-creates humans who are XXY, XYY, and XO.

He also brings children into this world who are homosexual from the start. In order to be part of the Church, most* of them must forsake romantic love altogether and choose celibacy. That doesn't sound like happiness to most people. Some will say that gays are treated no different than single heterosexuals who are waiting for marriage, but in that case there is always hope. For gays, the one and only "hope" is that this significant part of who they are will be "fixed" in the eternities.

So, if you're a member of the Church and you're heterosexual with fertility intact, congratulations! You truly are a winner in the game o' life. But if by no fault of your own you don't fall into the zone of glory, then you're in a painful predicament. And that's not something the rest of us like to think about. It makes God look... well, not so kind. Members of the Church in general do not want to grapple with those implications and wish to avoid the reminders. - Which is becoming easier to do as relatively few LGBT members feel welcomed in our pews anymore. So instead they focus on the gospel of the family, defend The Proclamation (whatever that means), and tell their children that temple marriage should be their highest goal.

But when you focus on the gospel of Jesus Christ, that whole bit about mourning with those who mourn gets more difficult to avoid. Ponder it long enough and your heart will begin to hurt for gays, for African Americans in this country, and so on. While making temple covenants is admirable, it's likely your focus will shift to the foundation of those covenants which is charity. Likewise, it will have you asking some tough questions of God the Father and that's a distressing place to be. And yet, I think it's where we all need to go. I much prefer supplication to Him whose ways seems mysterious, than leaning onto our own understandings which, so far, has done little to change social policies, but has done a lot of damage to solidarity among the children of men.

Update: I'm sharing this personal statement by a gay member of the Church because it carries the most weight and it too speaks to other possibilities that will only come through prayer.

*Before you go referencing Josh Weed and mixed-orientation marriages, ask yourself if you could do the same.