I’m voting “NO!”
The 2023 Conference’s Resolutions came out today, and there were several that have stuck out to me. The one that was most glaring was the resolution from the Council of the Twelve Apostles. I would like to go through this resolution paragraph by paragraph so I can give my thoughts on it.
Whereas, Marriage is a sacrament and sacred covenant relationship of love and equality between two people and recognized as a valued institution in the cultures of the world; and
I would agree that Marriage is an important commitment between people, but I don’t agree that it is restricted to 2 people. Marriage is a loving commitment between people in general; who are we to tell people how they are and are not allowed to structure their families and what connections they have? Many cultures structure their families in a variety of ways, and this, right off the bat, doesn’t recognize that nuance. What I find ridiculous is this resolution oscillates between wanting to define things while also wanting individual peoples to define what their relationship structures look like.
Whereas, Understandings, definitions, practices, traditions, and laws regarding marriage and marriage-like relationships vary throughout the nations and cultures of the world; and
I very much agree with this. What marriage looks like varies from culture-to-culture, and we should understand there is not a one-size fits all answer.
However, as I mentioned the first paragraph seems to contradict this paragraph.
Whereas, The World Conference is counseled through Doctrine and Covenants 164:7b to address “principles of behavior and relationships” but “not decide specific policies for all nations when those decisions likely will cause serious harm in some of them.”; now, therefore, be it
This is essentially the scriptural justification for the last Resolved.
Resolved, That WCR 1182 be rescinded; and, be it further
Since this Resolved deals directly with WCR 1182, I feel it is appropriate to repeat it in its entirety:
WCR 1182: Marriage and Termination of Marriage
Whereas, The church affirms that marriage is ordained of God (Doctrine and Covenants 49:3a; 150:10; Genesis 2:27–30); and
Whereas, “Monogamy is the basic principle on which Christian married life is built” (Doctrine and Covenants 150:10a); and
Whereas, The church believes that God intends that husband and wife remain married to each other for as long as they both shall live (Doctrine and Covenants 111:2b, 4b); and
Whereas, The church encourages people contemplating marriage to obtain premarital instruction and make adequate preparation (GCR 972); and
Whereas, Voluntary termination of marriage has become an increasingly common occurrence in many cultures; therefore, be it
Resolved, That the church reaffirms marriage as an institution, a covenant, a sacrament ordained of God, and a legal contract; and be it further
Resolved, That the church supports the following principles for guidance to all people:
- Marriage is a vital institution in all cultures of the world. It helps provide opportunities for healthy, constructive development of people. Monogamous marriage provides a setting for a relationship of enduring love and mutual companionship, thus nurturing a social environment in which the couple support and strengthen each other as people of worth.
- Marriage is a sacred covenant between husband and wife in which God participates with sanction, blessing, and guidance. The church is committed to providing premarital preparation and other caring ministries to strengthen and nurture faithful marriage relationships.
- Marriage is sacred when it expresses the nature of God through the relationship of husband and wife. The marriage ceremony, when performed by the authority of the church, is intended to be a solemnization and public witness of the covenanting couple with God, and is thus considered a sacrament. The marriage partners, the officiating minister, and all others participating in the ceremony should approach it with mature consideration and adequate preparation. They should expect that God will bless them in the fulfillment of their various responsibilities.
- The church upholds the validity of a legal marriage authorized by civil and religious authorities and affirms the potential for sacred relationships which can result. However, the church recognizes that authorized ceremonies, whether in the church or by other authorities, do not guarantee the development of a sacramental relationship. In a marriage where the sacred aspect of covenant is felt to be lacking, the couple is encouraged to resolve before God to strengthen their relationship. The preparation, the ceremony, and the continuing marriage can testify of the sacredness of the marriage covenant.
- As a legal contract, marriage imparts to both parties certain legal rights and duties which are generally enforceable in the various states and nations of the world. In addition to legal enforceability, such rights and duties impose ethical and moral responsibilities on the parties. This contractual nature of marriage is an important consideration prior to and throughout the marriage relationship.
- The church recognizes that in some cases either or both partners may have legal and/or moral grounds for termination of the marriage. Termination of marriage by divorce or other legal dissolution formalizes the termination of the marriage covenant. The church affirms that its primary function in these situations is to provide ministry rather than to render judgment. It should respond in the spirit of Christian caring to the needs of people for support and understanding. The church should facilitate and mediate a ministry of healing to people as they explore all avenues for reasonable reconciliation. If either or both partners decide to terminate the marriage, the church should continue to provide caring ministry for all people involved.
- In cases of the termination of marriage where priesthood status or possibility of charges related to unchristian conduct are involved, the church has a legitimate concern in conducting a review of the circumstances. In these cases, special attention of the administrative officers of the church will be required with healing and reconciling ministry as the primary goals.
- The remarriage of a person whose previous marriage has been terminated should be approached with the same careful consideration and preparation as that appropriate for every marriage. In cases where the previous marriage was terminated by legal action the officiating minister should ensure that marital preparation will include an exploration of the factors that characterized the marital history; and be it further
Resolved, That this resolution supersedes WCR 1034.
The striking difference between WCR 1182 and G-7 is the use of gendered language. The WCR was rife with it, while there is no indication of what gender configuration defines a marriage. This is a huge leap for LGBT rights.
Resolved, That apostles have responsibility for establishing and upholding definitions, guidelines, practices, and policies regarding marriage and marriage-like relationships within nations or other geographic groupings where the laws, cultures, and traditions for marriage are similar; and
I think this makes sense; marriage and relationships look different across the world. Enforcing one culture’s outlook on what relationships should look would be saying that one culture and people are inferior to another. Another name for this is “colonization”.
One of the important things to note here is that it moves the decision making power away from the First Presidency and into the hands of the Apostles.
One of the most controversial topics in Community of Christ the last decade or so has been the co-habitation policy. There have been attempts to discontinue this policy through resolutions, such as Resolutions G-1, G-3, and G-4 in 2016, but they were ruled out of order by the First Presidency. The First Presidency then issued their own resolution in 2019 which became Resolution 1316.
This Resolved essentially opens up the door for the Apostles to abolish the co-habitation policy in their Apostolic fields.
Resolved, That all definitions, guidelines, practices, and be it further policies developed by apostles be reviewed and approved by the Council of Twelve Apostles and First Presidency prior to implementation; and be it further
The wording here is a bit ambiguous. Does the Apostle create the definitions, guidelines, practices, and policies for their areas and then it has to be approved by the whole Council and Presidency? Didn’t we create National Conferences for the people to decide what they wanted their church’s policies to be? Doesn’t this just take away the peoples’ power and put it into the hands of leaders that are appointed by those who area already in power? Isn’t this rather autocratic?
Additionally, this procedure for approval is one that eerily mirrors the procedure that was developed to finalize national policies, which itself is a procedure that has proven itself to be a failure in practice.
Resolved, That all definitions, guidelines, practices, and policies are developed in harmony with the principle of monogamy (Doctrine and Covenants 150:10a), our Enduring Principles, and the behavior and relationship principles of Christ-like love, mutual respect, responsibility, justice, covenant, and faithfulness identified in Doctrine and Covenants 164:6 and further explored in the Commentary on Principles; and be it further
This Resolved as 3 aspects to it:
- D&C 150 (Monogamy)
- The Enduring Principles
- D&C 164: 6 and its Official Commentary on Principles
Each of these plays an incredibly important part of this discussion, and each need to be talked about.
Continuing scholarship has shown that Joseph Smith Jr engaged in polygamy. How he did so was abhorrent and abusive, and should be condemned in the strongest possible terms.
Joseph Smith III was convinced that his father never practiced polygamy, and essentially persuaded the rest of the church to falsely beleive the same thing. Some have pointed to Emma Smith as the chief originator of this – her motives likely would have been rooted in wanting her sons to avoid the same mistakes that her husband had while also whitewashing her husband’s reputation.
Additionally, under Joseph Smith III non-monogamy came to be exclusively associated with the LDS church and it was ALWAYS in a negative connotation – he felt to do anything else was to tarnish his father’s legacy. We used our affinity for monogamy as proof that WE were the One True Church, and became one of our core identifiers (even after the LDS church also became monogamous). We also explicitly banned non-monogamous families from being baptized or confirmed. This became the norm for generations.
In the 1950s and 1960s the church started moving into non-western countries. Many of the people in these nations had many customs that were different from what we knew as the norm. The custom that became a lightning rod issue was that of non-monogamy. There was one instance in 1967 where Apostle Charles D. Neff was baptizing people of the Saora tribe in eastern India. A man with two wives wanted to be baptized and confirmed a member of the church. However, because of the church’s history with non-monogamy we denied his these sacraments.
In the aftermath of this the Council of Twelve developed a policy in which non-monogamous people could join the church ONLY if they committed not to take another wife. The church mistook this for unfettered acceptance of non-monogamous people. This created such a controversy that it became necessary for a revelation, which came with D&C 150.
D&C 150 reaffirms that non-monogamous families can be baptized if they promise not to marry any more spouses. However, it also calls non-monogamous families inherently sinful (“the church must be willing to bear the burden of their sin”) and they will be joyful if they break up their families and become monogamous (“To this end and for this purpose, continue your ministry to those nations of people yet unaware of the joy freedom from sin can bring into their lives.”)
The 3rd Church History Principle is entitled “Honest, Responsible Historical Scholarship”. It teaches us to “interpret [historical] facts to construct as clear a picture as possible of what was going on in the past. This includes analyzing human culture to see how it affected events.” The 5th teaches us: “Seeing both the faithfulness and human flaws in our history makes it more believable and realistic, not less. … Our history also includes human leaders who said and did things that can be shocking to us from our current perspective and culture.”
This revelation was given by W. Wallace Smith, the son of Joseph Smith III and grandson of Joseph Smith Jr. W. Wallace Smith grew up in a church that taught him to have a deep distain for non-monogamous folks, which itself was rooted in the effort to whitewash his grandfather’s legacy and prevent abhorrent and abusive relationships. We can see how Smith’s cultural bias is reflected in D&C 150: 10-11.
In D&C 163: 7C we received this council:
“It is not pleasing to God when any passage of scripture is used to diminish or oppress races, genders, or classes of human beings. Much physical and emotional violence has been done to some of God’s beloved children through the misuse of scripture. The church is called to confess and repent of such attitudes and practices.”
Despite this Divine counsel, the Church has consistently pointed to D&C 150 as justification for continuing its tradition of discrimination against even healthy non-monogamous families.
D&C 164: 6 clarifies what the church and the Divine would like to see regarding relationships. This verse reads as:
A. As revealed in Christ, God, the Creator of all, ultimately is concerned about behaviors and relationships that uphold the worth and giftedness of all people and that protect the most vulnerable. Such relationships are to be rooted in the principles of Christ-like love, mutual respect, responsibility, justice, covenant, and faithfulness, against which there is no law.
B. If the church more fully will understand and consistently apply these principles, questions arising about responsible human sexuality; gender identities, roles, and relationships; marriage; and other issues may be resolved according to God’s divine purposes. Be assured, nothing within these principles condones selfish, irresponsible, promiscuous, degrading, or abusive relationships.
C. Faced with difficult questions, many properly turn to scripture to find insight and inspiration. Search the scriptures for the Living Word that brings life, healing, and hope to all. Embrace and proclaim these liberating truths.
From this, especially with verse 6A, we see that the Divine is most concerned with treating people well. Verse 6B reminds us to avoid relationships that don’t treat us well. Many would suggest that certain commentary or theological opinions on scripture should itself essentially be elevated to be on par with scripture. I believe this is false, and creates an idol out of the people forming these opinions and commentaries. I outright reject this idolatrous line of thought.
Question: Is it possible to be in a monogamous marriage where you are NOT given Christ-like love, mutual respect, responsibility, justice, covenant, and faithfulness? Is it possible to be in a monogamous marriage where your worth and giftedness is not upheld? I think we all know that the answer to that question is “Yes”. There are many monogamous marriages that are degrading and abusive.
2nd Question: Is it possible to be in a non-monogamous marriage where you ARE given Christ-like love, mutual respect, responsibility, justice, covenant, and faithfulness? Is it possible to be in a non-monogamous marriage where your worth and giftedness IS upheld? Frankly, most people in the church probably wouldn’t be able to confidently answer this, because our culture has driven out non-monogamous people due to our discriminatory beliefs. I would like to answer this question with a resounding “YES!” Non-monogamous marriages can bring everyone closer to God and bring joy and meaning to the lives of those in these marriages.
In summary, our church developed a policy to protect the legacy of the founder of our church (at the cost of discriminating already vulnerable people) by his son. His grandson then made the discriminatory policy scripture. Despite recent scriptural commands to not use scripture to hurt the already marginalized and even concurrent calls not to force one definition of marriage onto the entire church, Resolution G-7 is the Council’s latest renewal of this marginalization against non-monogamous families.
While I love the idea of doing away with the cohabitation policy, I don’t want to do it at the expense of further perpetuating our own bigotry which marginalizes already vulnerable people. This is un-christ-like. I am strongly considering voting “NO” because of this.
Resolved, All definitions, guidelines, practices, and policies seek to uphold the Worth of All Persons, foster mutuality and equality, and protect the most vulnerable; and be it further
I was utterly astonished that the Apostles had the audacity to include this Resolved after the previous one. Instead of recognizing the worth of people in varying relationship structures, fostering mutuality and equality, and protecting these vulnerable people, the apostles are renewing the church’s bigotry. Matthew 15: 7-8 rings too loudly in my ears for comfort: “Hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied correctly about you when he said, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me”.
Instead of learning from the mistakes of our past where we have institutionally marginalized people, the Apostles are choosing to continue marginalizing the marginalized. This is incredibly un-Christlike.
Resolved, That basic resources be recommended to assist in education before and after the sacrament of marriage that support marriage as lived relationship and model the principles identified above.
In light of the previous 2 Resolveds, this essentially is trying to make a world-wide blanket statement that non-monogamy CANNOT be recognized as a valid relationship structure, which itself contradicts the 2nd Resolved statement.
My Conclusion
This resolution clearly is trying to shift administrative power from the First Presidency to the Apostles. I am almost always in favor of decentralizing power, and this is an instance of that. Plus, this would allow a less one-size-fits-all approach to administration in the church.
That being said, I cannot ignore that this resolution also perpetuates a long-held bigotry which stems from the Smith family trying to protect their name. This resolution continues to marginalize the marginalized. It mandates that non-monogamous families are considered 2nd class citizens in the church. This is not what a loving God does, and I cannot support something this un-Christ-like. This is a shame, because otherwise I support this resolution.
How I Would Fix It
I would LOVE to see this resolution be modified to not keep perpetuating our bigotry. This is how I would revise it:
G-7a
Whereas, Marriage is a sacrament and sacred covenant relationship of love and equality between two people and recognized as a valued institution in the cultures of the world; and
Whereas, Understandings, definitions, practices, traditions, and laws regarding marriage and marriage-like relationships vary throughout the nations and cultures of the world; and
Whereas, The World Conference is counseled through Doctrine and Covenants 164:7b to address “principles of behavior and relationships” but “not decide specific policies for all nations when those decisions likely will cause serious harm in some of them.”; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That WCR 1182 be rescinded; and, be it further
Resolved, That apostles have responsibility for establishing and upholding definitions, guidelines, practices, and policies regarding marriage and marriagelike relationships within nations or other geographic groupings where the laws, cultures, and traditions for marriage are similar; and be it further
Resolved, That all definitions, guidelines, practices, and policies developed by apostles be reviewed and approved by the Council of Twelve Apostles and First Presidency prior to implementation; and be it further
Resolved, That all definitions, guidelines, practices, and policies are developed in harmony with the principle of monogamy (Doctrine and Covenants 150:10a), our Enduring Principles, and the behavior and relationship principles of Christ-like love, mutual respect, responsibility, justice, covenant, and faithfulness identified in Doctrine and Covenants 164:6 and further explored in the Commentary on Principles; and be it further
Resolved, All definitions, guidelines, practices, and policies seek to uphold the Worth of All Persons, foster mutuality and equality, and protect the most vulnerable; and be it further Resolved, That basic resources be recommended to assist in education before and after the sacrament of marriage that support marriage as lived relationship and model the principles identified above.
The 1st strikeout does away with unnecessary specification which is even contradicted in the subsequent Whereas.
The 2nd strikeout de-emphasizes scripture which marginalize and oppress, and is incongruent with D&C 163: 7.
The 3rd strikeout lets makes it so that a commentary isn’t elevated to the same status as scripture.
Frankly, if this or a similar amendment isn’t passed, I very well may vote against this Resolution. Is progress truly progress if we keep marginalizing vulnerable groups?