In November of 2015, I resigned my membership in The LDS Church. Though an atheist for many years, their “policy” to excommunicate married LGBT members and prevent their children from being blessed, baptized, and ordained was filled with such wanton hate, I refused to be counted among their number, even if only on paper.
LDS Church leadership claimed that the policy was revelation from God, and not intended to punish LGBT members and their children, but rather to protect the children from teachings and information that may cause “rifts” between the children and their parents.
Yesterday, they reversed this policy. A mere 3.5 years since it was introduced. They claim that their reason is “continued revelation” and to “reduce hate.”
By their own reasoning, apparently they no longer need to protect children. In addition, it seems that that God’s revealed ‘policy’ sewed the very hate and contention they now wish to reduce.
These men claim to speak literally to God. They claim to “know his voice.” They claim that their actions are literally guided and commanded by God.
If there is a God, I can only see three explanations for this ridiculous nonsense:
1. God is hateful and contentious and his revelations to His prophets and His church are hateful and contentious.
or
2. God is not hateful nor contentious, but His prophets are hateful and contentious and enact hateful and contentious practices in His church.
or
3. God isn’t talking to these prophets.
I am glad they reversed this policy. It was harmful. It caused LGBT children to feel inferior, lesser, and, in some cases, so distraught that these beautiful, innocent beings felt it necessary to take their own lives. It is impossible for me not to see that this organization is clearly led by wrong-headed, bigoted, willfully ignorant, and unsympathetic men. “Men of their time.”
If we cannot distinguish when these so-called prophets speak as prophets or speak as hate-filled men, then there is no obligation to heed their words at all.
- A member arguing against the Nov. 15th policy before yesterday an apostate.
- A member arguing against the Black Priesthood Ban in 1977 was an apostate.
- A member arguing against polygamy in 1890 was an apostate.
“Yesterday’s doctrine is today’s false doctrine.
Yesterday’s prophets are today’s heretics.”
– Jeremy Runnells