The LDS Church released changes to its Handbook on November 5, 2015 in relation to same-sex couples and children raised by same-sex couples. Specifically, the Church now prohibits children of same-sex couples from being baptized until they are 18 – and only if they move out of their parents’ homes, disavow all same-sex relationships, and receive approval from the First Presidency. Likewise, the new policies apply to priesthood ordination and full-time missionary service, and even prohibit children of same-sex couples from receiving a Church-sanctioned “name and a blessing.
Moreover, the Church specifically designates Mormons in same-sex marriages as apostates who must undergo disciplinary hearings that will likely result in excommunication.
In adopting these policies, the Church not only doubled down on its stance against homosexuality but also hardened its doctrinal boundaries at a time when an increasing number of Mormons are expressing support for the LGBT community.
In adopting these new policies, the Church is likely trying to stave off future advocacy in that children of same-sex couples will undoubtedly push for more inclusion and acceptance of homosexuals as they grow into adulthood. But instead this policy appears to be targeting the most helpless, most sympathetic, and most innocent by excluding children from “essential ordinances” solely on the basis of their parents’ actions. In short, these policies appear to directly conflict with the second article of faith.
What is particularly dumbfounding is the bogus justifications proffered by both LDS leadership and many members in support of the policies. Consider the following:
Protecting Families
Many members on social media claim that the new policy prohibiting children of same-sex relationships from being baptized has been instituted to “protect families.” This seem dubious when the church does not recognize same-sex families as legitimate families. Elder L. Tom Perry, during April 2015 Conference, labeled same-sex marriages as “counterfeit.” Regardless, preventing children from participating in Church ordinances when they are already attending church with the approval of both parents serves to tell them they are second-class citizens. Moreover, the fact that the policy requires children to disavow their parents’ relationship and move out of the house in order to get baptized indicates that the LDS church has no interest in protecting non-traditional families.
Preventing Family Tension
Apostle D. Todd Christofferson recently stated that the new policy is meant to protect children and prevent tension that may arise between children and their parents. This explanation would be more credible if the Church applied this same logic in other situations. But it does not, and the Church does not convey similar concern about the tension that may arise from many of its other policies. Children of non-member families are routinely taught doctrines at Church without regard to how the information might be received at home. Children with parents living outside of wedlock and children of smokers, drinkers, adulterers, liars, fornicators, etc. attend church and are baptized on a regular basis without regard to the familial tension that may result. In fact, the Church regularly baptizes children even when one of the parents vehemently opposes the decision.
What the Church fails to realize is that its new policy exacerbates family tension. I have a friend who is currently in a same-sex relationship. When he was an active member, my friend served an honorable mission, magnified his many church callings, and left an indelible impression among those he served. Several years ago, my friend came out as gay and he and his wife got divorced. They now share custody of their four children.
My friend, who is still supportive of the church and often attends with his children, recently emailed me and said he feels as if he has been “punched in the gut.” He said his son is scheduled to be baptized in one month and now everything is in limbo. He is afraid that his ex-wife will now petition for full custody and try and eliminate him from the family dynamic. He said his children, due in large part to what they are taught at church, already view him as a “second-class parents.” He stated that this new policy will only cause more division and more tension within his family.
The Church’s new policy has heartbreaking consequences and further alienates the LGBT community from the love and acceptance central to Christ’s ministry.
Similar to Children of Polygamists Relationships
Elder Christofferson recently pointed out that the Church’s policy regarding children of same-sex couples mirrors its policy toward children of polygamist families. Although children of polygamist families are not required to wait until they are 18 to be baptized, Elder Christofferson’s statement is mostly accurate. And it’s ironic, as polygamist families are living in accordance with previous church teachings and as sanctioned in D&C 132. Regardless, Lindsay Hansen Park pointed out the flawed logic in comparing the children of same-sex parents to children of polygamists. She stated, in essence, that just because the Church is treating one subset of people poorly does not justify treating another subset of people poorly.
Furthermore, the Church fails to explain why children of same-sex parents must be treated differently than the children of other parents engaging in conduct contrary to LDS teachings.The policy excluding children of same-sex couples from getting baptized is particularly bizarre when you consider that children of rapists, murderers, adulterers, etc. are still welcomed into the church. It makes you wonder what the church really thinks about the LGBT community.
Children Lack Sufficient Maturity
Elder Christofferson suggested that children of same-sex couples that are under 18 are not sufficiently mature to make a “conscious decision” as it relates to baptism. If that is the case, how can the Church claim that eight-year-olds are sufficiently mature to understand the commitment they are making when getting baptized? How can the Church claim that 18-year-olds are sufficiently mature to receive their endowment and make life-long covenants in the temple? Moreover, why do children of traditional LDS families need essential saving ordinances such as baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost at age eight, yet children of same-sex couples can wait until they are 18?
Furthermore, Joseph Smith, at age 37, married a 14-year-old girl, Helen Mar Kimball. In proposing to Helen, Joseph Smith stated that he was commanded by God to marry her and that her salvation and the salvation of her family depended on it. Granted, Helen was legally old enough to marry (even though it was illegal to enter into a polygamist marriage), and some debatably argue that marriage at such a young age was culturally acceptable. Nonetheless, how can the Church claim that a 14-year-old girl was mature enough to enter into an “eternal marriage” with Joseph Smith yet, on the other hand, claim that a 17-year-old child of same-sex parents is not capable to deciding whether to be baptized.
Bizarrely, Elder Christofferson’s logic is discriminatorily applied to children of same-sex couples but disregarded for everyone else.
Drawing a Line in the Sand
As previously noted, the Church’s new handbook specifically designates Mormons in same-sex marriages as apostates who must undergo disciplinary hearings that will likely result in excommunication. Elder Christofferson suggested that this policy was necessary to, in essence, draw a line in the sand and demonstrate the serious nature of homosexual relationships. This is a particularly baffling stance when compared to Church policies related to other acts of misconduct. The new handbook states that leaders have discretion to initiate discipline against those who have engaged in “attempted murder, forcible rape, sexual abuse, spouse abuse, intentional physical injury of others, adultery, fornication, homosexual relations (especially sexual cohabitation), deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities.…” but must convene a disciplinary council against those who are “in a same-gender marriage.” What doctrinal, scriptural, moral, or legal justification suggests that those in a same-gender marriage are not only on par but somehow worse than rapists and attempted murderers?
Trust God’s Plan
Many members, while expressing shock and surprise to the new policies, shrug off the issue by stating the new policies reflect God’s plan and we should simply follow the prophet. As a preliminary matter, it is unclear whether Church leaders are claiming that the new policies are the product of divine revelation. Regardless, what many members fail to consider is that prophets have repeatedly taught doctrines and implemented practices that were later disavowed as false.
Brigham Young taught a doctrine now known as the “Adam-God theory” over the pulpit at the 1852 and 1854 General Conferences, and even introduced this doctrine at the Lecture at the Veil in the Temple endowment ceremony. (Journal of L. John Nuttall, personal secretary of Brigham Young, February 7, 1877 in BYU Special Collections). Brigham Young also taught a doctrine known as “Blood Atonement,” indicating that murder is so heinous that Christ’s atonement does not apply to murders. Thus, to atone for murder, the perpetrator must have his or her blood shed as a sacrificial offering. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, p. 53–54) Likewise, for close to 130 years, those of African descent were banned from holding the priesthood, and black men and women were prohibited from participating in temple endowment or sealing ordinances.
Simply stated, the Church doesn’t have a great track record on social issues. What compels so many members to follow, support, and defend a policy that has so little justification; fails to productively advance the Church’s interests; portrays the Church as hateful and intolerant; and simply feels wrong?
Recommendations, Questions, and Conclusions
The Church can easily protect its own interests without taking such a heavy-handed and discriminatory approach towards the LGBT community. Here are several suggestions:
First, the church can maintain its stance against gay marriage without designating its participants as apostates. As a preliminary matter, the church rarely disciplines inactive couples who are living together out of wedlock, especially when these individuals have children attending church. Rather, formal discipline is typically initiated only when the member subject to discipline conveys a desire to change and repent.
The church could easily implement the same stance for same-sex couples. Rather than labeling homosexuals apostates and initiating discipline, why not simply allow and invite them to attend church and only move forward with discipline if the member conveys an intent to “change” and “repent.” After all, the church has been very clear that sex outside of marriage and homosexual conduct is sinful. Why is it necessary to also label homosexuals who are legally married “apostates” and move to excommunicate them?
Second, the church should allow ALL children to receive a baby blessing regardless of whether they are children of members of non-members. Why should perfect, innocent children be denied a blessing simply because their parents are gay?
Third, the church should allow all willing children to be baptized so long as they have parental consent. After all, children of parents who are living out of wedlock can be baptized. Why can’t the same policy apply to children of homosexuals?
As a final note, Church members should take Shel Silverstein’s words to heart in considering the new policies. Rather than instinctively deferring to Church leaders for explanation and justification, perhaps more members should ask themselves how they really feel about the Church’s treatment of the LGBT community.
Accept all things in faith by Susan Baugh Carson, I am not raised in the Church but rather I am a “convert”. In deciding, through much prayer and reading,…
Family Letter by Gina Beutler Hello Family, Ben and I have realized there have been speculations involving us and our family concerning the church. This…
13 responses to “Bogus Justifications Behind Church’s New Policies”
George
Eric I will be honest in saying I see a lot of contradictory and confusing messages being delivered. If the church is a fraud and Joseph Smith is not only a fraud but an adulterous liar. Why are you advocating that gay parents allow their children to be baptized into a church that calls their marriage “counterfeit” and their parents “apostates”. The church has stayed consistent with its message about homosexual behavior.
“The unholy transgression of homosexuality is either rapidly growing or tolerance is giving it wider publicity. If one has such desires and tendencies, he overcomes them the same as if he had the urge toward petting or fornication or adultery. The Lord condemns and forbids this practice with a vigor equal to his condemnation of adultery and other such sex acts. And the Church will excommunicate as readily any unrepentant addict.Again, contrary to the belief and statement of many people, this sin, like fornication, is overcomable and forgivable, but again, only upon a deep and abiding repentance, which means total abandonment and complete transformation of thought and act. The fact that some governments and some churches and numerous corrupted individuals have tried to reduce such behavior from criminal offense to personal privilege does not change the nature nor the seriousness of the practice. “(President Spencer W Kimball)
You are not the first person to advocate that the church change its policies to confirm with societal norms and morals and you will not the last be the last. The church is what it is because it does not kowtow to societal changes. There is also a scriptural mandate not to do so.
Ephesians 4:14 14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
You stated “The Church has molded me into a better individual, husband, and father” I believe it has done this by not kowtowing to people who want to change it.
Concerning you statements about protecting the children the church has every right to protect the children and its doctrine. The children of gay parents should not have to hear lessons that their parents are apostates and the church should be able to protect its stances and doctrine from those that they consider apostates. If the church is what you state it is then there are plenty of other institution, organizations, and churches that can mold these children into better individual’s spouses and parents. No harm will come and family continuity will stay consistent if children of gay parents attend other institutions of like morals. If I was you I would advocate that children of gay parents attend churches that confirm to acceptance of the gay lifestyle or at least the acceptance of gay marriage.
George, you are correct that I believe Joseph Smith to be dishonest. I also do not believe many of the Church’s truth claims. But once again, this has very little to do with my article or the legitimacy of the church’s new policies. I’m having trouble understanding why you insist on arguing about “the homosexual lifestyle” and my personal relationship with the church while refusing to address the justifications and impact of the new policies.
Moreover, just because I do not believe the church is what it claims to be does not justify the church in punishing and targeting believing members of the LGBTQ community. Again, I think we could have a more productive conversation if you address the policies themselves rather than my personal relationship with the church.
Furthermore, you claim that the church’s new policies somehow protect children without explaining how. You state that “children of gay parents should not have to hear lessons that their parents are apostates.” I agree, so why is the church insisting on labeling homosexuals apostates? They don’t typically go out of their way to call cohabitating adults apostates. They don’t call individuals who drink or smoke apostates.
Plus, as stated in my article, children of non-member families are routinely taught doctrines at church without regard to how the information might be received at home. Children with parents living outside of wedlock and children of smokers, drinkers, adulterers, liars, fornicators, etc. attend church and are baptized on a regular basis without regard to the familial tension that may result. In fact, the Church regularly baptizes children even when one of the parents vehemently opposes the decision. So what makes homosexuals and the children of homosexuals so terrible that they are not welcome to fully participate at church?
Eric I have given this some thought and I do not think you will agree with anything I have to say but nonetheless I will give you my point of view. This is a complex issue and a simplistic answer to your questions does not do justice in my opinion. The church has stayed consistent with its message that homosexual behavior is a grievous sin that in a lot of cases involves excommunication. This distinguishes itself from some of the examples you listed such lying, drinking and smoking. The church does not excommunicate people for breaking the word of wisdom or lying. I do not know of the church to excommunicate fornicators who are repentant or have not gone through the temple for themselves. The church does excommunicate members for serious sexual sin as stated by the church as adultery and homosexual behavior and pedophilia. That being said the church separates same sex attraction from homosexual behavior. Those who have same sex attraction and don’t act on those feelings are in full fellowship in the church and can hold callings. Groups of people who are homosexual or are sympathetic to the cause distinguish themselves from adulterers of pedophiliacs. Those two groups are not applying pressure to the church to lessen the gravity of their sin or allow them to be in full fellowship of the church. I do not see large groups of adulterers advocating that the church change its policy on adultery or pedophilia you do see that for homosexual behavior. Advocating that the church change its doctrine and trying to get other people to follow is apostasy in its very definition. Another death nail in my opinion that shows the ferocity of which homosexuals and sympathizers are willing to do get what they want.
Eric you make it sound like the quorum of the 12 and the first presidency is maliciously targeting and singling out gay parents and their children when I think the opposite is true.
As stated gays and those sympathize with their cause are targeting the church. The church has worked with the gay community in passing anti-discrimination laws involving housing and employment. Dallin H Oaks not too long ago criticized Kim Davis for not handing out gay marriage licenses. I don’t see this as malicious and the idea that the church wanting to target gays is unfounded. I think its gays who are trying to make inroads into the church that the church has needed to make a stand. They have made it very clear to those members who sympathize with homosexual behavior the seriousness of the sin.
Maybe some of the inroads that were trying to be made is allowing gay parents to bless their children. That does not sound too bad but it’s a priesthood function that involves worthiness issues. Under the churches position of worthiness those who participate in the homosexual lifestyle would not be worthy to participate in a baby blessing even if it’s their own child. For all I know maybe there are sympathetic bishops or do not have the same stance on this issue as the church does who are allowing those in the homosexual lifestyle to bless their children. I think the quorum of the 12 and the first presidency would see this as unacceptable. But this is an example of me speculating.
I don’t think the First Presidency wanted this to happened but their hand was forced to do so by the pressure being applied by former members and a small minority of current members.
I followed a link to your article posted on social media, and I find it to be full of inaccuracies. While I understand why the gay community is riled up about the policy changes, I want to correct a couple of your points. First of all, the church will not baptize a minor child if one parent ‘vehemently” disagrees. I was a Primary president and this situation arose in my ward and the child was not baptized because his father disagreed. The child continues to attend with his mother, and is fully included in all church related activities. No, he won’t get the priesthood at twelve, but his neighbor friends and church leaders all are sensitive to his situation and respectful of the father’s wishes. Second, you use temple marriage to support your claim that the church is divisive to families, but a temple marriage is chosen by adult children who are fully aware of the choice and mature enough to handle the family conflict that may arise from it. So, your example actually bolsters the claim of LDS leaders that children should not have to handle the conflict that may arise when they learn at church that the parents that they love are embracing a serious transgression as normal and natural. Third, our society in general sanctions rapists, murderers, and adulterers. Children know those choices are wrong by messages they recieve from society as a whole. With continuing cultural acceptance of same sex marriage the spiritual danger of homosexual activity is blunted and it becomes necessary for children to fully understand why homosexual transgressions are a sin before they make a covenant with God. Eight year olds who are surrounded by families where both parents accept church doctrine in this matter have the benefit of a heterosexual parenting model to learn from. Children of same sex partners do not. Fourth, I believe it is important to remember two things. This policy is not absolute, there is the option of an appeal to general authorities for permission and if a bishop feels an exception is warranted, then there is an avenue for that. Also, this policy does not “punish” the child, it simply acknowledges the serious nature of homosexual sin and the fact that children should not be placed in conflict with the people who are raising them.
Shelley, thanks for weighing in. However, your “corrections” need some correcting.
First, you claim that the church will not baptize a minor child if one parent does not consent. You base this assertion entirely off one anecdotal experience. However, your assertion is not accurate. The Church’s General Handbook of Instruction #1 only requires the consent of the custodial parents. Thus, a child can be baptized even when a non-custodial parent vehemently opposes it. Moreover, if you want to add anecdotal experiences to the equation, you can find scores of examples where a custodial parent was unaware of his/her child’s baptism or unfamiliar with the objection policy.
Second, I am having trouble following your argument about the tension this new policy may create. In my article, I never stated that temple marriage is divisive to families, although I know of many, many people who have been excluded from marriage ceremonies who would disagree with you.
Third, you made several dubious claims without any support. Namely, you claim that same-sex marriage blunts the “spiritual danger of homosexual activity.” What are you basing this on? And what spiritual danger does homosexual activity cause? Moreover, in the eyes of the church, what makes two loving and committed same-sex adults who are legally married so much worse than two heterosexual adults who are living together outside of wedlock? Why can children of parents who are living outside of wedlock be baptized when children of homosexual couples cannot? In both instances, the church views the parents as engaging in sinful behavior but why are homosexuals so much worse than others?
Fourth, you noted that the new church policies are “not absolute.” If this is the case, isn’t it acceptable for members to stand against these new policies and ask that they be changed, particularly when they think they are wrong?
Studies have shown that people who live a homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy.
A far-ranging study of homosexual men published by the American Psychiatric Association backed when it considered the lifestyle unhealthy found 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100–249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250- 499; 15 percent claimed 500–999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners.5By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984.6
According to data obtained in a 2000 survey in Australia that tracked whether men who had sex with men were associated with the gay community. Men who were associated with the gay community were nearly four times as likely to have had more than 50 sex partners in the six months preceding the survey as men who were not associated with the gay community.
Also according to recent statistics gays are 6 times more likely to get a sexually transmitted disease.
Studies have also shown nationwide that gays have a shorter lifespan.
Studies have shown nationwide that gays are more likely to commit suicide.
George, you fail to see the point. You are arguing that the “homosexual lifestyle,” whatever that means, is unhealthy. My article addresses the justifications behind the church’s new policies. These are very different issues. We could likely have a more productive conversation if you address the substance of my article rather than arguing with your straw man. Notably, you are starting with the faulty premise that sexual orientation is a “lifestyle” (and, by implication, a choice), and then suggesting that individuals who live this lifestyle are “unhealthy.” None of this is all that relevant to my article.
Besides, the new policies, by and large, target the CHILDREN of same-sex couples far more than the parents. Thus, even if the “homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy,” why would the church punish children for their parents’ “sins”?
Perhaps a more relevant issue you should examine is the well-being of children raised by same-sex couples. A research team at Columbia Law School conducted one of the most exhaustive analyses of peer-reviewed studies on same-sex parenting published over the last 30 years. The initiative sought to answer the following question, “What does the scholarly research say about the well-being of children with gay or lesbian parents?”
Exceptional article. Well written. I have in life learned that the LDS church was not what I thought it to be or taught on my mission. This new policy has shown me it is not an institution with any Christian honor or integrity. Victimising beautiful children to Punish a parent. What a despicable organisation. So glad my wife and I formally detached ourselves from it once we discovered the truth about its history Thank you And for those impacted by this, don’t let it hold you back in life. You are wonderful, and you are loved. They are petty, mean spirited and irrelevant
I agree. My first thought on this was it is a move to protect them from future lawsuits or similar actions, however I think the children’s exclusions show their hand. They want to cut out the “cancer” of LGBT supporters to “save” the body…
It is really sad they felt they needed to go to this extreme.
Thanks, Wes. With respect to the “apostate” policy, I think the church can take a clear stance against gay marriage without designating its participants apostates. From my perspective, the church rarely disciplines inactive couples who are living together out of wedlock, especially when these individuals have children attending church. Initiating discipline in such a scenario often breeds resentment and would likely result in the children not coming back to church. Typically, formal discipline is initiated only when the member subject to discipline conveys a desire to repent. In one of my previous wards, dozens of members and primary children had parents cohabitating with members of the opposite sex. However, discipline was not initiated unless it involved an endowed member who wanted to move forward with the repentance process.
The reason I mention this is because the church could easily implement the same stance for same-sex couples. Rather than labeling them apostates and initiating discipline, why not simply allow them to attend and only move forward with discipline if the member conveys an intent to fully “repent.” After all, the church has been very clear that sex outside of marriage and homosexual conduct is sinful. The new policy changes don’t productively address the situation.
I think there is big difference comparing heterosexuals who are unwed vs a homosexual couple who are married or in a partnership.
In in order for a unwed heterosexual couple to be in good standing they need to get married.
In order for a married homosexual couple to be in good standing they have to get a divorce and completely denounce their former gay lifestyle. I can’t see that process happening overnight.
Leave a Reply to B0yd Cancel reply