Now that a little time has passed, I’ve had the chance to see what defenses would be put forth to shore up this policy change, and consider them. Sad to say, all of them buckle under the weight of scripture, and reveal the state of deep darkness that mainstream LDS practitioners have unwittingly spiraled into in their sleep.
Again, I will not be speaking to homosexuality or same-sex marriage themselves in this post. I will only be addressing the defenses crafted to support and uphold the recent policy changes.
Of course, the position I take in opposition to the policy changes has been disregarded by most LDS membership with such labels as “unthinking,” or “couch philosophers.” Therefore consider yourself warned, you may be reading the words of an unthinking, lunatic couch philosopher. I will leave it to you to find and read the defenses of the policy on your own, and evaluate my position against them as you see fit.
Some of what I say may be redundant, but this is due to the nature of trying to address varying points made by defenders of the Church. A given scriptural principle may be abused, defied and neglected by multiple defenses. Therefore, such principles may be revisited as they get offended by each defense.
RELEASE THE CHRISTOFFERSON!
When the policy change was leaked (because it was not publicly shared by the Church, who seek to keep Handbook 1 away from the eyes of not only the world, but all general, non-leader membership of the Church), there was an immediate backlash and uproar. It was only a few days before the Church sent Elder Christofferson out for a softball interview, in which he could attempt to spin the understanding of the policy change in a way that would appease as many of the masses as possible. You can watch the interview HERE.
In this interview, Christofferson made statements and took positions around which many church members built their defenses. As his interview was the first (and so far only) official defense of the policy put forth by the Church, it gets first looks.
Much of what Christofferson had to say is either not relevant to this discussion, or simply did not add up as intended. For example, discussing the freedom to give anyone a blessing of healing, and the Church's continuing attempts to hold the line against sin while extending a hand of compassion to people, are not directly relevant to the issue. His assertions that they needed to make the standard concerning same-sex marriage more clear through this policy doesn't actually compute as he implied, because entering a same-sex marriage was already an offense warranting excommunication, the highest punishment the Church offers. Reclassifying it as "apostasy" doesn't make the line any clearer or stronger, it just repositions it in a practically ineffective way. (However, this reclassification is a sound legal strategy for hedging the interests of the institutional Church against certain types of lawsuits.)
Moving on to what I see as the relevant content of the interview, Christofferson asserted that the policy change "originates from a desire to protect children, in their innocence and in their minority years."
I won't say that they have no desire to protect children, especially in their innocence or minority years. I'm sure they do. But as he continues, the things that the Church would protect these children against are, according to the Church's own scriptures and doctrines, tiny matters in comparison to the massive risks the Church is opening these children up to by refusing them ordinances. And the methods they are using to "protect" them are devilish, not Divine.
Much of what Christofferson had to say is either not relevant to this discussion, or simply did not add up as intended. For example, discussing the freedom to give anyone a blessing of healing, and the Church's continuing attempts to hold the line against sin while extending a hand of compassion to people, are not directly relevant to the issue. His assertions that they needed to make the standard concerning same-sex marriage more clear through this policy doesn't actually compute as he implied, because entering a same-sex marriage was already an offense warranting excommunication, the highest punishment the Church offers. Reclassifying it as "apostasy" doesn't make the line any clearer or stronger, it just repositions it in a practically ineffective way. (However, this reclassification is a sound legal strategy for hedging the interests of the institutional Church against certain types of lawsuits.)
Moving on to what I see as the relevant content of the interview, Christofferson asserted that the policy change "originates from a desire to protect children, in their innocence and in their minority years."
I won't say that they have no desire to protect children, especially in their innocence or minority years. I'm sure they do. But as he continues, the things that the Church would protect these children against are, according to the Church's own scriptures and doctrines, tiny matters in comparison to the massive risks the Church is opening these children up to by refusing them ordinances. And the methods they are using to "protect" them are devilish, not Divine.
From the eternal perspective–the one that apparently matters to God, if the prophets in scripture have anything to say about it–refusing ordinances of salvation, by withholding baptism and the Holy Ghost, simply to remove a single point of potential contention or difficulty in a youth's tumultuous life, is about as poor a trade as could be made. It is removing protection against tanks to make way for mosquito repellant. For all the desire to protect children, the policy has a net result that does precisely the opposite.
Christofferson also explained that the naming and blessing of a child triggers the creation of a membership record, home teachers, etc. This would lead to expectations by the Church for primary and church attendance, and "that is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting where they're living."
Here, the Church is both playing the odds, and determining for a family what they may or may not deem "appropriate" in their home. Because they think it "likely" that this situation would be unwanted in the home, they entirely remove it as an option. The households with same-sex parents no longer have the option to determine whether they want their children to be members, or whether home teachers would be welcome for them, because the Church doesn't think it "likely" that such could occur. Never mind that it has occurred and does occur. Never mind that prior to the change, a family could decide for themselves if this situation was inappropriate for their home and the Church would respect that decision. Now the Church has made a blanket policy, without exceptions, which determines for a certain type of household what gets to be deemed "appropriate" within their walls, on the basis that the Church believes their own evaluation is "likely" correct.
When asked about the policy changes preventing the children of gay parentage from naming and blessing and baptismal ordinances, he shared the following:
"We don't want there to be the conflicts that that would engender. We don't want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different."
Well, that's not your damn place. Conflict and disagreement is normal. The fact is, if the child believes in the gospel as taught by the Church, they will believe it regardless of baptism or membership, so the conflict and disagreement would still exist. This policy resolves no conflict there. But if a child wants baptism and has the support of their gay parent(s), and it is the Church who refuses to accept them through this policy, on no other basis than the same-sex relationship of their parents, there probably isn't a better way to offend and confuse and turn away such youth from ever having an interest in joining the ranks of the Church.
"And so with the other ordinances on through baptism and so on. There's time for that if when a child reaches majority he or she feels like that's what they want. And they can make an informed and conscious decision about that."
The scriptures of the Church argue that a child is capable of making such an "informed and conscious decision" in this matter at the age of eight, and parents are commanded to see that they have the chance to do so (D&C 68:27). It is only the Church that sees fit to throw these scriptures to the wind.
"Nothing is lost to them in the end if that's the direction they want to go."
That's a huge assumption. As noted in my last post, it assumes that the child is alive; that the child hasn't been offended by the policy; that the child hasn't seen the unjust policy as a sign that the leadership of the Church isn't listening to God; that the child hasn't been overtaken by the world, not having had the Holy Ghost as their companion because they were refused baptism; and many more things. If these assumptions don't pan out, accountability for those lost children will rest, at least in part, upon the shoulders of the leaders who enacted this policy.
"And in the meantime, they're not placed in a position where there will be difficulties, challenges, conflicts that can injure their development in very tender years."
Bullshit. Have the leaders never been adolescents? There's essentially nothing but difficulties, challenges and conflicts. This policy doesn't suddenly put the pubescent into a safe bubble that will float them to adulthood. However, removing the opportunity to receive the Holy Ghost to help them navigate those incredibly tumultuous years may actually be the best way to "injure their development in very tender years."
"The situation with polygamous families for example, and same-sex marriage couples and families, really has a parallel."
This really is the last parallel you want to be making right now... I'll address the polygamy comparison further down.
"For generations we've had these same kinds of policies that relate to children in polygamous families, that we wouldn't go forward with these ordinances while they're in that circumstance and before they reach their majority."
False. There have been no age-related provisions concerning baptizing the children of polygamists, only circumstantial restrictions. Minor children of polygamists can be baptized, minor children of gays cannot.
"And that's the same sort of situation we're dealing with here. So it's something we have had a history with. It's a practice that really is analogous, that's been the case over many generations."
Not the same situation, the Church certainly DOES have a history with polygamists' children, but this is not the analogous situation it is made out to be, nor does the comparison make the policy changes look any better.
That gives you the content of the Church's defense which I consider to be relevant to discussing the problems with the policy changes. You may disagree with what is and is not relevant, in which case feel free to express your opinion in any forum available to you, as I am doing here.
Christofferson also explained that the naming and blessing of a child triggers the creation of a membership record, home teachers, etc. This would lead to expectations by the Church for primary and church attendance, and "that is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting where they're living."
Here, the Church is both playing the odds, and determining for a family what they may or may not deem "appropriate" in their home. Because they think it "likely" that this situation would be unwanted in the home, they entirely remove it as an option. The households with same-sex parents no longer have the option to determine whether they want their children to be members, or whether home teachers would be welcome for them, because the Church doesn't think it "likely" that such could occur. Never mind that it has occurred and does occur. Never mind that prior to the change, a family could decide for themselves if this situation was inappropriate for their home and the Church would respect that decision. Now the Church has made a blanket policy, without exceptions, which determines for a certain type of household what gets to be deemed "appropriate" within their walls, on the basis that the Church believes their own evaluation is "likely" correct.
When asked about the policy changes preventing the children of gay parentage from naming and blessing and baptismal ordinances, he shared the following:
"We don't want there to be the conflicts that that would engender. We don't want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different."
Well, that's not your damn place. Conflict and disagreement is normal. The fact is, if the child believes in the gospel as taught by the Church, they will believe it regardless of baptism or membership, so the conflict and disagreement would still exist. This policy resolves no conflict there. But if a child wants baptism and has the support of their gay parent(s), and it is the Church who refuses to accept them through this policy, on no other basis than the same-sex relationship of their parents, there probably isn't a better way to offend and confuse and turn away such youth from ever having an interest in joining the ranks of the Church.
"And so with the other ordinances on through baptism and so on. There's time for that if when a child reaches majority he or she feels like that's what they want. And they can make an informed and conscious decision about that."
The scriptures of the Church argue that a child is capable of making such an "informed and conscious decision" in this matter at the age of eight, and parents are commanded to see that they have the chance to do so (D&C 68:27). It is only the Church that sees fit to throw these scriptures to the wind.
"Nothing is lost to them in the end if that's the direction they want to go."
That's a huge assumption. As noted in my last post, it assumes that the child is alive; that the child hasn't been offended by the policy; that the child hasn't seen the unjust policy as a sign that the leadership of the Church isn't listening to God; that the child hasn't been overtaken by the world, not having had the Holy Ghost as their companion because they were refused baptism; and many more things. If these assumptions don't pan out, accountability for those lost children will rest, at least in part, upon the shoulders of the leaders who enacted this policy.
"And in the meantime, they're not placed in a position where there will be difficulties, challenges, conflicts that can injure their development in very tender years."
Bullshit. Have the leaders never been adolescents? There's essentially nothing but difficulties, challenges and conflicts. This policy doesn't suddenly put the pubescent into a safe bubble that will float them to adulthood. However, removing the opportunity to receive the Holy Ghost to help them navigate those incredibly tumultuous years may actually be the best way to "injure their development in very tender years."
"The situation with polygamous families for example, and same-sex marriage couples and families, really has a parallel."
This really is the last parallel you want to be making right now... I'll address the polygamy comparison further down.
"For generations we've had these same kinds of policies that relate to children in polygamous families, that we wouldn't go forward with these ordinances while they're in that circumstance and before they reach their majority."
False. There have been no age-related provisions concerning baptizing the children of polygamists, only circumstantial restrictions. Minor children of polygamists can be baptized, minor children of gays cannot.
"And that's the same sort of situation we're dealing with here. So it's something we have had a history with. It's a practice that really is analogous, that's been the case over many generations."
Not the same situation, the Church certainly DOES have a history with polygamists' children, but this is not the analogous situation it is made out to be, nor does the comparison make the policy changes look any better.
That gives you the content of the Church's defense which I consider to be relevant to discussing the problems with the policy changes. You may disagree with what is and is not relevant, in which case feel free to express your opinion in any forum available to you, as I am doing here.
"THE LEADERS EXPRESS LOVE AND UNDERSTANDING FOR THOSE WITH SSA"
This fits in with Christofferson's statements which I considered to be irrelevant to the discussion, because this defense is a non-sequitur. This argument in no way leads to the conclusion that the policy change isn’t unjust, or that it doesn’t infringe on agency or offend scripture. Just because a party says something on the one hand, does not mean they cannot say or do something entirely different and even oppositional on the other. A person could speak words of compassion for homosexuals, while dragging one behind their truck down a dirt road. It may seem implausible, but duplicity is definitely a trait which is found among humanity. Therefore, the notion that because someone does something good for another, they cannot also do evil unto them, is rubbish.
The “expressions” of love and understanding referred to are therefore better classified as lip-service. Words of compassion are spoken concerning those with same-sex attraction, yet this policy change reflects anything but. It is understandable that a Church must maintain a position against that behavior which it deems is sinful. But to carry out restrictive policies against the innocent children of those who engage in the behavior, that reflects nothing resembling compassion, understanding, goodness or righteousness. They draw near with their lips, but such hearts are far removed from God.
"THE POLICY DOESN’T PUNISH CHILDREN"
False. It does in fact punish children, deeply and severely and devilishly. Unless the Church and the apologists want to adopt a new position wherein baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost are non-essential and without value; wherein the ordinance of naming and blessing an infant is without value; wherein our culture no longer recognizes that distinctions between membership and non-membership in an organization have absolutely no value or relevance whatsoever; the Church and its defenders cannot claim the policy is not punishing to the children of gays.
If baptism is considered a saving ordinance, then withholding it is withholding salvation, at the risk of costing it entirely, for we stand in jeopardy every hour (1 Corinthians 15:30). Explain how that isn’t punishment.
If the gift of the Holy Ghost is considered an essential part of salvation, as well as crucial for navigating this dark and dreary world, then to withhold it is to withhold a precious and essential gift, which may end up costing a person their salvation. Explain how that isn’t punishment.
So long as the church welcomes the attendance of these banned children, while teaching and professing the necessity and importance and value of these ordinances, that child will only see and hear how those around them are receiving steps toward salvation during their youth, while they can do nothing to qualify to receive the same for themselves in their own youth. Explain to me how that isn’t punishment.
The eternal has been sold off for that which cankers and corrupts: the interests and popularity of this dark and fallen world. It will prove to be a poor trade.
"THE POLICY PROTECTS THE CHILDREN OF GAYS AND THEIR FAMILIES"
How? This is such a bogus claim, it is difficult to even navigate. The notion that gets bandied around, with the help of Christofferson, is that because the church’s views conflict with the parent’s relationship, allowing membership or ordinances could cause confusion in the child and conflict in the home, from which they need to be protected.
First of all, conflicting ideas within the home is not a matter within the scope of the Church’s responsibility or frankly even their business. What home isn’t constantly embroiled with the conflicting ideas of family members? What youth don’t have disagreements with their parents? Learning to navigate and communicate and tolerate conflicting ideas is necessary to the healthy growth of a person; it teaches us tolerance and love and patience. It isn’t the Church’s prerogative to step in and try to remove that from a home by compulsory means.
Secondly, the prior standing requirement that parental consent be obtained before baptism already protected the families. If a gay parent didn’t want their child to be baptized or join the Church, they could withhold consent and be the protectors of their own home, on their own terms, without uninvited intervention. The Church is now inserting itself into homes in a policing role, preventing these family members from even having the opportunity to make their own choice as to how things would function in their homes. This is a gross overstep of authority on the Church’s part. It could be aptly compared to a Jingoist mentality, aggressively preserving its own interests within the sovereign space of others.
For this to protect these families would require that, prior to this policy change, there existed a state of affairs in which the safety or well-being of these families was put at demonstrable risk or actually harmed by those conditions remedied by the policy change. There would have to be demonstrable risk or harm coming from allowing parents and children to determine for themselves, within their own families, what a child could and could not do. (War in heaven, anyone?)
So tell me, if the Church compulsively inserting themselves into the home and family dynamics and stripping the parents and children of their agency is how Christ would “remedy” that “dangerous” situation, how exactly would Satan seek to address it?
"THE POLICY RESPECTS THE CHILDREN OF GAYS AND THEIR FAMILIES"
No, it doesn’t. The old policy respected the children and their families. Gay parents and their children were afforded their agency, to determine for themselves how they would act. A gay parent could choose to support or consent to the baptism of their child, and that choice would be respected. Or they could choose to withhold their consent, and that choice would be respected. As a minor, the child could choose baptism and with their parents’ consent, they would receive it. Or the child could choose not to be baptized, and they would not. Agency was respected.
Now if both the parents and the child consent to and seek baptism for the child, the Church only serves as an obstruction, negating the agency of the child and their parents. To infringe upon agency is the opposite of respect. It is the devil who uses compulsory means to try and accomplish his ends, not Christ.
"THE CHURCH HAS WORKED TO DEFEND LGBT INTERESTS"
This is a non-sequitur, the same as the Church’s expressions of love and understanding for those with same-sex attraction. It is true that the Church has endorsed legislation in Salt Lake City to protect the gay community, and has contributed money to Pride organizations in Utah, and has made other publicly flaunted efforts to paint a complimentary portrait of themselves.
None of those affect the nature and consequences of this policy change. They are completely unrelated, it is a non-sequitur to claim such actions as evidence that this policy isn’t an affront to the agency of gay parents or their innocent children.
"YOU CAN BE A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH WITH SAME-SEX ATTRACTION"
While technically true, this is deviously disingenuous, and only partially applicable. But yes, you can be a member if you have same-sex attraction and choose not to act upon it.
But the policy change isn't about those who withstand their same-sex attraction, it's about those who choose not to withstand and instead embrace that attraction and enter into a same-sex union, and about any kids that may be under their stewardship, whether natural or adopted. Asserting this defense is like telling a person who has already gotten a tattoo that they can join your club if they like tattoos but don't get any.
The Church has never condoned or supported same-sex marriage, I don't think anyone has ever had any confusion on that point. And sure, I guess the Church wants their position to remain clear in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling that same-sex marriage is recognized and protected legally.
But that now-legal marriage is apparently not considered sinful enough on its own, and needed to be reclassified as “apostasy,” or an entire departure from one's faith. This means the Church is telling a person who enters a same-sex marriage that they must be excommunicated not only for their same-sex marriage, but because they do not believe in Christ, or the Book of Mormon, or the Restoration (because this is what would actually constitute “apostasy” from Mormonism). There are plenty of gay (and straight) people who would argue that the Church has no business telling them what they can and cannot believe, especially based on a decision which may be unrelated or only related indirectly to certain of their beliefs.
But the policy change isn't about those who withstand their same-sex attraction, it's about those who choose not to withstand and instead embrace that attraction and enter into a same-sex union, and about any kids that may be under their stewardship, whether natural or adopted. Asserting this defense is like telling a person who has already gotten a tattoo that they can join your club if they like tattoos but don't get any.
The Church has never condoned or supported same-sex marriage, I don't think anyone has ever had any confusion on that point. And sure, I guess the Church wants their position to remain clear in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling that same-sex marriage is recognized and protected legally.
But that now-legal marriage is apparently not considered sinful enough on its own, and needed to be reclassified as “apostasy,” or an entire departure from one's faith. This means the Church is telling a person who enters a same-sex marriage that they must be excommunicated not only for their same-sex marriage, but because they do not believe in Christ, or the Book of Mormon, or the Restoration (because this is what would actually constitute “apostasy” from Mormonism). There are plenty of gay (and straight) people who would argue that the Church has no business telling them what they can and cannot believe, especially based on a decision which may be unrelated or only related indirectly to certain of their beliefs.
What this defense entirely fails to address is the restrictions on children of those engaged in pursuing their same-sex attraction. The agency of the children and their parents, pertaining to the salvation of the children, remains abrogated by the Church.
"NO ONE CAN REALLY SAY THIS HURTS THEM PERSONALLY"
Seeing this assertion by anyone should be a major red flag. It can only be understood as a person projecting their own imperviousness to a situation onto all the rest of mankind. The fact of the matter is, this has already hurt people, personally. There have already been children who had baptism planned and in place, only to be stripped of the opportunity with the policy change, due to having a gay parent. The parents of these children have been as heartbroken as their children, in seeing a saving ordinance being blockaded for no fault of the child. This assertion is heartless and cold, from those who are pious like the Jews of old, proclaiming their fealty to their religion as they crucified the One the claimed to worship.
"THIS IS POLICY, NOT DOCTRINE"
This one is a hilarious defense, in the absolute irony of the fact that those who assert this position have, through this assertion, already conceded the argument they are trying to uphold and defend.
To use the defense that this is policy, not doctrine, is to concede the understanding that doctrine supersedes policy. This defense would not be used if policy were considered superior to doctrine. As the defense goes, the change is policy, not doctrine, and being the inferior of the two, nobody should be offended by the policy, because the doctrine remains true and intact and superior.
If that is the case, then what is the doctrine which supersedes the policy? Christ personally declared His doctrine, and said if anyone adds to or takes away from that, and claims it is His doctrine, they are of evil (3 Nephi 11:31-40). He offered no exceptions or footnotes. The policy runs contrary to the doctrine. So if it is conceded that doctrine is superior to policy, as is necessarily the case with this defense, then how do they not see that this requires they take a stand against the policy in defense of doctrine? The cognitive dissonance of the matter is incomprehensible to me.
"THE POLICY DOESN’T OFFEND THE 2ND ARTICLE OF FAITH"
Sorry, but it does. I would think this is unmistakably self-evident, but apparently it isn't.
The 2nd Article of Faith states "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression."
Ordinances of salvation are being withheld–because postponement is just presently withholding–from children, which withholding is only ever executed as a punitive measure, and in this case exclusively on the basis that their parents are engaged in sin. Parents sin, their children consequentially have saving ordinances withheld. The aspects of the policy affecting the children of gays are in fact diametrically opposed to the 2nd Article of Faith; to claim otherwise is to look at the sun at noonday and call it darkness.
The 2nd Article of Faith states "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression."
Ordinances of salvation are being withheld–because postponement is just presently withholding–from children, which withholding is only ever executed as a punitive measure, and in this case exclusively on the basis that their parents are engaged in sin. Parents sin, their children consequentially have saving ordinances withheld. The aspects of the policy affecting the children of gays are in fact diametrically opposed to the 2nd Article of Faith; to claim otherwise is to look at the sun at noonday and call it darkness.
"WE WERE ALREADY DOING THE SAME THING TO CHILDREN OF POLYGAMISTS"
That's only marginally true.
According to the Handbook, all children of polygamists must embrace the teachings of the Church and disavow the polygamous teachings of their parents. This is the common tie between the new gay-related policy and the standing polygamy-related policy. Then there are several differences, all noteworthy.
Children of polygamists are not in fact denied the naming and blessing. So on that basis alone, this new policy is shown to in fact be a step above and beyond, not an equivalency to, what the Church does to the children of polygamists.
Another point that is distinctly different is that there is no age requirement placed upon children of polygamists, only upon children of gays, in spite of Christofferson's claim.
Additionally, in regard to children of polygamists, the Handbook expressly states within its requirements for baptism that "Minor [emphasis mine] children are not living in a home where polygamy is being taught or practiced." Because they chose to specify "minor" children, it follows that adult children of polygamists are therefore not forbidden from living in the home of their polygamist parents. That is a privilege denied children of gays.
Also concerning the children of polygamists, the polygamy-based restrictions are only applicable where polygamy is against the law. From section 16.3.9 of Handbook 1: "Children of parents who have practiced or are practicing plural marriage contrary to the law..." (emphasis mine). In countries where polygamy is legal, these restrictions the Church is attempting to parallel to the policy change do not even apply. So that argument can only hope to work among ignorant Church members in America and countries with similar marriage laws.
Beyond the poor paralleling, since when did mankind allow for justifying misdeeds against one group on the basis that they've been allowed against another group? We rounded up Japanese American citizens and stuffed them into internment camps during World War II. So that totally means we can do not only the same thing to Syrian Americans today, but spice it up with additional jabs at their children, for example withholding further meals and clothing and hygiene products, and that's cool, right? That's how it works, right? Nobody can complain about our treatment of Syrian Americans in this scenario because we did a lesser version of it to Japanese Americans in the past, right? What bollocks we can be fooled into believing.
According to the Handbook, all children of polygamists must embrace the teachings of the Church and disavow the polygamous teachings of their parents. This is the common tie between the new gay-related policy and the standing polygamy-related policy. Then there are several differences, all noteworthy.
Children of polygamists are not in fact denied the naming and blessing. So on that basis alone, this new policy is shown to in fact be a step above and beyond, not an equivalency to, what the Church does to the children of polygamists.
Another point that is distinctly different is that there is no age requirement placed upon children of polygamists, only upon children of gays, in spite of Christofferson's claim.
Additionally, in regard to children of polygamists, the Handbook expressly states within its requirements for baptism that "Minor [emphasis mine] children are not living in a home where polygamy is being taught or practiced." Because they chose to specify "minor" children, it follows that adult children of polygamists are therefore not forbidden from living in the home of their polygamist parents. That is a privilege denied children of gays.
Also concerning the children of polygamists, the polygamy-based restrictions are only applicable where polygamy is against the law. From section 16.3.9 of Handbook 1: "Children of parents who have practiced or are practicing plural marriage contrary to the law..." (emphasis mine). In countries where polygamy is legal, these restrictions the Church is attempting to parallel to the policy change do not even apply. So that argument can only hope to work among ignorant Church members in America and countries with similar marriage laws.
Beyond the poor paralleling, since when did mankind allow for justifying misdeeds against one group on the basis that they've been allowed against another group? We rounded up Japanese American citizens and stuffed them into internment camps during World War II. So that totally means we can do not only the same thing to Syrian Americans today, but spice it up with additional jabs at their children, for example withholding further meals and clothing and hygiene products, and that's cool, right? That's how it works, right? Nobody can complain about our treatment of Syrian Americans in this scenario because we did a lesser version of it to Japanese Americans in the past, right? What bollocks we can be fooled into believing.
"THE POLICY DOESN’T MAKE HOMOSEXUALITY OUT TO BE WORSE THAN OTHER SINS"
Please, just look:
Additionally, the children of all the attempted murderers, and actual murderers, and rapists, and abusers, and adulterers, and fornicators, and so forth, are not barred from baptism. But the children of gays are barred, for no other reason than the homosexuality of their parent(s). For if the homosexuality of their parent(s) wasn’t present, they would not be barred in any way. This sets same-sex marriage apart from every other sin in a very real way.
So feel free to explain to me how same-sex relationships are not in fact treated as a sin above or at very least apart from all other sins.
"THE PARENTS ARE SELFISH FOR BEING GAY AND COSTING THEIR CHILD BAPTISM"
Rather than a defense of the policy, this is an attempt to redirect ire pointed at the Church instead toward the gay parents, for costing their children these ordinances by their selfish gayness. Because it is a literal impossibility that the Church leadership got it wrong with this policy. How absurd a joke have Mormonism and its patrons become?
Perhaps the same-sex relationship of the parent(s) is not ordained of God, or indeed sinful. Perhaps the church has a right to uphold heterosexual marriage as a requirement for membership, believing it is the only order of marriage ordained by God. Perhaps the Church has a right to excommunicate any who offend this standard by entering into a same-sex marriage. Perhaps that is all true.
But as a principle, never has it been considered that the best way to address a sin "threatening" the Church is to keep those sinners' children out of the Church until they've already grown up and move out and cut ties. Never have the scriptures considered children better off without the Holy Ghost because their parents are guilty of a sin. Never have the prophets considered it better to withhold essential blessings from a child, and to then point an accusatory finger at the parent(s) of that child and say "This is all your fault!" To introduce such a notion in any Gospel Doctrine class would have been considered laughable, because not a soul would consider your statement to be serious... Until the policy change.
Additionally, this policy is new, and there are those who entered into their same-sex union before the policy was created. To attack them for thoughtlessly costing their children baptism and church membership through their union–an accusation I've personally seen levied by Mormons–when the policy was not even created at the time of their union, is absurdity to the extreme. Perhaps you can accuse a person for sinning, but you can't indict people for not considering unimagined, unforeseeable consequences of their sinful behavior landing on their children. If the Church implements a policy next week that children of people who have shopped on Sunday are going to be barred from baptism and Church membership, will you have foreseen that and never entered a store on Sunday in your life, simply to make sure your kids wouldn't be barred from baptism?
The institution has implemented a policy in diametric opposition to its own scriptures, obstructing salvation, with children as the victims–of all the groups that could have been victimized–and you think it's the kids' parents that are worthy of your ire?
Wake up people. Srsly.
Perhaps the same-sex relationship of the parent(s) is not ordained of God, or indeed sinful. Perhaps the church has a right to uphold heterosexual marriage as a requirement for membership, believing it is the only order of marriage ordained by God. Perhaps the Church has a right to excommunicate any who offend this standard by entering into a same-sex marriage. Perhaps that is all true.
But as a principle, never has it been considered that the best way to address a sin "threatening" the Church is to keep those sinners' children out of the Church until they've already grown up and move out and cut ties. Never have the scriptures considered children better off without the Holy Ghost because their parents are guilty of a sin. Never have the prophets considered it better to withhold essential blessings from a child, and to then point an accusatory finger at the parent(s) of that child and say "This is all your fault!" To introduce such a notion in any Gospel Doctrine class would have been considered laughable, because not a soul would consider your statement to be serious... Until the policy change.
Additionally, this policy is new, and there are those who entered into their same-sex union before the policy was created. To attack them for thoughtlessly costing their children baptism and church membership through their union–an accusation I've personally seen levied by Mormons–when the policy was not even created at the time of their union, is absurdity to the extreme. Perhaps you can accuse a person for sinning, but you can't indict people for not considering unimagined, unforeseeable consequences of their sinful behavior landing on their children. If the Church implements a policy next week that children of people who have shopped on Sunday are going to be barred from baptism and Church membership, will you have foreseen that and never entered a store on Sunday in your life, simply to make sure your kids wouldn't be barred from baptism?
The institution has implemented a policy in diametric opposition to its own scriptures, obstructing salvation, with children as the victims–of all the groups that could have been victimized–and you think it's the kids' parents that are worthy of your ire?
Wake up people. Srsly.
