Some Thoughts on the End of the Exclusion Policy

The Church announced today that the exclusion policy of November 2015, which branded people in gay marriages as apostates and denied blessing and baptism to their children, is ending. I have a bunch of thoughts on this that I’d like to share (most of which I’ve probably borrowed in one form or another from discussions with friends on Facebook).

• First, I’m thrilled! The exclusion policy was terrible from the beginning. It was bad in its direct effect of exclusion, but perhaps even worse in the signal it sent to LGBT people that they are seen as uniquely wicked by the Church, requiring a special bit in the Handbook to outline just how awful they are. I am therefore very happy to see the Q15 decide to drop it.
• I am honestly shocked–in a good way–that President Nelson allowed this change to happen during his presidency. He’s widely seen as its architect, even though it was put in place during President Monson’s tenure. I am impressed that President Nelson is willing to let go of something he once defended as being revelation, rather than leaving it for the next Church president to undo.
• All the above notwithstanding, I think it’s awful that Church leaders still absolutely refuse to say–or even imply–either that they were wrong or that they are sorry. It’s great that the policy is being taken back, but with no admission of wrong or apology, where does that leave all the people who were hurt during the three and a half years it was in place? Do Church leaders seriously expect us to believe that it was just the will of God that they suffer, but that now God has changed his mind? This change feels similar to the changes made in the endowment ceremony just a couple of months ago. It was great that the hierarchy-imposing structure was reduced, but it was awful that there was not even a mention of the pain that had been caused to so many women by the the “hearken” and “obey” covenants and the resulting power differential they were put under.

• Following the previous point, this highlights how muddled the distinction is between policy and doctrine in the Church. The Deseret News article linked above says at one point “President Oaks said the faith’s leaders cannot change God’s doctrine, but they want church members and church policies to be considerate.” So this policy was upgraded by President Nelson to revelation, which seems to pretty strongly suggest that it was doctrine, but now that it’s being changed, it’s called a policy again? This echoes so many other teachings of the Church that are absolutely central, but then later downplayed. For example, in an interview with Larry King, President Hinckley famously referred to polygamy as merely a “practice” of the early LDS Church, a comment which I’m sure had Brigham Young rolling in his grave. Or there’s birth control, which leaders used to rail against, and which President Oaks clearly still doesn’t like, but which has slipped clearly from the doctrine to the policy area. Perhaps the bottom line is just that when Church leaders want to consider something as changeable, they’ll call it a policy, but when they’re not open to considering changing it, they’ll call it a doctrine.
• Church leaders’ refusal to ever admit wrongdoing or to ever apologize makes it seem like their topmost priority is to maintain their authority by insisting the membership see them as infallible. I know it’s been said before, but the message this sends is that the central doctrine of the Church isn’t anything about Christ or about love. The central doctrine is that the prophet is always right. Everything else is potentially changeable, but the rightness of Church leaders is core.
• Church leaders will never admit that they got anything wrong or apologize. An issue like this, were it was framed as a policy at the beginning and is being framed as a policy at the end, setting aside President Nelson’s attempt to stamp it as revelation, seems like the best possible chance for Church leaders to ever say “We were wrong. We’re sorry.” If they won’t do it now, they’re never going to do it.
• I would love to know how the Q15 reached the decision to change this policy. Just a few months ago, I blogged about how I thought that President Nelson’s push to not call the Church or Church-related things “Mormon” suggested that he was just making decisions on his own, and the rest of the Q15 were serving as no more than a rubber stamp. But here is a policy he pushed for that he’s overturning just a few years later. That kind of suggests that maybe some other voices in the Q15 had their say. Or perhaps it doesn’t mean that at all, and President Nelson just changed his mind.
• This change also makes it seem possible that Q15 members are perhaps willing to change things based on how rank-and-file members respond. I know that of course fringe members like me were outraged over the policy, but it does seem to me that the policy was just so mean-spirited, especially in going after the children of gay people, that it made at least some more orthodox rank-and-file members uncomfortable too, and perhaps some of that discomfort filtered upward through the leadership. For the upteenth time, I wish the Church would put in place a formal mechanism for members to send concerns to GAs, rather than just having a letter read in sacrament meeting every year that tells us to please not write them because they’re so busy. I know they’re busy, but they have staff people, and a few of their staff people could easily be tasked with sifting through and summarizing comments from members, and perhaps even flagging extra-important ones that might need individual attention, like instances of abuse by local leaders.
• That this policy was even implemented in the first place seems to me to be clear evidence of how desperately the Q15 need feedback from the rank-and-file. Recall that it was originally done as a simple update to the Handbook, as the GAs didn’t even think it was that big of a deal. This makes it seem pretty clear that they have too many yes-men and -women around them, and really not enough people to give their ideas any serious challenge.
• President Nelson’s willingness to put the “revelation” label on the exclusion policy, and then rescind the policy altogether just three years later really highlights what he means when he calls something “revelation.” It doesn’t mean it’s a long-lived idea. In fact, it looks to me like when he does this, it’s more as a way of forestalling pushback than anything else. His frequent use of the label had already cheapened its meaning. The fact that he’ll use it for something and then change that thing in the not-too-distant future cheapens it even more.