Thoughts on LDS church's new policies

D. Todd Christofferson explains LDS church's new policies

As you may have heard (especially if you keep up with current events in Mormonism), The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recently enacted new policies related to people in homosexual relationships. 

Essentially, 1) it now defines being in a homosexual relationship as apostasy (click here for more information) and 2) children of homosexual parents may not be baptized until: a) they are of legal age b) they no longer live with the parents c) they disavow the practice of homosexual relationships. Even after meeting those requirements, the mission or stake president still has to request approval from the First Presidency (the top governing body of the LDS church comprised of 3 men; click here for more information).

A day after this news broke out, the LDS church released video of an interview with apostle D. Todd Christofferson. It doesn’t answer every question, but at least it provides "authoritative commentary," in the words of one Facebook user. He confirmed what many were suspecting, that the Church views homosexual relationships as analogous to polygamous marriage, and that this policy is meant to ease the burden on the children and their families.

The whole time, my Facebook newsfeed was lit up with opinions coming from people on both sides of the issue.

I wanted to hold my peace until a statement from the Church came out. Plus, I needed time to formulate my own opinion. At first my feelings were too nebulous and ambiguous to write down. 

Now that I’ve had time to organize my thoughts, here are my two and a half cents on the controversial new policies that the LDS Church has enacted. I don't pretend to be authoritative, nor that I can provide a satisfactory perspective. I don't attempt to answer to all possible objections. I'm just throwing out some ideas from the perspective of a “TBM” (true believing Mormon).

To my friends in the LGBT community: I'm sorry. This must feel like a slap in the face. I'm not going to try to "mansplain" (or whatever would be the equivalent of an ignorant straight guy talking down and "explaining" something to a gay person). Know that many of us devout Latter-day Saints are as troubled by it as you must be. I don’t like it (there are other policies I dislike, or at least that I don’t understand).

Initially, I was troubled by it even more than the Boy Scout statement (you can read my reaction here). It would appear I'm not the only one troubled by this. Lots of people (myself included) who love the Church and believe in the gospel are hurt and confused. The thing that kept running through my mind (and still is to a certain extent) is “Why?”

I’m not sure, but perhaps there were people wondering if the Church would eventually perform gay marriages, especially now that gay marriage is legal? Did the Church want it perfectly clear where they stood (even though there probably weren’t many who doubted it)?  

For one thing, this goes to show the delicate balance the Church has to play, since it has a fundamental difference of opinion with the rest of the world. With such a touchy issue, it's difficult to please everybody. As long as the Church teaches that homosexual relationships are a sin, it will be walking on egg shells no matter what.

On an individual level, it shows just how tricky it is to keep one's feet in both worlds. In the words of Neal A. Maxwell, “Make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters; in the months and years ahead, events will require of each member that he or she decide whether or not he or she will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions” (click here for the full text of the speech).

I’m troubled by some of the reactions from both sides. Many of my faithful Latter-day Saints may not recognize how painful this new policy must be.  Some have even said it doesn’t affect most people in the Church. That may be true, but that doesn’t make it less troubling (imagine saying the same thing for the former ban on blacks receiving the priesthood).

And I’m troubled by the people who paint these new policies in the worst light possible, with no benefit of the doubt given (although I’m not really surprised at such people’s reaction).

When it comes to LGBT relations, the LDS church seems to go back and forth between things that the public views as positive and negative. But even the negative incidents have a positive side to them.

Positive:

- Donating to Utah Pride Center. 

- Sponsoring gay rights legislation in Utah which prohibits discrimination in housing and employment based on sexual orientation (click here for more information).

- Applauding the allowance of gay Scouts in the BSA.

- Apostle Dallin H. Oaks frowning on Kim Davis’ refusal to perform her duties as a government employee (he didn’t mention her by name, but it was clear that he was talking about her) (click here for more information).

Negative:

- Frowning on allowing gay men to be Scout masters. The Church ultimately decided to stay with the BSA, so that's got to be at least somewhat positive as far as LGBT relations.

- Officially being opposed to legalizing gay marriage (including its involvement with California’s prop 8), right up until the US Supreme Court decision legalizing it. But after prop 8, the Church didn't urge Church-wide involvement in passing related legislation, nor did it recommend which way to vote, so that should also be a plus. Also, Christofferson (the same person from the video cited above) told church members it was okay to support gay marriage, despite the Church’s opposition to it.

- Most recent statements defining apostasy, and regarding children whose parents are in a gay relationship. An LDS woman who was raised by lesbian parents expressed her opinion of the wisdom of this policy in this article. At least children of gay parents (heck, even the parents themselves) will still be allowed to associate with the church and even be “dry Mormons” (a person who is so involved with the Church that it’s easy to forget that they’re technically not baptized).

I often encountered “dry Mormons” on my mission. There were several investigators (a term we use for people looking into the Church) who adored the Church and participated in as many

activities as possible, but they couldn’t get baptized for one reason or another. 

The most common situation I encountered was that they were legally married to someone in a different country but were co-habitating with someone else here in the states. Getting a divorce from that foreign country and then getting legally married in this country often was complicated.

The ones who wanted to make it happen made it happen. But even then, it could be time-consuming.

Another common situation was a child whose parents didn’t approve of them getting baptized.  As long as the child is a minor, Church policy dictates respecting the wishes of the parents in that regard.

It was often a huge disappointment to me as a missionary because I loved these people and it was exciting to finally have investigators who *wanted* to be baptized, but weren’t allowed to because of a technicality with Church policy. That was even more discouraging to me than people who weren’t interested.

One way I consoled myself is that living out one’s faith almost always has obstacles to overcome, and as long as one has the desire and the trust in the Lord, the Lord will provide.

Another way I consoled myself was reminding myself that the Savior didn’t withhold love from those people for being unable to be baptized at the time. And I myself certainly didn’t stop loving investigators in those situations. 

Further, I know for a fact that the Savior doesn’t withhold love from children under the age of 8 (the minimum age for baptism into the LDS church).

I imagine the missionaries will encounter similar conundrums with this new policy. In that vein, I came across a thoughtful article (by a gay Mormon, no less) about people he met who had to obtain special permission before being baptized (such as being children of polygamous families or from fundamentalist Muslim countries):

"Whatever the reason, God himself understands all personal situations, blesses His children, and always charts the path they will need to follow to find baptism. In His eyes, life is just a speck in time. And an blessing we have to work or wait for, He will give us a hundredfold."

I’m reminded of a saying in the Church: doctrines don’t change but policies do. I think that’s relevant here, but I would modify that saying: the truth doesn’t change but our understanding of it (i.e. doctrine) and Church policies do change. I say that because of the many doctrines the Church used to teach but either downplays or disavows now, hence the need for continuing revelation from a living prophet (but that’s a discussion for a different day). This article on Patheos (written by the husband of a friend of mine) has some good thoughts related to that subject.

My point is this: these policies, as they are written right now, won't last forever. If they don't get eliminated entirely, they'll at least have to be modified to make exceptions that accommodate certain scenarios.

Perhaps it's a matter of perspective: if you view it as cutting off children of gays from the community of Saints, or punishing the children for their parents’ choices (as I initially thought), it would seem cruel. If you view it as relieving the family (parents and children alike) of the burden of having a child join (make a covenant with God through) a church that teaches that their parents' lifestyle is a sin, that might seem merciful.

My first thought was “How is that any different from children whose parents are co-habitating?” (I baptized several children on my mission who were in that situation). I think it goes back to how the Church views those relationships: a co-habitating heterosexual couple is not apostate, but a homosexual relationship is. Why is a homosexual relationship considered apostate? Not sure exactly why (in fact, I am not sure I completely understand the broader question of why homosexual relationships are sinful), but Elder Christofferson said, in that regard, there is a parallel to polygamy. 

If the Church didn’t view homosexual relationships as apostasy, then the policy regarding children of parents in homosexual relationships probably wouldn’t be in place. If homosexual acts in general weren’t considered a sin by the Church, there would certainly be less tension between the Church and the outside world, and fewer struggles from within.

I think it’s interesting to note:

• Mormon church’s history of polygamy outrages people of a more conservative view on marriage (although I think it's a little unfair how critics are unwilling to credit the Church for moving past it and even making it a sin that is an excommunicable offense).

• Mormon church’s history against same-sex marriage outrages people of a more liberal view on marriage.

As I said, the Church often has to walk a tight rope, since it is so different from the rest of the world. It’s impossible to please everybody.

I’ve often heard the paradoxical observation that religions that flow with the current of popular thought tend to lose committed followers. That reminds me of this article (completely unrelated to Mormonism or homosexuality) where the author expresses disillusionment with religions that try too hard to be cool and that ignore the substance of Christian worship.

It would appear there's something to be said for religions that require difficult, painful things that outsiders (and even insiders) might object to. Joseph Smith said, “A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation” (Lectures on Faith, p. 69).

At the end of the day, I am confident that, as Brigham Young said, God is at the helm of the Old Ship Zion. In his sermon entitled “God Is at the Helm” apostle M. Russell Ballard stated:

"Too many people think Church leaders and members should be perfect or nearly perfect. They forget that the Lord’s grace is sufficient to accomplish His work through mortals. Our leaders have the best intentions, but sometimes we make mistakes. This is not unique to Church relationships, as the same thing occurs in our relationships among friends, neighbors, and workplace associates and even between spouses and in families.

"God’s plan is in place. He is at the helm, and His great and powerful ship flows toward salvation and exaltation. Remember that we cannot get there by jumping out of the boat and trying to swim there by ourselves…

"Let us be grateful for the beautiful Old Ship Zion, for without it we are cast adrift, alone and powerless, swept along without rudder or oar, swirling with the strong currents of the adversary’s wind and waves.

"Hold tight, brothers and sisters, and sail on within the glorious ship, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and we will reach our eternal destination."

Here are my final thoughts. And these go for everybody regardless of your opinion on these new policies.

Jesus loved everyone. I’ve noticed people on all sides of this debate get into a contest over who’s the better person. In the ongoing verbal war between believers and non-believers, supporters and opponents of gay marriage, let’s remember the more important part: being kind to our neighbor. Further, actually helping people who are in need, instead of bragging about how right you think you are or putting down those you think are wrong.

The gospel isn’t about proving that you’re right and that your opponents are wrong (that’s why missionaries are discouraged from “Bible bashing”). It’s about helping people who need help.

Even though Jesus was a skilled debater, I don’t imagine him saying, “Ha! In your face! I win!” Nor did he ever say, “I’m more compassionate than you” (even though he most certainly was the most compassionate person in the history of world).

Rather, he said just the right thing to pierce the soul in order to motivate the listener to change their life for the better.

So here are some ideas regardless of your view on homosexuality or the Mormon church: 

• Participate in a gay pride parade. 

• Speak kind words to someone who feels unaccepted because of their sexual orientation. 

I know that's not much, but it's a start. Let’s both reach out in love to our brothers and sisters, without turning it into a competition over who is more caring.

The Savior's love is unconditional, regardless of religious status.

P.S. I want to point out that right now, the Church is urging its members to help refugees (definitely a positive, in my opinion). I add my voice to theirs: please help the refugees, including donating money for their aid (whether through the Church or some other charitable organization).

In my opinion, helping with the refugee crisis is more important than one’s stance on the Church’s policy.

Race, ethnicity, and the 3 new apostles

The 3 men called as new apostles: Rasband, Stevenson, and Renlund

As you may have heard, the LDS church recently called 3 men to be apostles: Elder Ronald A. Rasband, Elder Gary E. Stevenson and Elder Dale G. Renlund (here is the announcement).

Like many people, I was expecting at least one non-white, non-Utahn, (maybe even under the age of 50). After all, since there were 3 vacancies at once (which I’m told hasn’t happened since 1906), the odds seemed pretty good.

It turns out they were all white Utahns (in their 60s).

This left me wondering: Why?

After all, there are many brethren among the quorums of the 70 (which are a big deal after the Quorum of the 12) who are from Latin America, Africa, Asia, etc. As President Gordon B. Hinckley said in April 2005, “I am convinced that there are literally hundreds of brethren worthy and capable to serve as general officers of the Church. We see them everywhere. Those sustained today have been chosen to fill particular responsibilities. In most cases, this will involve sacrifice, which will be willingly made.” (I will refer to this quotation later). I’ve even had the chance to meet one from Mexico and one from Guatemala.

To be honest, I’m not entirely sure why men from other races or ethnicities weren’t chosen. But I’d like to offer my two and a half cents on some of the factors.

Did the brethren consider race or ethnicity when deciding who to call as new apostles? Possibly. Although I’m sure that, if they did take that into consideration, it would have been secondary, because if you focus primarily on a person’s skin color or country of origin, it would be easy to lose sight of the bigger question: Who does the Lord want us to call at this time?

Further, I’m convinced that each calling is a combination of spiritual means (i.e. revelation) and non-spiritual means. For example, I’m sure social networking was a factor.

Looking back through the history of the LDS Church, there’s no question that social networking was part of who was assigned to important leadership positions. Joseph Smith chose his father Joseph Smith Sr. to be patriarch and his brother Hyrum Smith to be an apostle. His close friends Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris were chosen to participate in translating the Book of Mormon, publishing it, and were called to be apostles. Church presidents Joseph F. Smith and Joseph Fielding Smith were Hyrum Smith’s son and grandson, respectively (making them Joseph Smith’s nephew and great nephew).

This reminds me of an amusing quotation by J. Golden Kimball (the seventy that was famous for cursing): “Some people say a person receives a position in this church through revelation, and others say they get it through inspiration, but I say they get it through relation. If I hadn't been related to Heber C. Kimball [his father] I wouldn't have been a damn thing in this church.”

Even with the social networking aspect, there’s still consideration of spiritual qualifications. For example, Smith’s close friends Cowdery and Harris were excommunicated for apostasy.

This statement from President Hinckley in April 2005, (from the same talk I referenced earlier), is fitting. This was when his son Richard G. Hinckley was sustained as a Seventy:

“Among those sustained, as you have noted, is my 63-year-old son. I make it clear that I did not advance his name. That was done by others whose right it was to do so. I feel extremely sensitive about the matter of nepotism. As the lawyers say, I recused myself from participating. However, I believe he is worthy and qualified in every respect. In the first place, he had a great and wonderful mother. I wish I could recommend his father.

“I mention this only because of my sensitivity concerning the matter of nepotism. Please do not hold it against him for his relationship to me. He’s powerless to help it.”

So it would seem that there was an aspect of social networking (i.e. people knew who Richard was because he was the son of the prophet), but his spiritual qualifications for the position were still considered.

Ever since the Mormons settled the Salt Lake Valley in 1847, it’s no wonder that most of the main leadership of the Church has been drawn from Utah. To this day, Utah is the place with the highest concentration of Mormons, so it’s no wonder that many of the leadership (including the 3 new apostles) continues to come from Utah. But things are changing, because nowadays most Mormons live outside the US and/or don’t speak English as their first language.

Having said that, it’s worth noting that even these new apostles from Utah have more to them than meets the eye. 

For example, this article (written by a relative of Elder Renlund), pointed out that that even though Elder Renlund was born in Utah, “Dale was born to full Scandinavian immigrants who spoke no English when they first came to the U.S. in 1948/1950.  All four children, including Dale, spoke Swedish as their first language…

“The entire family moved back to Scandinavia when Dale was about 10 to 13ish, where they spent time in Helsinki, Finland and Gothenbirg, Sweden. They were fully immersed in Swedish culture there and went to Swedish speaking public schools.”

This article criticized that post for saying that background counts as “diversity.” My opinion is that even though he may not technically qualify as racially or ethnically diverse, it’s important to remember that he didn’t have the typical “homegrown” experience of living in the “bubble” of Utah.

Which brings me to another observation: even among the currently all-white apostles, there are several who aren’t exactly “typical Utah Mormons”

• President Dieter F. Uchtdorf. That goes without saying, but it’s worth remembering our favorite German apostle. He had an interesting upbringing living in post-World War II Germany. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieter_F._Uchtdorf
• President Henry B. Eyring was born in New Jersey and lived there until he was a teenager. (source)
• Elder David A. Bednar was born in Oakland, California. Note: his dad wasn’t baptized into the LDS church until David was an adult. (source)
• Elder Neil L. Anderson was born in Utah but raised in Idaho. Many might discount that because Idaho is geographically close, and culturally similar, to Utah. (source)

It’s also worth noting that other important leadership bodies are becoming increasingly diverse

Bishop Gerard Causse

Elder Gerrit W. Gong

• For example, the new presiding bishop, Gerard Causse, is from France (he took elder Stevenson’s place). (source)
• The new member of the presidency of the Seventy, Elder Gerrit W. Gong (he took Elder Ronald G. Rasband’s place), is ethnically Chinese, and was born and raised in California. (source)

In the future, will there be an apostle who is non-white and/or non-Utahn? I think it will happen eventually. For now, I am excited to get better acquainted with the new apostles and see what they contribute to the work of the Lord.

Appointment of Women to Leadership Councils

A few days ago, the LDS church announced that three women will be appointed to “priesthood leadership councils within the Church” (here is the official Church press release; further information from ksl). This is significant because these councils were comprised exclusively of men in the past.

I'm loving this change. Bonnie L. Oscarson, Linda K. Burton, and Rosemary M. Wixom are good women that will make valuable contributions to the Church.

Unfortunately I can already imagine how the critics will respond. Instead of celebrating, many of them will still be unhappy. Sarcastically they'll say things like "took them long enough.” Or "this is just a hollow PR move.” Kate Kelly gloated on her Facebook page.

And I'm sure some will clamor for further changes, complaining this is not enough.

In some people's minds, if the Church refuses to do what they want, then the Church is stubborn and behind the times. But if the Church happens to do what the critics want, they think it's because they cowered to pressure. Lose-lose.

Critics like to think they have more sway over the Church than they actually have. I'm sure  many of them would like to think they single-handedly wielded power or exerted influence. The Church is aware of them, but the truth is there are millions of critics, countless voices thinking they know better.  For one thing, it's just not feasible to implement every last hint or suggestion (whether critical or supportive).

For another thing, it's possible that this decision was in the works already before the critics knew about it, or that there are other factors within the Church, not outside it (like the surge in sister missionaries) that contributed to it.

It's important to remember that the Church will NEVER satisfy its critics; not all of them, anyway. The opposition will always be there. Somebody will always be displeased.

What's important for anyone (whether a critic or supporter of the Church) to remember is the brethren prayed and pondered about it, weighing in other factors that aren't publicly known right now. The critics may have played a part, but ultimately this decision happened through prayer and revelation.

So let's not let the criticism of the haters get to us (I need to take my own advice in that regard).

I, for one, am grateful for this new change. The critics don't run the Church. The Lord does, through inspired men and women.

I've heard this is what they've been doing for all intents and purposes anyway, and they've just barely made it official. Admittedly, I don't have a source for that, but something to think about.

Is it possible that groups like Ordain Women played a part in the process? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not going to say they were irrelevant in the matter, but I'm also not going to say it was entirely because of them.

After all, who's to say there weren't men and women in Church headquarters who were asking for it, discussing it, and considering it? Perhaps the push was also internal and not merely external. Remember, there were leaders of the Church in Salt Lake who seriously considered the question of blacks having the priesthood and some yearned to let them have it, years before the revelation took place, so it wasn't merely external (that’s a discussion for another blog post).

One question that’s been bounced around is: Is ordination of women to the priesthood on the horizon? Possibly, but I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon.

As I stated in this blog post, I disagree with Ordain Women, but I would wholeheartedly support the ordination of women to the priesthood, while at the same time sustaining the brethren and their decisions as leaders of the Church. I know there are many wonderful women capable of leading as bishops, stake presidents, mission presidents, etc. In fact, it’s been said that if women had the priesthood, they’d be so efficient that the men would have nothing left to do. Whether or not that's true, it's certain the women would do a terrific job.

At the end of the day, this is good news and I look forward to further developments. 

The LDS Church and the Boy Scouts

UPDATE: The LDS Church is going to stick with the Boy Scouts. Here is the press release announcing it. Further info from ksl.

Good. I'm glad. 

I can understand some of the reasons that some people were hoping they would split (such as the high financial cost of participating). The LDS Church is probably aware of that, which is why the Church is still evaluating other options. Hence why they stated in their press release: "The Church will continue to evaluate and refine program options that better meet its global needs."

As you’ve probably heard, the Boy Scouts recently voted to allow openly gay men to be scoutmasters. The LDS Church released a response to that decision. 

I originally was confused and offended by the Church’s statement, so I totally understand why other people are upset by it too. But after considering it with an open mind (instead of going with my knee-jerk reaction), I think I understand now.

This is my two and a half cents:

I am personally not bothered by the BSA's decision to allow gay men to be scout masters. I know that gay men aren't any more likely to be pedophiles than straight men and I think they can contribute well to the Boy Scouts' mission.

But I also understand the Church's reaction. 

The BSA's decision means that it now it expresses approval (at least implicitly) of being in homosexual relationships (and I think that’s what’s understood by “openly gay” here, and not just having same-sex attraction). For a Church that teaches that homosexual relationships are sinful, that decision indeed goes against Church doctrine, and goes against what the BSA has taught until recently. 

I can also see why the Church is upset about its schedule request (presumably to have more of its leadership weigh in) being ignored, especially since it's so heavily involved in the BSA and is the BSA’s largest single sponsor.

I think it's a toss-up whether the Church will officially stick with the BSA. It has the resources to create its own scouting-like program, and that would have many benefits, which includes running the program the way the Church sees fit. The BSA has a lot of internal politics (not just about this issue) that can muddy the waters for Church involvement. If the Church wants to be able to ensure that it can have scouting run 100% in accordance with its goals and philosophies, then splitting with the BSA and doing its own thing is its best bet.

"I'll always have a place in my heart for the BSA."

Regardless of the Church's decision, I'll always have a place in my heart for the BSA and remain involved somehow, even if the church officially withdraws from it. Once a scout, always a scout.

That’s essentially my reaction. If you’re interested in reading my additional thoughts, continue reading. 

I’ve dissected the Church’s statement below (the original statement is available here).

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is deeply troubled by today’s vote by the Boy Scouts of America National Executive Board.” 

My initial reaction was “Why? Gays aren't necessarily pedophiles.” 

But some synonyms for “troubled” include concerned, worried, uneasy (not necessarily angry). I think some people are imagining that the Church is going on a homophobic tirade (like this lady after the Supreme Court ruling). But I don’t think that’s what the Church is doing. I think they are “troubled” about such a fundamental change in the Boy Scout policy without sufficient regard to the voice of the Church, and how it bodes for future policies the BSA will consider for church-sponsored troops.

“In spite of a request to delay the vote, it was scheduled at a time in July when members of the Church’s governing councils are out of their offices and do not meet.” 

The Church and the Boy Scouts have been like peas in a pod for over 100 years. The Church is heavily involved and is the BSA’s largest single sponsor. The BSA had good reason to respect the Church’s schedule request.

“When the leadership of the Church resumes its regular schedule of meetings in August, the century-long association with Scouting will need to be examined. The Church has always welcomed all boys to its Scouting units regardless of sexual orientation.” 

My initial reaction was “Even before the lift on the ban against gay scouts?” Apparently, the answer  is yes, according to this press release. That seems consistent with the “having same-sex attraction is not bad but homosexual relationships are” stance. I can’t find anything that says in writing what the specific policy was for Boy Scouts who had same sex attraction.

As far as I can tell, it booted you out if you were in a gay relationship, and that stood before and after that particular policy change. I know there’s debate about what the  Church’s policy actually was (and its fairness) before then. But the Church reacted 

positively to the BSA policy change of allowing gay boys to participate in scouts, so I think that should count for something.

“However, the admission of openly gay leaders is inconsistent with the doctrines of the Church and what have traditionally been the values of the Boy Scouts of America.”

My initial reaction was “But Church doctrine doesn't say anything about gay men not being scout leaders.” And that’s true, nothing in our doctrines would specifically say gay men can’t be scout leaders. However, the LDS church does teach that homosexual relationships are a sin. And I think that’s the issue for the Church. As I said above, the BSA's decision means that it now it endorses (at least implicitly) being in homosexual relationships (and I think that’s what’s understood by “openly gay” here, and not just having same-sex attraction). That decision indeed goes against Church doctrine, and it indeed goes against what the BSA has taught until recently.

“As a global organization with members in 170 countries, the Church has long been evaluating the limitations that fully one-half of its youth face where Scouting is not available.”

I admit, that’s kind of vague, so I wonder what solutions they're thinking of. 

“Those worldwide needs combined with this vote by the BSA National Executive Board will be carefully reviewed by the leaders of the Church in the weeks ahead.” 

I'm interested in hearing their decision.

One question I asked was “What's the big deal? The Church will still be allowed to restrict gay men from being scout masters in their local, sponsored troops.” I’m not entirely sure, but I do know this is one of the reasons why it’s possible that the Church may end up sticking with the BSA.

I do like the idea of the Church switching to its own Scouting-like program, Duty to God. It's been in the works for several years. I think it was wise for the Church to prepare itself that way. The Church has been doing the Young Women program for even longer, which is a terrific program. That's what the church will have to do if it wants scouting the way it wants it. The BSA and the LDS church simply aren't the same organization, so it's natural that their goals and approaches aren't always the same.

I think it was smart for the Church to embrace scouting, especially a hundred years ago when the Church was much smaller and probably didn't have the resources for its own program like that. Now it's big enough to do its own thing if it wants.

One drawback to withdrawing is that I think it might limit opportunities for young men to interact with people of other faiths and share their beliefs. But maybe the Duty to God program would find a way to make that happen anyway.

My initial impression from the Church was that they weren’t allowed to say their piece. The Church statement didn’t indicate exactly how much of the leadership was out of office. But, according to ksl.com, the Church did have a chance to participate, even if it wasn’t as much as it liked:

"Hawkins told KSL on Monday that church leaders Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, of the church's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, General Young Men's President Stephen Owen and General Primary President Rosemary Wixom, all of whom belong to the BSA National Board, voted against the new policy."

Here’s another factor in the concern: it seems that the LDS church is concerned that Boy Scouts may cave to further political pressure and require religiously sponsored troops to allow scoutmasters who are in gay relationships:

“The Human Rights Campaign, a national LGBT-rights organization, said the Boy Scouts should not allow church-sponsored units to continue excluding gays.

“‘Discrimination should have no place in the Boy Scouts, period,’ said the HRC's president, Chad Griffin. ‘BSA officials should now demonstrate true leadership and begin the process of considering a full national policy of inclusion.’

“The BSA's top leaders pledged to defend the right of any church-sponsored units to continue excluding gays as adult volunteers. But that assurance has not satisfied some conservative church leaders.”

Here’s some more information for the context on the Church’s reaction (also from the ksl article):

“The BSA's right to exclude gays was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000. But since then, the policy has prompted numerous major corporations to suspend charitable donations to the Scouts and strained relations with some municipalities.

“More recently, the BSA faced a civil rights investigation in New York and lawsuits in other states over the ban.

“Kenneth Upton, a lawyer for the LGBT-rights group Lambda Legal, questioned whether the BSA's new policy to let church-sponsored units continue to exclude gay adults would be sustainable.

“‘There will be a period of time where they'll have some legal protection,’ Upton said. ‘But that doesn't mean the lawsuits won't keep coming. ... They will become increasingly marginalized from the direction society is going.’”

So it looks like another reason the Church is troubled is that it’s concerned about the domino effect this change may have on other policies which the Boy Scouts will require the Church to make in the future.

These are just some of my thoughts that I wanted to add to the discussion. I love both the LDS Church and the Boy Scouts and am interested in seeing how things unfold.

Parallels between Islam and Mormonism

I recently read a book called “In the Footsteps of the Prophet: Lessons from the Life of Muhammad” by Tariq Ramadan.

I am Mormon, and as I read this biography of Mohammed, I couldn’t help but notice the similarities between Islam and Mormonism (as well as few parallels to Christianity in general). In particular, Mohammad and Joseph Smith, (the founder of Mormonism) seem to have a lot in common. So I wrote this blog post to point out the similarities I see.

All quotes, unless otherwise noted, come from that book. All biblical quotes come from the King James version. Even though I have tried explaining Islam the best I understand it, I apologize to my Muslim friends if I accidentally misrepresent their religion in any way.

• For one thing, both groups are often misunderstood and are often the object of ridicule and animosity.

• Both believe that God speaks to prophets. “Muslims consider him to have restored the unaltered original monotheistic faith of Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad)

• Mormons believe Joseph Smith restored the "fulness of the gospel" as taught by ancient prophets, including Adam, Abraham, and Moses. Mormons believe Jesus is the Savior and not merely a prophet.

• One key difference is that Muslims believe Mohammed was the last prophet. Mormons, however, believe Joseph Smith is the first prophet of a new era (or “dispensation”), and the chain of prophets that started with him will continue until the second coming of Jesus Christ.

• Joseph and Mohammed have controversial aspects of their lives that believers reconcile in different ways. Both revere the founding prophet of their faith, to the extent it may seem like worship to outsiders.

• One key difference between Mormon reverence for Joseph and Muslim reverence for Mohammed is that Muslims do not make any images of Mohammed in order to avoid turning him into an idol. Mormons, on the other hand, have tons of images of Joseph Smith because they don't feel it is idol worship to have pictures of him.

• Both Joseph and Mohammed grew up in poor families and experience hardship in their youth.

• Mohammed's father died before he was born. “At the age of eight, young Muhammad had experienced fatherlessness, poverty, solitude, and the death of his mother and then of his grandfather.”
• Joseph had both parents, but endured an excruciating surgery on his leg when he was a little boy (without the aid of anesthetics, and he refused to drink liquor to numb the pain). He lost his brother Alvin.

• Mohammed's name was given to his mother by revelation. Mary received Jesus' name by revelation from the angel Gabriel (the same angel that Mohammed would receive revelations from).

• Mohammed received revelations that constitute a Holy Book (the Qur'an) for a faith from an angel (Gabriel). 
• Joseph received revelations from an angel (Moroni) that led to a Holy Book (the Book of Mormon); he received additional revelations that became additional Holy Books (Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price).

• Mohammed had trials that prepared him for his assignment as a prophet. Ditto for Joseph. (including his painful surgery as a child).

• “The Prophet [Mohammed] also strove to teach them how to put their instincts to sleep, so to speak, and how to resort to diversion to escape evil temptations.” 
• In the LDS church, we believe in reducing our exposure to temptation by being engaged in worthwhile endeavors (as taught by the song for children “Hum your Favorite Hymn”)

• Of Mohammed, “At the age of twelve, everybody was told that the human beings around him would later oppose him; while he could already feel that his uniqueness caused people to love him, now he knew that in the future it would give rise to hatred.” And later in Mohammad’s life: "The announcement of good tidings [from the angel Gabriel] was also accompanied by a warning about others’ future opposition to Muhammad, for never did a person of truth appear on earth without giving rise to a fury of hatred, lies, and calumny.”
• This is similar to Joseph being told by the angel Moroni that “[his] name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.” (Joseph Smith—History 1:33)

• "In fact Islam and its message came to confirm the substance of a treaty that human conscience had already independently formulated.”
• Mormons believe that their message is not new, but that we knew about it before birth, which is why it rings true to many people.

• Of Mohammed: people were often "attesting that he was like no other man." 
• People could also tell Joseph was like nobody else. Both his detractors and his followers saw something different in him. Both were clever leaders.
• Both were dissatisfied with local religions, yet yearned for answers to spiritual questions. Both withdrew to a place in nature to meditate and seek those answers.
• Joseph was 14 and prayed in a forest, Mohammed was 40 and meditated in a cave.

• Mohammed was protected from temptations. 
• This is different from LDS theology. We believe the Lord lets us be tempted and that it is up to us to use our free will to choose to avoid or reject temptations. Jesus' experience showed this: “He suffered temptations but gave no heed unto them” (Doctrine & Covenants 20:22).

• Both were the political leaders of their religious groups.
• Mohammed rose to political prominence among his people and *then* became a religious leader. And the city he settled became impressive: “In the space of eight years, [Islam] had not only settled in a new city, Medina, but had secured unparalleled status and regional prestige.”
• Joseph was unknown before becoming a religious leader. His political power in Kirtland, Ohio and Nauvoo, Illinois came after he started the religion. Nevertheless, Joseph and “by 1844 Nauvoo's population had swollen to 12,000, rivaling the size of Chicago at the time.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauvoo,_Illinois)
• Both raised up armies to protect their people.
• Smith had the Nauvoo legion.
• "There were to be insults, adversity, hatred, and even banishment by Mohammed's own people." 
• Joseph was backstabbed by many former friends.
• "During the following months Revelation stopped. This period of silence (al-fatra), which lasted between six months and two and a half years, depending on the tradition cited, caused the Prophet Mohammed great doubt and suffering." 
• Joseph sometimes went for long periods without receiving any revelation from God.  In one instance, the Book of Mormon translation had to be stopped because Joseph let his friend Martin borrow the manuscript of the translation up to that point. Martin ended up losing the manuscript and the Lord forbade Joseph from translating further. This caused Joseph much anguish.
• Mohammed was supported by his first wife Kadijah. Joseph was supported by his first wife Emma. Both wives endured persecution alongside their husbands. Both men loved their wife deeply, even though they both were polygamists.
• Both men lost children in infancy.
• Both had loyal and ever-growing groups of followers.

• The Qur'an teaches: "everything points to remembrance of the Creator.”
• The Book of Mormon teaches: "All things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.” (Alma 30:44)
• Muslims learn from Mohammed's weaknesses, which are illustrated in the Qur’an. 
• Mormons also learn from Joseph's weakness, which are illustrated in the Doctrine and Covenants.
• From the Qur’an: “For every [spiritual] community there is an object of discord, tension, and disorder [fitnah], and for my community, this object is money.”
• This is like this Bible passage: “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” 1 Timothy 6:10
• Both faced fierce hostility immediately upon making their revelations public. Both continue to have nasty vitriol raised against them.  Some accusations are totally true, some are partially true and some are entirely false.

• "The text of the Qur'an is actually Mohammed's spiritual and intellectual weapon against aggression.” 
• This is like a Mormon song for children called “Scripture power”: “Scripture power keeps me safe from sin. Scripture power is the power to win. Scripture power! Ev’ryday I need The power that I get each time I read.”
• Mohammed said: "I am not a worshiper of that which you worship, nor are you worshipers of what I worship. To you be your religion, and to me mine.” 
• This is like a statement of belief written by Joseph Smith: “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” (12th Article of Faith)
• Both escaped from places where they were currently living to a place where they could live in peace. 
• The Mormons relocated several times, from New York to Ohio, then Missouri, then Illinois, then ultimately to the Salt Lake Valley. Muslims relocated from Mecca to Medina. 
• One key difference is that the Salt Lake Valley was uninhabited. Medina was inhabited, but they were welcomed by the leader there: “If you went to the land of the Abyssinians, you would find there a king under whose command nobody suffers injustice. It is a land of sincerity in religion. You would remain there until God delivered you from what you suffer at present.”
• “At the close of his mission, in the plain lying at the foot of the Mount of Mercy (Jabal ar-Rahmah), men and women of all races, cultures, and colors, rich and poor, were present and listened to this message, which stressed that the best among people are so through their hearts, which are determined neither by class nor by color or culture.”
• The Book of Mormon teaches that the Lord “denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.” (2 Nephi 26:33)
• Mohammed “loved children, with their innocence, gentleness, and ability to be present in the moment. Close to God, close to his own heart, he remained attentive to those who primarily understood the heart’s language. He kissed them, carried them on his shoulders, and played with them, reaching toward their innocence, which is in its essence the expression of a permanent prayer to God. Children, like angels, wholly belong to God. They are signs.”
• The book of Mormon that “little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world” (Moroni 8:11) and should therefore not be baptized. That is why Mormons do not baptize infants.
• Also, Jesus said, "But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 19:14)
• The Prophet Mohammed carried a universal message, not just for Muslims. 
• The Mormon prophet carries a universal message. It’s not just for Mormons, but it’s for the whole world to hear.
• “For some individuals, conversion was a long process that required years of questioning, doubt, and steps forward and backward, while for others conversion was instantaneous, immediately following the reading of a text or responding to a particular gesture or behavior. The conversions that took longest were not necessarily the most solid, and the reverse was not true either: when it comes to conversion, the heart’s dispositions, faith, and love, there is no logic, and all that remains is the extraordinary power of the divine.”
• There is a similarity variety in conversions to Mormonism.
• Both saw ancient biblical prophets, including Moses.

• Mohammed experienced a revelatory experienced called the “night journey” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isra_and_Mi%27raj). “Muslim scholars have, from the outset, pondered the question of whether the Night Journey was of a purely spiritual nature or whether it was also physical. The majority of scholars consider that the journey was both physical and spiritual. All things considered, however, this question is not essential in the light of the teachings that can be drawn from this extraordinary experience undergone by the Messenger.”
• Mormon believe there are literal and spiritual aspects to the stories found in holy writ, and scholars often debate the historicity and literalness of those events. In any case, such events are rich with lessons to learn.
• The Quran teaches “To those who leave their homes in the cause of God, after suffering oppression, we will assuredly give a goodly home in this world; but truly the reward of the Hereafter will be greater, if they only realized [this]! Those who persevere in patience, and put their trust in their Lord.”
• The Book of Mormon teaches: “Wherefore, whoso believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world, yea, even a place at the right hand of God, which hope cometh of faith, maketh an anchor to the souls of men, which would make them sure and steadfast, always abounding in good works, being led to glorify God.” (Ether 12:4)
• Jesus taught: “Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:10)
• “The Companions [of Mohammad] made a distinction between Revelations the Prophet received, which they obeyed without a second thought, and the opinions of Muhammad the man, which could be debated, improved on, or even rejected outright.”
• In Mormonism, there is a similar belief, and an apocryphal story that illustrates it: “during the excitement incident to the coming of [Johnston’s] Army, Brother Brigham preached to the people in a morning meeting a sermon vibrant with defiance to the approaching army, and declaring an intention to oppose and drive them back. In the afternoon meeting he arose and said that Brigham Young had been talking in the morning, but the Lord was going to talk now. He then delivered an address, the tempo of which was the opposite from the morning talk The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest.” (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng#6-10485_000_45chris)

• “More than the physical path of a life, this was the initiatory journey of a heart and conscience going through the stages of the great jihad that takes people from the natural tension of passions to the peace of spiritual education. He had come back different in the intensity of his efforts and patience, and yet similar to himself in his faithfulness to the message.”
• Like Joseph Smith described himself thus: “I am like a huge, rough stone rolling down from a high mountain; and the only polishing I get is when some corner gets rubbed off by coming in contact with something else, striking with accelerated force against religious bigotry, priestcraft, lawyer-craft, doctor-craft, lying editors, suborned judges and jurors, and the authority of perjured executives, backed by mobs, blasphemers, licentious and corrupt men and women—all hell knocking off a corner here and a corner there. Thus I will become a smooth and polished shaft in the quiver of the Almighty, who will give me dominion over all and every one of them, when their refuge of lies shall fail, and their hiding place shall be destroyed, while these smooth-polished stones with which I come in contact become marred.” (Discourse to Saints, May 1843; DHC 5:389.)
• “The implementation of those ethical principles and the response to new situations about which scriptural sources had remained vague or silent required answers adapted to particular circumstances. The Prophet’s Companions had understood this, and he had imparted to them both the knowledge and the confidence required to go ahead and observe the world and its vicissitudes, certain that they now had the spiritual and intellectual means to remain faithful to their Creator’s message.”
• In another declaration of belief, Joseph Smith stated that “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.” Thus, they believe in “continual revelation” (9th article of faith). They also believe that implementing those believes requires changes in practice (“policy”) from time to time.
• In bath cases, their followers experienced immense grief when their founding prophet died. In addition to the grief, there was a succession crisis. 
• For Muslims, the split led to the Sunni (85-90% of Muslims) and Shia (10-15% of Muslims) sects (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia–Sunni_relations).
• The vast majority of Mormons sided with Brigham Young as Joseph’s successor, but  there were some who though others should take his place, and broke off from the main body of Mormons, creating new sects. The biggest of those sects is the Community of Christ (formerly the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), whose followers believe that Joseph Smith’s son, Joseph Smith III, succeeded Joseph. They currently number about 250,000 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_Christ), and Mormons currently number 15 million.

I hope this post was interesting and enlightening. I welcome constructive criticism, so if I made any mistakes, please let me know. Thanks!

My thoughts on the dissenting votes

There’s been a buzz among my LDS friends about the dissenting votes at conference over the weekend, so I’d like to chime in: It doesn’t bother me that those people dissented. The opportunity to express a dissenting vote shouldn’t be a mere formality; people should feel free to take the brethren up on the chance to show “by the same sign” that they oppose.

Those people should still feel welcome at church and they should feel no hesitation to be frank about their grievances. So harsh words, jumping to the conclusion that they're apostates bent on destroying the Church (maybe they are, but we don’t know that), etc. is inappropriate.

If there’s one good thing that came of it, it was the opportunity to reflect on the fact that I myself do sustain the prophet, and I feel more motivated to sustain him and the apostles. "Sustain" is synonymous with "support." It's possible to support a person while acknowledging their imperfections. There's no need to pretend that he knows everything or that he can do no wrong.

To the credit of the dissenters, they didn’t do any rabble-rousing or instigate a violent protest (although I can see why some people would think it’s obnoxious that they yelled).

To the Church’s credit, security didn’t kick those people out (showing that merely not sustaining the prophet isn’t grounds for getting kicked out of conference). Also, Uchtdorf took it in stride with “the vote has been noted” and proceeded with the meeting.

Final thought: don’t let that moment define this conference. So many ideas were shared that were meant to increase our faith and motivate us to be better people. Let’s spend more time focusing on those messages than on the debate of whether the dissenting votes were good or bad. With all the thought and preparation that goes into each conference talk, it would be a shame to neglect what the leaders had to say.

With so many good messages worth thinking about, let's not make a mountain out of a molehill.