It's with some trepidation that I've decided to wade into the Facebook firestorm discussion about the change in LDS policy on gay partnerships and associated families. Warning: very long post. Please only read this if you are genuinely interested in what *I* have to say, not if you are looking for someone to rubber-stamp *your* own opinions (on either side of this issue!), nor if you are looking for a battle. I'm not writing this to attempt to persuade anyone here on anything, I'm doing this to express my own views so that my friends will know what *I* think. You're welcome to post your own views below, whether they agree with my own or not, but please do so in the same spirit--to share how you feel, and not to attack others or try to persuade them that they are stupid, wrong, bigoted, etc. (If you any attacking, I may remove your post.) Consider that that probably wouldn't work anyway, because everyone likely already has their own minds made up about this. That being said, maybe what I have to say will still give some of you some food for thought.
First, if you don't know the new policy, google it. My advice is to read websites hosted by both pro- and anti-LDS sources, so you get a more well rounded explanation. For the purposes of this post, I'm going to focus on the policy that involves children living with gay parents, because that seems to be the most controversial and is the one on which I’ve given the most thought. The heart of the change in policy there is that such children will have to wait until age 18 before joining the church (if they so desire), and that in order to join the church they will need to affirm a belief in the church's teachings against homosexual behavior in general, and against gay marriage in specific.
There are certainly reasons to be outraged by this and there are reasons NOT to be outraged, and I suspect most people will find whichever they are looking for. If you know someone who will be adversely affected by this change in policy, then it's only natural, and for that matter, only right to be focused on how this will affect your friend/family member. And so some outrage makes sense. But by the same token, there may well be families that this new policy will HELP, so there are similarly reasons to refrain from outrage. For example, what seemed clear to me from the outset is that this policy is motivated at least in part by a desire to protect the children in those situations from an untenable situation, where they would join a church that teaches their parent or parents' behavior is sinful and should be rejected. (The behavior should be rejected, I mean, obviously not the parents themselves; more on that below.) If a child wants to make that decision later, when he or she is an adult and more capable of dealing with family dynamics, then it will be permitted.
Another thing that was clear to me from the outset is that this is a *policy*, not a *doctrine*. The LDS doctrine is, and has long been, that homosexual behavior is sinful, and homosexual unions are not recognized in the sight of God. That shouldn't be news to anyone who is interested enough in this topic to have read this far. So that doctrine hasn't changed, nor do I expect it to change. If you are outraged because you hoped for a change to that doctrine, then it makes sense that you are disappointed and if you are an LDS church member maybe you should question whether your previous views were in fact in harmony with the gospel and with the church.
But policies can and do change. This policy could be changed next week, next month, or next year. I should note that it's also very possible to still support the church while disagreeing with some of its policies. For example, I disagree with the policy of not allowing caffeinated beverages to be sold on BYU campus. I think that’s stupid. I disagree with the policy of temple workers not being able to have beards (I think that's still a policy, anyway). I disagree with the policy of making couples in the US who get married civilly before getting married in the temple wait a year before getting sealed in the temple. I think that’s painful to some families and a change in policy should be made.
Do I fully agree with this policy? I'm not sure. As mentioned, I see some reasons for it and I see some reasons against it. I do think it makes sense to make sure people who want to join the church support the official church doctrine on this and other matters, but perhaps gay marriage shouldn't be singled out quite in this way. Also, I think it does make perfect sense to not put 8 year olds in a position where they would need to affirm they support the church's teachings on homosexual behavior (which they likely can’t even fully understand at that age) while living with someone who clearly feels otherwise. It seems to me that 14 year olds might be mature enough to deal with it, though, so maybe if I had designed the policy I would have set the age requirement lower than 18. I don’t think church members should just blindly agree with this policy, then, and perhaps some bounce-back from church members is good. Perhaps the policy could be reshaped to be less hurtful to those caught in the situation. It's also not clear to me from reading the policy language what will be the case for children in joint custody situations, where (by way of example) they live part time with a parent who is an active LDS member, and part time with a parent who not LDS and in a gay marriage. Unless I've missed something, that should be made more explicit, and in my opinion not treated quite the same as children who live full-time with parents in gay relationships. So I guess my bottom line for this thought is that church leaders are not perfect and undoubtedly this policy is not perfect. Maybe there could be a more humane (not quite sure if that's the exact right word, but I'll go with it) way of dealing with the situation than this, and other options should certainly be pondered and considered by church leaders.
Next thought... there seems to be a feeling that gays are being singled out in this. What many people don't seem to realize is that this same policy has already been in place for many years with regards to children living with polygamous parents. And for exactly the same reasons--the church wants to (a) make sure the individuals support church doctrine that their parents' lifestyle is not acceptable and (b) make sure that the children are mature enough to deal with the family repercussions that will undoubtedly arise from their rejection of their parents' lifestyle.
Another way that this situation is not unique to gay families: I’ve seen many people say that “This is horrible because forcing the individuals to reject their parents' lifestyle will cause familial disharmony”. That, in fact, is ALWAYS going to be the case when someone comes to believe that other family members are not living the way they should. There is nothing specific to gay marriage in that. I think that's exactly what Jesus was talking about when he said (from Matt 10)
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
In the end, an individual is going to stand before God and be held accountable for how they lived their life. Therefore they need to make sure they are acting in harmony with God’s teachings and His spirit—both in rejection of sinful behaviors themselves, and also in how they choose to express their rejection of sinful behaviors in others.
Next, I'd like to address two straw men that I've seen repeatedly. First is the statement that children are being required to "reject their parents". No. Rejecting their parents' *lifestyle* is very different than rejecting the parents themselves. And nowhere does the church teach that one should not associate with family members who believe and act differently than you. Quite the contrary, the church teaches that family relationships should be maintained and respected even in those cases where family members are acting against what the church itself teaches. There is no “shunning” in the LDS church.
The second straw man is those who are quoting Article of Faith #2, "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression," as a rebuttal to the new policy. That's just plain idiotic in my opinion (pardon the strong language), because nowhere in this policy is the church saying that children in that situation will be damned because they weren't baptized at age 8! That verse is talking about *eternal punishment* after all, it's not discussing whether children will ever end up in a less-than-desirable situation due to their parents' actions. That clearly *does* happen ALL THE TIME in this world. But in the eternal scheme, the church has always taught, and continues to teach, that the children will indeed only be responsible before God for their own sins.
That being said, there is certainly the possibility here that children in such circumstances, namely ones that come to church but are for the time being prevented from being the baptized will experience rejection and cruelty from their peers in church because they are different. That must not happen! Local church leaders will need to be very vigilant to make sure the children don't suffer like that from this policy change.
Lastly, I finally have to wonder how many children will actually even ever be in this situation? Unless I’m greatly mistaken it's already been church policy for a very long time that minors must get parental approval before joining the church. Are many people in gay unions giving approval for their children who are living with them to be baptized into a church that teaches that their union is sinful and against God's law? I doubt it's a frequent occurrence, at least not for children who are 8 years old. Perhaps with teenagers it could happen more often, which I suppose is part of the reason for my thought above that maybe the age requirement should be 14 instead of 18.
That's all I've got for now. If you made it to the end I hope you found some things in there that were of interest to you.
