I’ve decided to say some things related to the LDS Church’s recent policy change, wherein being in a same-sex marriage is now ruled as a definition of “apostasy,” and the children of any parent involved in a same-sex marriage or similar relationship are denied baptism until at least the age of 18.
I am not discussing same-sex marriage or homosexuality itself in this post, but focusing exclusively on the policy change, its problems, and later the feeble attempts made to defend the policy.
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AS APOSTASY
First, I want to look at the portion of the policy change wherein same-sex marriage is now categorized as “apostasy.” Here is the how the content is presented in the Church Handbook of Instructions, Vol. 1:
“Apostasy
As used here, apostasy refers to members who:
1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.
2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
4. Are in a same-gender marriage.
5. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.”
My first note would be that all of these items actually fail to respect the definition of the word “Apostasy,” instead applying some unwritten interpretation of the word which somehow encompasses these now five points. The actual definition of “apostasy,” which is “An abandonment of what one has professed; a total desertion, or departure from one's faith or religion,” (Webster’s 1828 Dictionary) is not actually found as grounds for disciplinary action under the charge of “apostasy.” (I’ve written more about the Church's interpreted definitions of Apostasy HERE.) If a person is actually guilty of “apostasy” according to its dictionary definition, the Church’s response is generally not disciplinary at all, but rather the apostate becomes a pet project to throw the missionaries and home teachers at, in an effort to reclaim them.
So to actually engage in dictionary-defined “apostasy” is to spark the interest of the Church and become a target of their efforts at reclamation, but to engage in these five other behaviors is to warrant being charged with “apostasy” and summarily excommunicated for it. Sure, that makes sense.
The second note would be that same-gender marriage was already considered a sin according to Church policy. To enter into a same-sex marriage warranted discipline and excommunication prior to this policy change, on its own merits. Therefore it was completely unnecessary to re-categorize it.
Unless, you were to stop looking at it from a spiritual or religious standpoint, and start looking at it from a purely legal, Telestial standpoint.
Rock Waterman addressed this point extremely well, I recommend you read his analysis HERE. In short, by categorizing same-sex marriage as “apostasy,” the Church is hedging itself against certain inevitable legal battles, wherein parties would attempt to make the Church accept and practice same-sex marriage. At present, in theory, a church cannot be forced to adopt positions that they consider to represent an “apostasy” (using the proper definition of the word) from their beliefs. (Disregarding the fact that it has already happened in the past—polygamy anyone?) So by labeling same-sex marriage as “apostasy,” the Church theoretically protects itself against a certain form of legal attack that could make the Church adopt same-sex marriage.
While that could be what motivated this change, I have another theory as to the motivations for these policy changes, which I will address later.
CONCERNING CHILDREN OF SAME-SEX PARENTS
This is where things have gotten the most heated, the most sticky, the most debated and discussed. There is a lot to look at.
The policy changes concerning children read as follows:
“Children of a Parent Living in a Same-Gender Relationship
A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing.
A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may be baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows:
A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met:
1. The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.
2. The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage.”
DENIAL OF A NAME AND BLESSING
Let’s start with the first sentence, prohibiting the infant of a same-sex relationship parent from receiving a name and a blessing. This is actually a pairing of two things - a naming, and a blessing. Concerning this blessing which the infant cannot receive, the LDS Church freely offers priesthood blessings upon request to even the most vile of sinners. There are no prohibitions as to who may receive a blessing. That is, until now. No effort is made to clarify that the newborn may still receive a blessing, but may not receive a name. Read the words. Innocent infants have indeed been made the first target of official denial of a priesthood blessing.
While the Church would not claim that this paired naming and blessing is a “saving ordinance,” it is an ordinance nonetheless. It is treated as such in Handbook 1 (Section 16.2), which means we place spiritual importance upon it. The whole idea behind an ordinance is that it is something which God has ordained that we do. If God ordained for us to name our children, making it an ordinance, then we have an obligation to follow it. The idea that receiving a name is an important matter in the eyes of God is further strengthened by the temple, wherein part of the higher ordinances include the reception of a new name.
These children are denied this ordinance, not postponed, as it cannot be made up when they are 18. Children conceived and/or born out of wedlock are not prohibited from receiving this ordinance, and neither are the children of murderers, or any other form of sinner. This has not even been levied against the children of polygamists, which children the Church and its defenders have sought very hard to draw parallels to with this policy (an issue itself, to be addressed). Yet because of their parents being involved in this one form of sin, which has nothing to do with the baby itself, this ordinance is not postponed but literally denied to innocent infants.
So, what reason could the Church possibly have for denying innocent infants an ordinance? Certainly not a godly one, but perhaps a legal one, if their only concern is the self-interest of the corporate “Church.” When an infant is named and blessed, that child becomes a “child of record.” While technically not a “member” of the Church, not having been baptized yet, a named and blessed baby is placed upon the records of the Church and counted as a member in the annual membership statistics.
As the Church has included within this policy change the postponement (read—denial) of baptism for the children of parents in same-sex relationships, the question comes up of what to do with children of record in that position? If a child is already found on the membership records of the Church, being a “child of record,” it becomes not only reasonably but perhaps legally difficult to turn around and tell that child that they are going to be denied the rights and privileges of membership, when they are already counted on the records as members.
By denying any hint of membership to these children of parents involved in a very specific behavior, the Church can mostly hedge itself against this indefensible position. And if the number of children with gay parents who desire baptism is small enough, then they are a problem that can be swept under the rug and out of the light by both leaders and members, falling through the cracks and disappearing.
There is also the problem that this restriction kicks in even if the child has only one gay parent, and one straight one. The child may have a fully active, fully worthy LDS parent on one side, raising their child in the gospel, but the sin of the other parent taints the child beyond the Church's willingness to participate or serve in the child's salvation until 18 or older. They will not grant the ordinances for the sake of the faithful, straight parent. This faithful parent must also suffer the Church's injustice in watching their child be singled out and punished for the behaviors of the one who was once their spouse or significant other.
Such treatment of both the faithful parents and their children has already proven so grotesquely offensive that many parents and children recently resigned from the Church in response to the Church's abuse disguised as feigned love and concern. To speak of love and compassion and understanding on the one hand, and then take the actions entailed with this policy on the other, is to reveal exactly the two-faced nature the Lord observed of the latter-day Gentiles (JS-H 1:19), among whom He established a church through Joseph (D&C 109:60).
So, in short, due to the very specific sin of their parent(s), and in spite of the worthiness of the other parent and/or themselves, an innocent infant is entirely denied one of the ordinances of the gospel, and any hinting of Church membership, until 18 or older.
“POSTPONING” BAPTISM UNTIL 18
The remainder of the policy change concerning children of those involved in same-sex relationships consists of denying these children the opportunity to be baptized until they are 18 years old, no longer live with their gay parent(s), and have specifically disavowed gay unions.
To deny a child the privilege of baptism until the age of 18 has some serious problems, assuming one believes and understands the gospel. Sadly, that tends to be too large an assumption. But let’s look at what the scriptures say anyway.
The Lord invites and commands all mankind, everywhere, to repent and be baptized (Alma 5:62; Alma 7:14; 3 Nephi 27:20).
If any person repents of their sins–no mention of another's–and seeks baptism, it is to be performed (2 Nephi 31:13; 3 Nephi 11:23). One would think that is enough, but it apparently is not, so let us continue.
We are explicitly not to be punished for the sins of others, even our own parents (Ezekiel 18:19-20; Article of Faith 2).
None are forbidden from repenting and coming to Christ (2 Nephi 26:28).
Baptism is essential to coming to Christ (2 Nephi 31:10-21; 3 Nephi 11:31-40; 3 Nephi 27:20). Even the Church teaches this (see “How to Come Unto Christ,” Sept. 1992 Ensign).
Of all those we are not to forbid from coming unto Christ, children are named (Matthew 19:14; Mark 10:14; Luke 18:16).
We are not to forbid children from coming unto Christ, in part because we ourselves are commanded to “become as a little child,” for such is the Kingdom of God (Matthew 18:3; 3 Nephi 11:37-38). The Kingdom of God is apparently not described as being made up of those who are of “legal” age.
In the LDS Church, we are commanded to have our children baptized at the age of 8 (D&C 68:27). If a child has one LDS parent and one same-sex relationship parent, the faithful LDS parent is rendered incapable of fulfilling the commandment placed upon them, by the institution of the Church. The Church literally obstructs the keeping of what it itself claims is a commandment. No man or institution has the right to insert themselves and nullify God’s word in scripture (D&C 1:38), to believe such is absolute folly and to be lost in darkness.
So if you have an 8-year-old child, with supportive and/or consenting parents, who is unsaddled with their own sins, worthily desiring to accept Christ’s invitation for baptism, according to their own scriptural rights to agency (2 Nephi 2:16; D&C 58:28; Moses 6:55-56)—upon which our very existence relies (D&C 93:30-31)—the Church will deny that child baptism, for no other reason than the actions of their parent(s). That is a clear offense against the agency of both the child and the parents. To offend the agency of another, especially with claims of it being for their own good, is undeniably Luciferian (Moses 4:1, 3). It is the devil’s doctrine, taught and practiced by his agents.
This additional 10-year waiting period imposed upon 8-year-old children worthy of baptism also fails to take into account a number of matters, when promising that the ordinance is not being “denied,” but merely postponed until they are of legal age. Reasons why a child who desires baptism at 8 may not seek baptism at 18 include, but are not limited to, the following:
- The child may die. (Relying on rites for the dead to undo this is foolish and based in darkness. It reveals a blindness concerning how rites for the dead work, and fails to note that if the child was worthy, but denied baptism as an unjust measure by an institution seeking to posture against their gay parent(s), then that unjust institution cannot claim valid authority in God’s eyes in performing the rite for the dead child, having offended a Just God and thereby surrendered claims to His authority (D&C 121:36-37). Reclaiming validity in the performance of the ordinance would require repenting of this injustice.)
- The child may recognize the unscriptural injustice waged against them, and lose interest in joining themselves to an unjust institution that claims to represent a Just God.
- The child may take emotional offense to the treatment they or their parents have received at the hand of the Church, and make an emotional decision to turn against the Church, and the gospel.
- The child may become embroiled in the distractions of teenage life, and having been denied the opportunity of receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost (a matter to be addressed shortly), feels little or no inclination to depart from the Babylonian distractions and seek something higher.
When a person is baptized, they are then to receive the Holy Ghost (2 Nephi 31:12-13; D&C 39:23). This gift is incredibly powerful, being both sufficient and intended to lead those who receive it to eternal life (2 Nephi 31:17-21 and 32:5), the greatest gift of God (D&C 14:7). The Church still teaches how crucial this gift is to children as they develop into adults and navigate the difficulties of this world (see “How do I receive the gift of the Holy Ghost?” and “What are the roles of the Holy Ghost?” These are lessons specifically for the young men and women of the LDS Church).
Now, these policy changes necessitate an entirely different stance on the value of and need for the Gift of the Holy Ghost. It necessarily shifts the Church’s position to one of this Gift being of minimal value and importance, and arguably even non-essential. For if it were essential or valuable, it would not be superseded by the legal posturing of the Church against homosexual relationships. The Church could maintain a stance against homosexual relationships, but acknowledge that the need for the Holy Ghost to guide a person is sufficiently important that a youth who qualifies as repentant of their sins and is seeking to come unto Christ through baptism should absolutely receive the ordinance, so that they might lay hold on this crucial gift. This was actually closer to the position of the Church prior to the policy change. To deny worthy youth of this gift for the actions of their parent(s) is to place those youth in an unnecessary degree of eternal jeopardy, according to the Church's own teachings.
Further, the notion of “postponing” a baptism should be offensive to us the same as it is offensive to God, because this postponement arguably procrastinates the day of these children’s repentance, that procrastination being chosen by the Church and imposed upon the children. We are warned not to procrastinate the day of our repentance, for this is the day of our probation (Alma 13:27; Alma 34:33-35; Helaman 13:38). In other words, all choices are made only in the present. IOUs for future choices hold no water, because those IOUs may never be fulfilled. Therefore it is only the choices we make in the present that matter, each and every present moment. It doesn’t matter if the Church promises baptism later, their present position is to deny a saving ordinance to those who might in all ways qualify to receive it. When those accountable are brought to stand before God, and asked why they denied worthy and desirous children this saving ordinance, they will learn the hard way that you cannot rationalize with God.
NO LONGER LIVING WITH THE GAY PARENT(S)
The second restriction placed upon the children with gay parentage is that they can no longer be living with their parents. This restriction is coupled with the requirement to be 18 or older, the Handbook does not allow for the separation of the two. According to this verbiage—a crucial matter in lawyerly documents like the Handbook—a child may indeed be 18, a full-blown legal adult, and worthy of baptism in every way, but if they still live in the same residence as a parent who is in a gay relationship, whether for practical or economic or other purposes, they will be barred from baptism. They are still considered, in the eyes of the Church, incapable of making the decision to be baptized and handling the consequences of that decision on their own or with their family members. The Church deems that they have the special privilege of making that determination for this legal adult themselves.
The “clarification”
The Church attempted to make a “clarification” shortly after this policy change, which affects the reading of this restriction. The distinction they seek to make is that this restriction applies to those whose “primary residence” is with their gay parent(s). This clarification also determined that those who are the children of gay parents but have already been baptized, are grandfathered in and will suffer no further loss or procrastination of any other ordinances.
This doubles down on some of the original problems. First, trying to clarify that it is only applicable to those whose “primary residence” is with their gay parent(s) doesn’t alter one whit that they are still tyrannically negating the agency of a legal adult to seek ordinances, because the Church believes it has a special privilege in determining what can and cannot be allowed to take place with regard to a household of adults. It isn't applicable to children under 18 living with gay parents, because their age has already disqualified them in the eyes of the Church. So this only applies to legal adults who are 18 or older. Those adults not “privileged” to be living with a straight parent—whether it is because they have no living or present straight parent, or because they are taking care of their gay parent(s) in a state of illness, or due to economic hardship afflicting the parent or the prospective baptizee or both—are simply barred from a saving ordinance, by the Church, due to circumstances that don’t necessarily say anything about their worthiness and deny the agency of the individuals. This is a grievous perversion, an abomination.
Secondly, by grandfathering in those children who have already snuck a baptism in prior to the new policy, it creates a very real class distinction which will certainly lead to further division within the Church. It will confuse the children on both sides of the issue, because children in their simple wisdom will see that God, not being a respecter of persons, would not allow for one of them to receive ordinances and bar another, when both are equally situated and personally qualified. This absurdity will certainly instill great doubt into many (as it already has), and drive them from the Church. Not only the children, but the straight (and gay) parents of those children afflicted by the Church’s cursing upon their children.
THEY MUST DISAVOW THE PRACTICE OF HOMOSEXUAL UNION
The additional requirement that the children of gay parents must specifically disavow homosexual unions as a prerequisite of baptism and entry to the Church is a double standard that also necessarily negates another official position of the Church.
Apostle Christofferson—a character sitting rather centered in the Church’s same-sex discussion—officially and publicly declared that members of the Church who support same-sex marriage are free to do so publicly (see HERE). Members are free to openly disagree with the Church on this matter, without any fear of Church discipline of any sort, so long as they don't seek to combat the Church directly. They will not lose temple recommends or church membership, meaning they remain worthy to not only be members in the LDS Church but to receive the highest privileges offered to members.
So, the official stance of the LDS Church is that you can support the same-sex marriage of your grandpa or grandma, your aunts or your uncles, your sister or brother, your cousin or best friend, and the Church will do nothing. You are considered worthy of all they have to offer you, and are invited to receive such.
But if you support the same-sex marriage of even one parent, you are only allowed in the Church if you were grandfathered in. Hell, you don't even have to support their same-sex partnership. It simply has to exist, with or without your approval, and you have special restrictions placed on you because of them. Even if they give you their full consent and support to join the Church, you are simply, plainly unwelcome until 18 or older. Period.
Saying such people are welcome to attend church and its activities is an insulting slap in the face, not a comforting show of compassion. Only fools would think this is graciousness on the part of the church. The church’s primary function is supposed to be saving souls, but if the church refuses to assist you in the salvation of your soul because of gay parentage, hey, they will let you come to church and watch others get their souls saved through the church’s ordinances. That's like telling those afflicted with cancer that you won't treat them, but you will let them visit the cancer ward and watch others receive treatment.
That's dark and perverse, not compassionate and understanding.
Furthermore, this mandate creates a new creed of belief which the Church imposes upon its members and their rights to conscience. The scriptures do not allow for man to be punished for their beliefs (Alma 30:7, 11; Article of Faith 11), but that evidently doesn’t stop the Church from trying. They themselves said, through Christofferson’s announcement above, that supporting same-sex relationships is not grounds for church punishment. But to then specifically require this disavowal, in diametric opposition to the prior stated position, before being willing to allow a person to receive saving ordinances, is for the Church to place itself squarely between a rock and a hard place. Either they cannot enforce this policy, or they must make themselves—through Christofferson’s official statement—liars, for declaring that holding beliefs opposed to the Church’s in this matter would not be grounds for punishment or discipline, and then doing precisely the opposite. They cannot be honest and simultaneously uphold this restriction.
Next, I will take a look at the defenses that have been erected since the policy change, in an effort to shore up claims that the change is not evil or perverse. It will not be exhaustive, but hopefully I address most of the points that people are being fooled into thinking are solid ground to build this shaky policy on.
