“The Church Does Not Take a Position”
A Response to the LDS Discussions Blog Post of March 5, 2020
The LDS Discussions blog post titled “The Church Does Not Take a Position” argues that the Church’s practice of declining to state official positions on certain contested questions is evidence of institutional dishonesty, prophetic failure, and strategic manipulation. The post weaves together a range of criticisms — the 2015 LGBT policy reversal, Book of Mormon geography, the causes of same-sex attraction, and the nature of modern revelation — under the broad claim that a church with living prophets and apostles should be able to answer every pressing question definitively.
This response examines each major claim in turn, distinguishes between areas of genuine doctrinal openness and areas where the Church holds clear and unambiguous positions, and evaluates whether “not taking a position” constitutes a failure of prophetic authority or an intellectually honest and theologically defensible practice.
I. The Argument and Its Central Fallacy
The blog post rests on a single unstated premise: that a divinely guided church must have and publicly declare a definitive position on every theologically adjacent empirical or scientific question its members ask. This is a premise that no major Christian tradition — Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant — actually holds. It is a standard invented by the author and applied selectively to the Restoration.
“It is stunning to me how often the church ‘does not take a position’ on important issues whether it’s the reasons people are born gay, why the DNA of Native Americans is from Asia when revelations from God claimed they were from Israel, or where the Book of Mormon took place.”
— LDS Discussions Blog, March 5, 2020
The fallacy here is a confusion between doctrine and empirical science. The Church holds extensive, clear, and well-documented doctrinal positions on the issues that matter for salvation and moral conduct. What the Church declines to do is adjudicate contested scientific and geographical questions that lie outside the scope of revealed religion. That is not institutional cowardice. It is intellectual honesty — and it is precisely the posture that thoughtful religious scholars across every tradition recommend.
II. What the Church Actually Teaches: Clear Doctrinal Positions on Every Issue the Post Raises
Before engaging the specific grievances, it is important to establish the documentary record. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds explicit, formal, published positions on the following issues the post treats as evidence of institutional evasion:
Homosexual Conduct
The Church has never been ambiguous on this point. The General Handbook states: “Only a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife should have sexual relations. Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same sex, are sinful and undermine the divinely created institution of the family.” This position has been consistent across every edition of the handbook and every General Conference address on the subject for decades. The Church’s 2024 resource guide, Same-Sex Attraction: Loving, Respecting, and Including All of God’s Children, reiterates that same-sex attraction is not a sin, that homosexual conduct remains prohibited under the law of chastity, and that same-sex marriage will not be sanctioned.
Source: General Handbook 38.6.23; Same-Sex Attraction, 2024
Marriage and Family
The 1995 proclamation issued by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, The Family: A Proclamation to the World, is one of the most definitive formal position statements issued by any American religious body in the modern era. It solemnly proclaims: “Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.” That the Church does not take a position on the biological causes of same-sex attraction is entirely consistent with holding an unequivocal position on the definition of marriage, the law of chastity, and the structure of the eternal family.
Source: The Family: A Proclamation to the World
The Divinity of Jesus Christ and His Atonement
The post omits entirely the Church’s most fundamental doctrinal positions because they are impossible to characterize as evasive. The Church holds unequivocal positions on the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ, the reality of the Atonement, the nature of the Godhead, the necessity of priesthood ordinances, and the doctrines of eternal progression — doctrines that are distinctive, internally consistent, and taught uniformly across 195 years of institutional history.
Abortion
The Church’s official position is well-documented and publicly accessible: “The Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions.” The Church identifies narrow exceptions involving rape, incest, severe fetal defects, and serious risk to the mother’s life or health. This is not ambiguity — it is a nuanced doctrinal position stated plainly for any member or observer willing to read the Church newsroom.
Source: Church Newsroom: Abortion
III. The Distinction the Post Refuses to Make: Doctrine vs. Empirical Science
The entire force of the post’s argument depends on treating the following questions as equivalent:
- What is the moral and theological status of same-sex conduct? (Doctrinal question — the Church has an explicit, clear, published answer.)
- What are the biological or developmental causes of same-sex attraction? (Empirical scientific question — which even leading secular researchers have not definitively resolved.)
- Where did Book of Mormon events take place geographically? (Historical and archaeological question, not a salvation question.)
- Is the Book of Mormon a true historical record? (Doctrinal and testimonial question — the Church has an explicit position: yes.)
These are not the same category of question. No institution — religious or secular — is obligated to speak authoritatively on every empirical question adjacent to its mission. The National Institutes of Health does not take a position on the metaphysical implications of the genome. The Vatican does not take a position on the specific geological mechanisms of the creation of mountains. The LDS Church not taking a position on whether Zarahemla was in Mesoamerica or North America does not impugn the historicity of the Book of Mormon any more than the Vatican’s silence on plate tectonics impugns the doctrine of creation.
The Catholic Church offers the clearest parallel. The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains no position on the theory of evolution. Pope John Paul II formally stated in 1996 that evolution is “more than a hypothesis.” Pope Francis reiterated this in 2014. Yet the Catholic Church holds clear and unequivocal doctrinal positions on human dignity, sexual ethics, the soul, and the authority of Scripture. No reasonable critic characterizes the Catholic Church’s silence on the mechanism of evolution as evidence that the Pope lacks divine guidance. The same logic applies here — yet the post does not apply it consistently.
Source: Church Life Journal, University of Notre Dame: Catholic Church and Evolution
IV. The Book of Mormon Geography Argument
The post cites the Church’s neutral posture on Book of Mormon geography as evidence of evasion. The Church’s 2019 official statement reads: “The Church does not take a position on the specific geographic locations of Book of Mormon events in the ancient Americas. The Church’s only position is that the events the Book of Mormon describes took place in the ancient Americas.”
The claim that this is evasion ignores the intellectual history of the question. Scholars have debated Mesoamerican, Heartland, and other models for more than a century and a half. The archaeological record is incomplete. Multiple peer-reviewed researchers, including those with no theological stake in the outcome, continue to debate the feasibility of various proposed settings. The Church’s statement does not deny the Book of Mormon’s historicity — it explicitly affirms it (“the events the Book of Mormon describes took place in the ancient Americas”) while declining to pronounce on a sub-question that the available evidence has not yet resolved.
Notably, the First Presidency’s guidance on this topic includes a positive directive entirely omitted from the post: “The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles urge leaders and members not to advocate those personal theories in any setting or manner that would imply either prophetic or Church support for those theories.” This is not ambiguity — it is responsible institutional governance of a contested scholarly question.
Source: Gospel Topics: Book of Mormon Geography
V. The 2015–2019 Policy Reversal: A Test Case
The post cites the November 2015 policy and its 2019 reversal as evidence that modern prophets do not receive divine guidance. This is the post’s most emotionally charged argument and deserves careful engagement rather than dismissal.
The 2015 policy restricted baptism for minor children living with same-sex couples and classified entry into a same-sex marriage as apostasy. In April 2019, the policy was substantially revised. The Church stated explicitly that the change came through “continuing revelation.” President Russell M. Nelson said the changes were motivated by a desire to “find a way to reduce friction between gay or lesbian parents and their children” and to “facilitate harmony in the home.”
The post treats this reversal as proof of institutional failure. But the LDS doctrine of continuing revelation has always anticipated refinement. The Church does not claim that every policy decision made by leaders is infallible. As Harold B. Lee taught, and as the Church has consistently affirmed, the General Authorities speak as inspired men but are not moved upon by the Holy Ghost in every word they write or speak. Official doctrine requires a specific process: formal revelation accepted by the presiding councils and sustained by the body of the Church. A policy codified in a handbook occupies a different category than a sustained revelation published in the Doctrine and Covenants.
The post’s implicit argument would require that any religious institution that has ever refined a policy thereby proves it lacks divine sanction. Applied consistently, this argument indicts every religious body on earth. The Catholic Church revised its teaching on religious liberty at the Second Vatican Council. Protestant denominations have revised positions on baptism, divorce, contraception, and ecclesial structure across centuries. If policy refinement proves the absence of divine guidance, then no religious institution qualifies as divinely guided. The argument is self-defeating.
VI. The Wendy Nelson Quotation and What It Actually Shows
The post treats Wendy Nelson’s statement — that Russell Nelson is “free to follow through with things he’s been concerned about but could never do” — as an unintentional confession that prophetic revelation is merely the institutionalization of pre-existing personal views.
This reading is uncharitable and logically strained. The statement plainly refers to the practical reality that a counselor or apostle cannot unilaterally implement church-wide changes — that authority belongs to the President of the Church. This is an observation about institutional authority, not an admission that revelation is fabricated. Wendy Nelson was describing the difference between holding a conviction and holding the position to act on it. That distinction is familiar in every organization, religious or secular.
Furthermore, the Church’s established theological framework explicitly accounts for the role of prior preparation in receiving revelation. Doctrine and Covenants 9:8 instructs that revelation typically follows a process of study, thought, and confirmed impression: “You must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right.” Long-held convictions that are later confirmed through the prophetic process are theologically consistent with — not contrary to — the LDS model of revelation.
VII. The Name Change: Revelation or Lifelong Personal Preference?
The post argues that President Nelson’s 2018 revelation on the Church’s name cannot be genuine because Nelson had advocated for the same thing in a 1990 General Conference address. The implication is that a revelation confirming a previously held conviction is thereby not a revelation.
This is a non sequitur. The scriptural and theological tradition of all Christian denominations recognizes that God can confirm truths that a prophet already partially or wholly understands. Joseph Smith’s 1820 First Vision confirmed what the New Testament already declared — that God the Father and Jesus Christ are distinct beings (John 17:3; Acts 7:55–56). The revelation added authoritative, experiential confirmation. Similarly, Nelson’s 2018 statement was a formal, Church-wide call to action issued with prophetic authority — which is substantively different from an apostle expressing an opinion in a 1990 talk that his colleagues were not prepared to act upon.
The post also omits that the name “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” was given by revelation to Joseph Smith in 1838 (D&C 115:4), meaning Nelson’s emphasis was a reaffirmation of a foundational revealed name the membership had allowed to fall into disuse. Whether one accepts that framing or not, characterizing the emphasis as merely personal preference requires dismissing the revelatory mechanism entirely without engaging its claimed content.
VIII. What Prophets Are and Are Not Claimed to Be
The post contrasts what it was taught as a convert — that prophets “literally spoke to God” about “the questions of our time” — with what those prophets have produced. This is one of the most important arguments in the post and deserves honest engagement.
The Church’s published doctrine on prophetic authority is clear and accessible. As Joseph F. Smith taught: “We do not make any claim for infallibility... We are liable to make mistakes... when we do, we hope God will forgive us.” Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote: “Prophets are men and are speaking as men whenever they give their personal opinions... They are not perfect... We do not believe in prophetic infallibility.” Harold B. Lee taught that only doctrine substantiated by the standard works should be treated as Church doctrine; personal statements by General Authorities are “merely their private opinion.”
If the author was taught by missionaries or a Sunday school teacher that prophets receive specific revelation on “every question of our time,” that instruction overstated the Church’s actual doctrinal position. That is a problem with a particular teaching moment, not with the Church’s theology. The Church’s published position on prophetic fallibility has been consistent and accessible for generations. The appropriate response is to examine the Church’s actual teaching — not to conclude that the entire structure of prophetic authority is fraudulent because it does not match a maximalist version the Church itself has never formally claimed.
Source: FAIR Latter-day Saints: Fallibility of Prophets
IX. Is “Not Taking a Position” Ever Legitimate? Newman and Doctrinal Development
The post’s emotional force depends on the reader accepting that any institution claiming divine guidance must speak authoritatively on every question its critics choose to raise. This premise is philosophically indefensible and historically unprecedented in any major religious tradition.
John Henry Newman, in his foundational work on doctrinal development, argued that the proper development of religious teaching is not the production of answers to every empirical question but the progressive clarification of revealed truths. Newman distinguished between development (the organic unfolding of what is genuinely revealed) and corruption (the abandonment or contradiction of revealed truths). Under this framework, a church that declines to adjudicate contested scientific questions while holding firm on revealed moral and theological truths is behaving with more intellectual integrity than one that rushes to endorse the current scientific consensus on every contested point — a consensus that has repeatedly changed.
The alternative proposed implicitly by the post — that prophets should produce new revelation on the exact chromosomal or neurological mechanisms underlying sexual orientation — is a standard no secular institution could meet. The American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association have both declined to issue definitive statements on the causes of same-sex attraction, acknowledging that “the exact nature of the interactions between biology and environmental factors is unknown.” If declining to take a position on this question proves the LDS Church lacks divine guidance, it equally proves the APA lacks scientific judgment. The conclusion is absurd in both cases.
X. Strategic Ambiguity vs. Genuine Intellectual Humility: How to Tell the Difference
The post argues that the Church’s reserve on certain questions is strategic — designed to retain older conservative members while appealing to younger progressive ones, and to secure federal funding and athletic conference memberships. This is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.
What the evidence actually shows is this: the Church has consistently maintained its doctrinal positions on sexual ethics and marriage in the face of significant cultural and legal pressure to abandon them. The Family Proclamation was issued in 1995, in direct anticipation of social trends the Church’s leadership believed were coming. The Church actively opposed California’s Proposition 8 in 2008 at substantial reputational cost. The Church’s 2024 handbook updates on transgender policy drew widespread criticism from progressive commentators. If the Church were engaged in strategic repositioning to maximize broad public appeal, these are not the choices it would make.
The distinction between strategic ambiguity and genuine intellectual humility can be assessed by examining whether the institution changes its positions on questions that have clear moral implications under social pressure. The record shows the Church does not. What the Church declines to adjudicate are questions that fall outside the scope of revealed doctrine — empirical and geographical sub-questions that neither the Church nor the broader scientific or archaeological community has resolved.
XI. The Humanitarian Record the Post Ignores
The post closes with an argument about institutional character — that the Church is not only untrue but “not good.” This is a serious claim, and the available evidence does not support it. In 2025, the Church reported $1.58 billion in humanitarian aid benefiting millions of people in nearly 200 countries and territories, without regard to recipient religion, nationality, or sexual orientation. The Church operates an extensive welfare system, a vast network of family history services available to all, and educational institutions that provide subsidized tuition to tens of thousands of students globally.
None of this settles the Church’s truth claims. But an institution that spends $1.58 billion on humanitarian relief in a single year cannot be fairly characterized as indifferent to human suffering. The post’s conclusion that the Church is “not good” is not supported by the Church’s documented conduct in the world.
Source: Church News: Caring Report 2025
XII. Conclusion
The LDS Discussions post “The Church Does Not Take a Position” conflates three distinct categories of questions, applies a standard of prophetic infallibility the Church itself has never claimed, and characterizes as evasion the same intellectual humility that mainstream academic theology recognizes as appropriate when evidence is incomplete.
The documented record shows:
- The Church holds clear, explicit, and consistently maintained doctrinal positions on marriage, sexual ethics, the nature of God, the Atonement, the mission of Jesus Christ, abortion, and the eternal family.
- The Church declines to adjudicate contested empirical and geographical questions on which neither the Church nor the broader scientific community has reached consensus — which is intellectual responsibility, not evasion.
- The Church’s doctrine of prophetic fallibility is published and consistent; it has never formally claimed that every statement by every leader is inspired revelation.
- Policy refinement under continuing revelation is theologically consistent with the LDS framework and is not evidence of prophetic failure any more than Catholic revision at Vatican II was evidence of papal failure.
- Every major religious tradition in the world maintains silence on contested empirical questions while holding firm doctrinal positions. The standard applied by this post to the LDS Church is applied nowhere else.
The real question raised by this post is not whether the Church takes positions — it clearly does, on every question that matters for salvation and moral conduct. The real question is whether a reader will accept the Church’s claimed authority to define which questions belong to that category. That is a question of faith and testimony, not of institutional logic. The argument that “not taking a position” on the causes of same-sex attraction or the latitude and longitude of Zarahemla proves the Church is false is not a scholarly argument. It is a rhetorical one, and it does not withstand examination.
Readers who came to this page because they are genuinely uncertain are encouraged to evaluate the Church’s actual published positions — not a summary of what a Sunday school teacher once said — and to consider whether the evidence for the Restoration, examined fully and honestly, supports or undermines the claims Joseph Smith made. That examination is what this site exists to support.
Sources consulted: General Handbook 38 • Gospel Topics: Book of Mormon Geography • Same-Sex Attraction 2024 • The Family: A Proclamation to the World • Church Newsroom: Abortion • FAIR: Prophetic Fallibility • Church News: Caring Report 2025