Wednesday, September 4, 2024

Part I

---

Mormons Take on the Transgender Issue: LDS Church Clarifies Participation of Transgender Persons in Church Services and Activities

Well, just a matter of days ago, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that is to say Mormon authorities, released a major statement about the transgender issue. And it made national headlines, it even made international headlines. The Mormons are an international group, although their international growth has stalled somewhat. But nonetheless, looking at the headline, for example, the Associated Press tells us, “LGBTQ advocates say Mormon Church’s new transgender policies marginalize trans members.”

Okay. So, at first glance of this article, what it means is that the authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, again Mormonism, they have adopted new policies, formally adopting new rules. And this goes into the denomination’s General Handbook. And as the Associated Press tells us, “The guidelines were released as part of updates to the General Handbook of the denomination known widely as the Mormon Church’s new rules in addition to expanding on an existing rule that prevents transgender people from being baptized, also prohibits transgender people from working with children or serving as priests or teachers.” That’s the AP lead on this particular development.

So, the bottom line, the General Handbook of the Mormon Church has now been modified by the Mormon authorities to be very clear that it is expanding an existing rule, a rule that prevents transgender people from being baptized into Mormonism. It now also prohibits transgender people from working with children or serving as priests or teachers. Now, when you look at this, you recognize, “Well, that’s pretty much where I think most people would’ve assumed the Mormons were in the first place.” And so, on the one hand, there’s no big news here. On the other hand, this is big news precisely because on this kind of issue, when you look at Mormon theology, this is actually about more than meets the eye.

This is about far deeper issues, and frankly, issues that set Mormonism at odds with biblical Christianity in a very clear way. And so, as you look at orthodox biblical historic Christianity, the contrast with Mormonism is absolutely direct and it’s absolutely huge. Mormonism, again, names itself the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the Mormon authorities have pretty much been insisting on that full name in recent years in terms of nomenclature. But the reality is that the Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints is a figure very different than the Jesus Christ of the New Testament. And of course, this goes back to the 19th century. It goes back to the rise of so many new religious movements in the United States. It goes back to the rise of Christian science, the rise of Mormonism, the rise of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the rise of other groups, the Seventh-day Adventists. You could go down the list.

And by the way, the Seventh-day Adventists don’t belong in the same theological category as Mormonism, but they were a part of this massive religious upsurge that took place in what’s called originally the burned-over district of New York state. It’s not an accident with the exception of Christian science, but even Christian science identified with Boston did have links to upstate New York. That particular region was called the burned-over district after the Second Great Awakening, a wave of revivals that took place in the early 19th century. And for some reason, it became a hotbed. It became an incubator to mix the metaphor of new religious movements. And in so many ways, they at least borrowed some doctrines and some symbols and even some themes from Christianity. But every single one of them is set at odds with historic biblical Christianity. When you think about the history and the belief structure of Mormonism, of course, you have to think of Joseph Smith, very young man who claimed to have been the instrument through which this revelation came to humanity.

And of course, this involved golden plates–it was claimed–and special stones that allowed seeing, involved the Angel Moroni, you could just go down the list and you understand this was a very bizarre doctrinal system, a very bizarre religious story. But quite honestly, it came in a time of many bizarre religious stories that led to major movements in the United States. And Mormonism became one of those movements, and indeed one of the strongest of those movements. And at least, at times, Mormon public relations has attempted to associate Mormonism more closely with orthodox historic biblical Christianity. But when push comes to shove, the Mormons themselves are very, very quick to indicate the major doctrinal differences between Mormonism and biblical historic Christianity. And of course, this also gets to the fact that when you look at these claims that were behind these religious movements that began, especially in the 19th century, in the United States, all of them claim some kind of new revelation subsequent to the canon of the Old and New Testaments.

That is to say subsequent to the Bible. So, that becomes a very key issue. We don’t have time to unpack at all, but when you look at these new rules and the revision of the General Handbook of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we are looking at something that on the one hand does remind us of the fact that the continuing pushback to the LGBTQ movement is increasingly isolated to theological arguments. And even as this theological argument is not our historic Christian Biblical theological argument, it is a theological argument. It is based upon religious authority. It’s based upon the authority of the leadership of the Mormon Church to establish policy through a General Handbook that is quite countercultural. And even in Mormonism, there have been mixed signals sent on the LGBTQ issue. But this is a pretty clear issue. This is a pretty clear declaration.

It is the statement that openly transgender people cannot be baptized. And it also, as I said, prohibits transgender persons from working with children or serving as priests or teachers in the church. To go on, the church’s handbook, the Associated Press tells us, “States that those who transition away from their biological sex at birth are welcome to attend sacrament meetings and participate in many other ways. It also encourages these individuals and their families to confer with local leaders regarding their church participation. The new guidelines, however, significantly limit such participation.” The next paragraph from the Associated Press tells us, “This policy now states that members who have transitioned in any way, whether that transition is social, medical or surgical, cannot stay at youth camps overnight and may only use single occupancy restrooms at church meeting houses. Alternatively, we are told a ‘trusted person,'” quotation marks around trusted person, “must be stationed outside the restroom to keep others from entering when a transgender person uses a restroom that aligns with their personal gender identity.” The Mormon authorities, by the way, said that they do not “take a position” on the causes of what’s identified as gender dysphoria.

Now, the press background on this tells us that the Mormon authorities have basically allowed some local discretion on these issues, leaving it to local congregations and Mormon bishops and lay leaders. But as the Associated Press says quite clearly, the gray areas that were left before are now pretty much filled in. They’re pretty much eliminated. This is now a national and international policy for the entire Mormon movement. Church spokesman Doug Anderson, according to the AP, “Pointed to a statement released by the denomination, which says the updated guidelines were issued,” in his words “‘to help local leaders minister more effectively to individuals who identify as transgender and their families,” also to, “‘ensure consistency in policies while allowing local leaders flexibility to minister based on each person’s needs.'” And so, as I said, on the one hand, this is a theological argument released by a religious organization, a vast religious organization, on its own authority and it is stating very clearly that it’s not buying into the transgender ideology.

Even if it doesn’t take a position on so-called gender dysphoria, it is taking a position on this issue. It is taking a position that is now setting it at odds with the cultural mainstream, certainly with the cultural elites in this country. And there are various reasons why this revision was likely made when it was made. Number one, and this is very educational for all of us, number one, you can’t really, if you’re going to be an international movement, say that this is just an issue for local discretion. It’s too explosive an issue. It’s too political an issue. It’s too controversial an issue. The other thing is that inside the Mormon Church, there must have been pressure for the Mormon authorities to hand this down as an edict precisely in order to protect certain religious liberty claims that are likely going to have to be made by the Mormon Church on this kind of teaching.

I mean, because you look at this and you recognize that the cultural elites are going to say, “Well, this is a crude form of discrimination,” and they’re going to want to outlaw this. And if it doesn’t directly affect Mormon congregations, it would directly affect or would threaten to affect Mormon educational institutions, such as Brigham Young University, just to name the most famous among them, or other Mormon institutions in which this kind of anti-discrimination policy could be forced at the expense of Mormon doctrine. So, that’s on the one hand, and this is where we are reminded that Christian churches, Christian denominations, your church, your denomination, your Christian institution had better have a very clear policy on this based upon doctrinal claims, or quite honestly, you’re setting yourself up not only for ministerial disaster, but you’re setting yourself up for challenges in terms of the liberty of your religious organization or congregation or denomination to discriminate, that would be the legal term here on this issue. 

But all of that was on the one hand, the first hand. On the second hand, there’s something really, really interesting here that goes far beyond what most Christians might imagine. And this takes us into Mormon doctrine in Mormon theology. And here I’m just going to have to generalize and I’m going to seek to do it as fairly as possible. I will simply say that when it comes to the doctrine of God and when it comes to God the Father, it is very clear that Mormonism recognizes who is identified in Mormon worship and in Mormon writings as Heavenly Father, but you need to recognize it also recognizes Heavenly Mother. Okay. Let’s just state that is a radical contrast, a radical contradiction with the Revelation of God in Holy Scripture in the Old and New Testaments. You have the revelation of God as Father. There is no Heavenly Mother. 

You’ll also notice that Heavenly father is, in some significant sense here, depersonalized from the extremely personal revelation that is found in both the old and the New Testaments. It’s not just Heavenly Father, it is in Christian theology our Father who art in Heaven. That’s very, very different. But then you add Heavenly Mother and everything’s changed. And then, you ask the question, “Well, what would be the function of Heavenly Mother?” And the answer is that it comes down to reproduction. And I’m going to state that that’s simply as straightforward as I know how to phrase it. You are really looking here at a claim about divine reproduction, but a parallel to that is Mormon theological anthropology. That is to say, the Mormon doctrine of humanity because male and female are categories in Mormonism that actually go far beyond anything imagined in historic Christian biblical doctrine.

And that is because reproduction is at the very heart of Mormon theology. And this means that male and female, when you are looking at the Mormon cosmology and the Mormon theology, those are permanent categories related to a permanent reproductive function in terms of spirit beings. Now, biblical Christianity, historic Christianity is really, really clear about male and female, about embodiment. God created us in his own image. Male and female created he them. And there is the reproductive command that comes very quickly, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” Yes, that reproductive function is there, but in Christian theology, that reproductive function is limited to this life. And we are told that in the age to come, there is no marriage or giving in marriage. In Mormon theology, it’s an eternal relationship for eternal reproduction, at least when it comes to spirit beings. That is a very different theology.

And of course, it starts out very different with Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. And there are some real interesting details in terms of trying to understand that aspect of Mormon theology. But I think just even hearing it, evangelical Christians go now, “That’s absolutely outside biblical Christianity. That’s far distant, even contradictory to biblical Christianity.” So, when you’re looking at the distinctions between historic Christianity, in basically all of its forms, by the way, as contrasted with Mormonism, it starts with the most basic doctrine of all, which is the doctrine of God. And the distinction here is made clear in a very big way.

Part II

---

Transgenderism Collides with Mormonism’s Doctrine of God: The Clash of the LGBTQ Revolution with Mormonism Goes Far Deeper Than the LDS Handbook Policy

But the doctrine of humanity, the historic doctrine of man, when it comes to Mormonism, you’re also talking about something that’s radically distinct, the Mormon understanding of marriage. This is why the temple sealing and all the rest is very different than the Christian observation historically of marriage.

We’re looking at a continuing reproductive function that the Bible actually says does not exist in the age to come. But Mormon cosmology and Mormon theology are very, very different. Now, why do I bring this up here? Well, I think it should be obvious. It is because the transgender issue is clearly, according to a biblical understanding, contradictory to Scripture. No doubt about that. It’s incompatible with Christian theology and Christian morality. But when it comes to Mormon theology, it really messes things up because that entire reproductive future in an eschatological age, well, that really is messed up if you have, let’s just say, really messed up your body or your hormones, or for that matter your personal identity on this issue. Christians, of course, based upon the promise of Scripture, understand that those who are in Christ will in the age to come have resurrection bodies.

And the description of that body in Scripture is that pointing to the resurrection of body as, “He is so we also will be,” just in terms of a body transformed for the age to come. But there’s no indication that there’s any reduction in our personal identity. And you can consider the fact that as brothers and sisters in Christ, that is likely to be a part of our continuing identity. But the Scriptures is just not clear on this issue in such a way that we can say with doctrinal certainty exactly what we can say about our bodies in the age to come. But there is a continuity between our human body right now, the body that is decaying and the body that is to come, just as there was a continuity between the pre-resurrection body of the Lord Jesus Christ and the post-resurrection body of Christ. That’s just very different than Mormon theology and Mormon cosmology that points to a continuing embodiment that includes reproduction. And that’s not just a minor distinction between Mormonism and Christian theology.

That is a radical distinction, but it does really help to explain why at this particular time, Mormon authorities felt like they had to be very clear about this issue in the General Handbook of the Mormon movement. And once again, Christians are reminded as we sometimes just have to think very clearly that we can be in agreement with other religious groups when it comes to many major moral issues facing us today. We can be very much united in understanding the threat to religious liberty, and we can understand the need for theological specificity. That’s something we should respect. But we also understand that when we’re talking about Mormonism and Christianity, the differences are made abundantly clear even in the context, and in the background to this declaration of a policy, that quite frankly does remind Christian institutions, historic Christian denominations, and Christian congregations of our responsibility to be, at the very least, as specific as the Mormons are in their General Handbook.

And we also need to recognize that we are all going to face challenges to religious liberty and to the authority by which we operate on doctrinal terms, and we better think about that very clearly. If your church does not have a clear policy, a clear doctrine on this issue, if your Christian institution does not, your denomination does not, then you’re already behind the eight ball, so to speak, on this and you’ve got a job to do.

Part III

---

‘Ethical Non-Monogamy,’ ‘Kitchen-Table Polyamory,’ ‘Metamour’ — USA Today Brazenly Seeks to Educate on the Alphabet Soup of the Sexual Revolution

Well, all right, I’m going to shift away from that issue. But many of you’ll know there are historic ties between what I’m going to talk about next and previous controversies related to Mormonism. But in this case, I’m talking about an article that just ran days ago in USA Today. It’s by David Oliver. And once again, there are two aspects to this that I want to draw to our attention.

The first is what it is, and the second is the fact that it ran in USA Today and what that tells us. So, the headline on the article is this, “’Kitchen-Table Polyamory’ and the Terms You Need to Know.” Okay, I want to be clear about something. You really don’t need to know these terms. I mean, in the sense that the number of Americans, the number of Christians all over the English-speaking world, the number of people just about anywhere who are going to confront these issues personally, well, it is growing because of the perversity and confusion of the age, but it’s still a very small movement. And so, the first thing I want to talk about is what’s in this article, and what that represents in terms of a massive moral shift and even more massive confusion in our culture. But the second is the fact that USA Today ran this article, which tells us they’re pushing this.

They ran this for a reason, and I pointed out that USA Today, which bills itself as America’s Newspaper, has been pushing these issues in a radical and subversive way for a very long time. Okay. So, the headline, “’Kitchen-Table Polyamory’ and the Terms You Need to Know.” David Oliver writes, “What does ‘polysaturation’ mean? What is a ‘metamour?’ What about a ‘relationship escalator?'” He continues, buckle your seatbelt, “As conversations around polyamory go more mainstream, plenty of terms get thrown around that might sound unfamiliar to those outside those communities. To start with, polyamory means ‘multiple loves’ – a word coined in the late 20th century, with Greek and Latin roots.” One person cited here, Sheila Addison says, “It usually describes a particular approach to consensual non-monogamy that prioritizes ongoing emotional and sexual connections with multiple partners.” So, what is this? This is sexual sin. I mean, Christians can really get to that pretty quickly.

The Bible is incredibly clear about this issue, and we also need to note that as we look at this, this is really an evidence of displaced marriage. And so, it’s not just beyond the limitations of marriage, it’s beyond the limitations of basically anything. This is outside any sexual order. It is an invented sexual polyperversity, and it basically is making the claim that it’s now a part of what is a new vocabulary you need to know. Again, the headline says “terms you need to know.” I’m saying you really don’t need to know them, but they do reveal a very great deal. A professor of social work cited in the article says, “The more that even monogamous people are willing to learn and educate about polyamory, the better it is for everyone.” Now, one of the things I often want to try to underline is that when you reject biblical Christianity and when you reject the morality of Creation Order, you don’t allow in some things, you eventually allow in everything because you are putting the individual in the position of just setting all these impulses loose.

And I mean, quite frankly, the Bible gives us some pretty graphic illustrations of the disaster that happens when these passions are simply set loose. But you’ll also note this is a conspiracy as Paul tells us in Romans 1, “To suppress the truth in unrighteousness,” because you’re suppressing the truth here, the truth of Creation Order, the truth of male and female, the truth about marriage, the truth about morality. And instead, you’re just coming up with all these terms. Term number one in this particular collection, consensual or ethical non-monogamy. Well, we don’t believe there is an ethical non-monogamy, and it’s also questionable, by the way, in historic terms, just so much of it is truly even consensual. Ethical non-monogamy “is known colloquially as ENM.” And let me just say, if you’re into ethical non-monogamy so much that you have an alphabet soup for it, that tells you just how confused our age is becoming.

Solo polyamory, “This is when polyamorous have multiple relationships, but do not become intertwined with the other people.” What a mess. And then, you also have metamour, the shorthand for “your partner’s partner.” Okay. So, if you’re in a situation where you’re talking merely about a partner, we have a moral problem. And when you talk about your partner’s partner, let’s just say we’re at DEFCON 1. Little footnote here, every time I mention that particular metaphor, people come back and say, “The highest risk is DEFCON 5.” No, look it up. The highest is DEFCON 1. That’s where we are. Okay. Then there’s kitchen-table polyamory, “a family-like bond between partners,” which we are told “is encouraged.” Poly saturation, this is when individuals “reach the maximum number of romantic or sexual relationships they can comfortably and sustainably manage.” Let me just remind you, the magic number there in the Bible is one, and that means male and female, and it means the covenant of marriage.

Then, take this term, this is very, very interesting, “Relationship anarchy.” “The practice of actively choosing to tailor and customize your relationships to your own wants and needs without influence from the culture or the relationship escalator.” Oh, what a mess. This is actually the “you be you” in the most radical form you can imagine. The last of the terms indicated here is that “relationship escalator”. We are told that it is “the default set of societal expectations for intimate relationships. Partners are expected to remain together at the top of the escalator until death, and de-escalating or dismantling in any way is considered a failure.” Well, yes, according to Scripture, once you enter into the covenant relationship of marriage, de-escalation, let’s just say, is a problem. But we reached this point in order to observe together the last sentence in this article.

Once again, USA Today in print and online, here’s the last sentence. “Now, the next time polyamory comes up in conversation, you’ll be able to participate and use the right terms.” So, do you feel educated? Do you feel like you’re ready to enter into a conversation about polyamory or polygamy or any related issue? Do you feel like you want to talk about the relationship escalator and metamours and kitchen-table polyamory and polysaturation? I’m just going to go out on a limb here and think the answer is no. But I think it really is important that we take a look at the appearance of this kind of article in USA Today and understand this is what is being presented by the cultural and media elites in our country as the inevitable wave of the future and something to be celebrated not only in the future but in the present.

And you’ll also notice what happens with every kind of revolution along these lines. It comes with the necessity of a coerced education. You must be educated on these issues. You must learn this vocabulary. And I’m going to say now the strangest thing I may ever have said on The Briefing, and that is, I hope, as important as it was for us to discuss all these terms, you kind of instantly forget them, just as an act of rebellion. But at the same time, I hope we won’t miss the lesson and we won’t miss the point.