Katzpur and DeepShadow on Recent LDS Policies

[DeepShadow]

In the debate with DebaterSlayer, Kazpur says the following:

Recently, the Church came out with a new policy, stating that same-sex couples would be excommunicated from the Church. (Obviously, the rationale behind this decision was that sexual intimacy would be involved.) I wasn't pleased with this decision, and I know of a great many other Mormons who feel as I do (although we're probably still in the minority). Since I have always been strongly in favor of the separation of church and state, though, I told myself that the decision to excommunicate same-sex couples was a right that my Church should have. I didn't necessarily agree with it, but I figured that there probably weren't all that many same-sex couple who wanted to be members of the Church in the first place. The decision to forbid their children to become members (at least until they reach the age of 18) has been much more difficult for me to accept. I cannot, in my heart of hearts, believe that God told the LDS Church leadership to discriminate against innocent children in this way. I am trying not to judge my Church's leadership for its decision, but it's something I'm struggling with.

The purpose of this one-on-one discussion is to expound on these recent policies, their applications and repercussions, and the role of the LDS church in public policy. She is struggling with some of these issues; I am not. Nevertheless, while I will share some of my thoughts with her on the topic that have helped me find peace in the matter, I don't intend to be a teacher here as much as a fellow explorer of a difficult topic. This is to be a discussion--not a debate--for the purposes of mutual understanding and edification.

 

[Katzpur]

The purpose of this one-on-one discussion is to expound on these recent policies, their applications and repercussions, and the role of the LDS church in public policy. She is struggling with some of these issues; I am not. Nevertheless, while I will share some of my thoughts with her on the topic that have helped me find peace in the matter, I don't intend to be a teacher here as much as a fellow explorer of a difficult topic. This is to be a discussion--not a debate--for the purposes of mutual understanding and edification.

I would love to discuss this topic with you, DeepShadow. I am looking forward to your initial comments to my post which you quoted in your OP.

For those who do not know my friend, DeepShadow, I believe a brief introduction is in order. Shadow was actually a forum member back when I joined RF in 2004, and it took me no time at all to discover, not only when an absolute gentleman his is, but how brilliant he also is. I have missed him on RF so much over the past few years, and am so happy to see him here again. When he approached me with the suggestion that we have a one-one-one debate on the topic of the LDS Church's recent (November, 2015, actually) policy change with respect to baptizing the children of same-sex couples, I initially hesitated. I mean, if Shadow really set his mind to it, he could probably convince me that the moon was made of green cheese. When it comes to debate, I'm not even in his league, and I know it. Rather than decline his invitation, I suggested that we make it a "discussion" instead of a debate. I am honestly still very bothered by this new policy, and I don't like feeling that my Church's leadership is as lacking in Christian love and charity as this policy has led me to conclude they are. For that reason, I'm open to Shadow's efforts to help me see things from a different perspective.

I know Shadow well enough to know that, regardless of how we feel on this issue, this conversation is not going to turn nasty. I'm looking forward to it!

 

[DeepShadow]

it took me no time at all to discover, not only when an absolute gentleman his is, but how brilliant he also is

Wow, I can't wait to meet hi--oh... *blush*

The decision to forbid their children to become members (at least until they reach the age of 18) has been much more difficult for me to accept. I cannot, in my heart of hearts, believe that God told the LDS Church leadership to discriminate against innocent children in this way. I am trying not to judge my Church's leadership for its decision, but it's something I'm struggling with.

I'd like to start with this. Katz, Elder Christofferson's explanation for this policy is that it's intended to be protective:

the goal is to protect children, he said, so "they're not placed in a position where there will be difficulties, challenges, conflicts that can injure their development in very tender years."

Source

What's your take on that explanation? The same article I cite there quotes a sociologist saying that a church putting children at odds with their parents reduces the likelihood that the children will remain in the faith as adults. Do you think this policy could actually be protecting the spiritual well-being of these children?

 

[Katzpur]

Wow, I can't wait to meet hi--oh... *blush*



I'd like to start with this. Katz, Elder Christofferson's explanation for this policy is that it's intended to be protective:

Source

What's your take on that explanation? The same article I cite there quotes a sociologist saying that a church putting children at odds with their parents reduces the likelihood that the children will remain in the faith as adults. Do you think this policy could actually be protecting the spiritual well-being of these children?

My parents, though active LDS, did not live the Word of Wisdom. My dad used to like to have a can of beer in the evening after he got home from work or a glass of wine after dinner. Both my parents drank coffee. Lessons on the Word of Wisdom were always hard for me to hear. I remember one Seminary teacher pointing out that D&C 89:3 refers to it as "adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints." I didn't like how that made me feel and I didn't like the implication that my father's non-observance of this "commandment" was evidence that he was apparently weaker than the weakest of those who can be called saints. I knew that, in more ways than I could count, he was a far better person than many men I knew, men who would have died before ever tasting a drop of alcohol. I'm certainly glad that I wasn't refused baptism because someone wanted to "protect my spiritual well-being" or put me "at odds" with my parents. My parents never tried to tell me that I shouldn't obey the Word of Wisdom, and I can't imagine any gay or lesbian parents trying to convince their children to give homosexual intimacy a try, just to see if they liked it.

 

[DeepShadow]

My parents, though active LDS, did not live the Word of Wisdom. My dad used to like to have a can of beer in the evening after he got home from work or a glass of wine after dinner. Both my parents drank coffee. Lessons on the Word of Wisdom were always hard for me to hear. I remember one Seminary teacher pointing out that D&C 89:3 refers to it as "adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints." I didn't like how that made me feel and I didn't like the implication that my father's non-observance of this "commandment" was evidence that he was apparently weaker than the weakest of those who can be called saints.

Wow, thank you for your candor and courage in sharing this. I can tell that was hard on you. I agree that the Word of Wisdom is an excellent contrast to the doctrines on homosexual relations, so I'd like to explore that a little further. The line about how it's adapted to the capacity of the weak and weakest of all saints can be misleading, and I'm sorry your teacher led you to believe that it meant your father was weak. That's not how I would interpret it at all. I'd compare it to Romans 14:21, where Paul cautions the saints against doing things that would cause others to stumble. There are many, many people who can consume coffee and beer without serious addiction, but for the sake of the rare few who cannot (the weakest of the weak), we all abstain.

It's a community commandment rather than an individual one, and for your teacher to interpret the community label of "weakest of the weak" to apply to those who violated it was incorrect. This is a common error in both science and religion, conflating community labels with individual ones. When we talk about the lung cancer rates in smokers, someone might object that the only person they knew with lung cancer never smoked a day in his life. This individual does not invalidate the group data, or vice versa. Likewise, your father's non-observance of the commandment does not mean he was one of the "weakest of the weak" that the commandment was made for.

Turning this toward the topic of homosexual relations, I think it's a great reminder that many, many commandments in the church are given more for the sake of the group than the sake of the individual. This is a neglected concept in our society that focuses on individual rights, needs, and desires--not just on unrighteous selfishness, but even on righteous individual worth. If we view the commandments we follow strictly through the lens of what we ourselves will gain by following them, we may miss part of the point of those commandments.

I'm certainly glad that I wasn't refused baptism because someone wanted to "protect my spiritual well-being" or put me "at odds" with my parents. My parents never tried to tell me that I shouldn't obey the Word of Wisdom, and I can't imagine any gay or lesbian parents trying to convince their children to give homosexual intimacy a try, just to see if they liked it.

I need to get to church, but for now, I can say I agree with all of this. I don't think your parents' actions would have justified any delay in your baptism, nor do I think the new changes have been added out of fear that homosexual parents will encourage their heterosexual children to experiment.

 

[Katzpur]

Wow, thank you for your candor and courage in sharing this. I can tell that was hard on you. I agree that the Word of Wisdom is an excellent contrast to the doctrines on homosexual relations, so I'd like to explore that a little further. The line about how it's adapted to the capacity of the weak and weakest of all saints can be misleading, and I'm sorry your teacher led you to believe that it meant your father was weak. That's not how I would interpret it at all. I'd compare it to Romans 14:21, where Paul cautions the saints against doing things that would cause others to stumble. There are many, many people who can consume coffee and beer without serious addiction, but for the sake of the rare few who cannot (the weakest of the weak), we all abstain.

It's a community commandment rather than an individual one, and for your teacher to interpret the community label of "weakest of the weak" to apply to those who violated it was incorrect. This is a common error in both science and religion, conflating community labels with individual ones. When we talk about the lung cancer rates in smokers, someone might object that the only person they knew with lung cancer never smoked a day in his life. This individual does not invalidate the group data, or vice versa. Likewise, your father's non-observance of the commandment does not mean he was one of the "weakest of the weak" that the commandment was made for.

I'm not blaming this on my seminary teacher. I remember him calling the passage to our attention, but I don't know that he actually made a point of interpreting it. I probably just figured it out on my own. I've heard it stated many times over the years, and it's always come across the same way to me. Yeah, it was hard, because I felt like someone I loved was being criticized by the Church I also loved.

Kids whose parents weren't married in the temple have to listen to lessons where they're told they're not going to be a family in the next life. That's got to be hard for them. There are many reasons why a couple may not be married in the temple (my parents actually were sealed to one another and me to them on my second birthday), but whether it's because one is a member of the Church and the other isn't, or because of tithing or Word of Wisdom issues or anything else, they end up either finding a way to deal with the fact that they don't have an "ideal family," or else they leave the Church. But at least if they have been baptized and have received the Gift of the Holy Ghost, they can fall back on those two things for strength. To exclude them even from these blessings because of their parents' actions seems to me to be dealing the death blow to their future activity in the Church.

Turning this toward the topic of homosexual relations, I think it's a great reminder that many, many commandments in the church are given more for the sake of the group than the sake of the individual. This is a neglected concept in our society that focuses on individual rights, needs, and desires--not just on unrighteous selfishness, but even on righteous individual worth. If we view the commandments we follow strictly through the lens of what we ourselves will gain by following them, we may miss part of the point of those commandments.

So how does refusing to baptize the children of same-sex couples do anything to strengthen and better the group? And how, exactly, do the excluded children really benefit from being set apart from their peers -- who probably don't need yet another reason to justify snubbing the kid who is "different"?

I need to get to church, but for now, I can say I agree with all of this. I don't think your parents' actions would have justified any delay in your baptism, nor do I think the new changes have been added out of fear that homosexual parents will encourage their heterosexual children to experiment.

Why do you think the changes were added? What do you think they will ultimately accomplish?

 

[DeepShadow]

My parents never tried to tell me that I shouldn't obey the Word of Wisdom, and I can't imagine any gay or lesbian parents trying to convince their children to give homosexual intimacy a try, just to see if they liked it.

Your comparison of WoW violations with homosexual intimacy has me thinking about what the actual excommunicable behavior is, though, which brings me back to the first line of your original quote:

Recently, the Church came out with a new policy, stating that same-sex couples would be excommunicated from the Church. (Obviously, the rationale behind this decision was that sexual intimacy would be involved.)

With deepest respect, I think the part in the parentheses is in error, and I think it's throwing you off. If the excommunication of homosexual couples is because of their sexual behavior, then the comparison to WoW violations makes sense. But it's not because of their sexual behavior. On the contrary, the union itself is grounds for excommunication, because--through the auspices of the State--the couple has solemnized a family arrangement that is contrary to the way God has ordained for families. They have formed themselves into a square peg and are forcing it into a round hole. By doing so, they are at least denying what modern prophets have said about what marriage is. This cannot be understated. This is not about a set of habitual or repeated transgressions, like in the case of the Word of Wisdom. This is about continuously breaking a commandment by being married at all.

There is a precedent, though. Polygamous families also meet all the same description: a solemnized family arrangement that is contrary to the way that God has ordained for families. And like the children of homosexual couples, the children of polygamists must wait until they are 18 to be baptized. It's been that way for decades. Not baptizing children until they are 18 is not condemning them. On the contrary, the church's policy on unbaptized children is that they are covered by the mercy of Christ--they bear no condemnation for their wrongdoing. This statement is saying that we, as an earthly church, cannot rightly judge the children of a same-sex union. We must leave that to God. Once they turn 18, they may deliberately put themselves within the judgement of the church, just as any adult convert, but until then, only God can judge them.

 

[DeepShadow]

Kids whose parents weren't married in the temple have to listen to lessons where they're told they're not going to be a family in the next life. That's got to be hard for them. There are many reasons why a couple may not be married in the temple (my parents actually were sealed to one another and me to them on my second birthday), but whether it's because one is a member of the Church and the other isn't, or because of tithing or Word of Wisdom issues or anything else, they end up either finding a way to deal with the fact that they don't have an "ideal family," or else they leave the Church. But at least if they have been baptized and have received the Gift of the Holy Ghost, they can fall back on those two things for strength. To exclude them even from these blessings because of their parents' actions seems to me to be dealing the death blow to their future activity in the Church.

And yet, we still have children from polygamous families entering the church at 18, despite the exact same setbacks. For that matter, we don't baptize people if church membership is deemed a source of deadly antagonism, as it is in some Muslim countries. If anyone needed the Gift of the Holy Ghost to guide him, you'd think it would be the young man from the fundamentalist state who could be killed for betraying the faith. Why don't we give that gift to them?

I think the simplest answer is because they don't need it. The rituals of the Church are nice, but God knows when they will get in the way, and he gives guidance to people who follow him despite that. We are denying these children formal rituals for their spiritual growth, not the blessings that come from God. God blesses whom He will.

So how does refusing to baptize the children of same-sex couples do anything to strengthen and better the group? And how, exactly, do the excluded children really benefit from being set apart from their peers -- who probably don't need yet another reason to justify snubbing the kid who is "different"?

Why do you think the changes were added? What do you think they will ultimately accomplish?

I think that placing homosexual families and polygamous families under the same rules helps to illustrate the the importance of grounding our families upon the rock of the Gospel, and arouse Godly concern and sympathy for those who do not have such a foundation. Refusing to baptize their children is an admission that we cannot judge children raised from such a foundation, and that such judgement belongs to God alone.

 

[Katzpur]

DeepShadow, I am assuming that you are still addressing my post from a week ago and the post which you quoted in your OP, and not my most recent post. I say this because you haven't responded to the questions I raised that that post. I hope (and assume) that you'll eventually get around to addressing them, because it's not like you to simply ignore them.

Your comparison of WoW violations with homosexual intimacy has me thinking about what the actual excommunicable behavior is, though, which brings me back to the first line of your original quote:

With deepest respect, I think the part in the parentheses is in error, and I think it's throwing you off. If the excommunication of homosexual couples is because of their sexual behavior, then the comparison to WoW violations makes sense. But it's not because of their sexual behavior. On the contrary, the union itself is grounds for excommunication, because--through the auspices of the State--the couple has solemnized a family arrangement that is contrary to the way God has ordained for families. They have formed themselves into a square peg and are forcing it into a round hole. By doing so, they are at least denying what modern prophets have said about what marriage is. This cannot be understated. This is not about a set of habitual or repeated transgressions, like in the case of the Word of Wisdom. This is about continuously breaking a commandment by being married at all.

While I personally wish the Church would welcome all sinners into the body of believers, I am reconciled to the fact that this simply isn't how it's ever going to work. Please don't tell me that LGBT couples are welcome to attend meetings, just not to partake of the sacrament, pray in public, teach classes, etc. I know all of that. I've accepted it. Any adult same-sex couple who has any knowledge of LDS doctrine knows full well what the consequences for their choices are going to be. At least they do have a choice in the matter. My concern is only about 5% for them. It's about 95% for their children, and this is the issue I hope we can focus on.

I'd been married nearly a decade when the priesthood ban was lifted. All throughout high school, I'd wanted to ask my seminary teachers why God would punish men for their own sins and not for Adam's transgression, but was, in effect, punishing all men of African heritage for the sins of Cain. I never got around to it, probably because I really didn't expect to get an answer that I could find satisfactory. I am now asking myself the same question about the children of same-sex couples? Why, if they will not be held accountable for anyone's sins but there own, can we not allow them the same blessings given to the children of heterosexual couples? I try to imagine Jesus saying, "Suffer the little children to come unto me... except for this one and this one and this one." It just doesn't work for me.

There is a precedent, though. Polygamous families also meet all the same description: a solemnized family arrangement that is contrary to the way that God has ordained for families. And like the children of homosexual couples, the children of polygamists must wait until they are 18 to be baptized. It's been that way for decades. Not baptizing children until they are 18 is not condemning them. On the contrary, the church's policy on unbaptized children is that they are covered by the mercy of Christ--they bear no condemnation for their wrongdoing. This statement is saying that we, as an earthly church, cannot rightly judge the children of a same-sex union. We must leave that to God. Once they turn 18, they may deliberately put themselves within the judgement of the church, just as any adult convert, but until then, only God can judge them.

Not baptizing them until they are 18 may not be condemning them, but it certainly is marginalizing them in the eyes of their peers. And seriously, do you really think that an 8-year old kid who wanted to be baptized would buy into that? If he'd learned anything at all about the gospel, he'd have every right to say, "But under the terms of the baptismal covenant, couldn't I still be forgiven of my future sins if I were truly sorry for them and repented?" I don't see that withholding baptism, and particularly the gift of the Holy Ghost can be seen as any kind of a blessing. Besides, if it really is a blessing to just "be covered by the mercy of Christ," why don't we allow all children -- the children of hetersexual parents as well as the children of homosexual parents -- the same blessing?

Lastly, I really wonder how well this ruling can ever be enforced. Consider this hypothetical scenario: Living together as a married couple, two non-LDS gay men living in Boston are raising a little boy. He is now five years old. The three of them never go to church, but they teach him a great many Christian values, values such as honesty, charity, compassion and forgiveness. He loves both of his fathers a lot and is very close to them. Their (i.e. his parents') sexual relationship isn't exactly something the three of them discuss. (I know I never discussed my parents' sexual relationship with them.) Fifteen years go by. This boy, now age 20, leaves home and goes off to college. While at college, his roommate in the dorm in an LDS man, a returned missionary. The two hit it off. Throughout the school year, they find themselves more and more often discussing religion. The boy becomes interested in the Church, meets with the missionaries and decides he wants to join the Church. He understands the importance of chastity and fidelity in a marriage. He is hetersexual himself, so there have never been any temptations to engage in gay sex. He goes in for his baptismal interview and is asked all of the usual questions. He answers all of them to the satisfaction of the bishop or mission president or zone leader (I don't even know who it is who would be conducting the interview ), and is approved for baptism.

Now, since the child of same-sex parents can be baptized at the age of 18, provided that child disavows his or her parents' marriage, the only way the bishop (or whoever conducts the interview) could conceivably know whether that young man they just approved for baptism was raised by gay parents would be to come right out and ask him? After all, he mentions to the bishop that he is dating a nice LDS girl. They presume, and rightly so, that he is heterosexual, and he has already told them that he is morally clean. Do you seriously think that a new question (or two) is going to be added to the baptismal interview? Are prospective converts going to be asked, "Were you raised by same-sex parents?" And if the answer is, "Yes, I was," is the next question going to be, "Are you willing to disavow your parents' marriage?" That's simply not going to happen. The only time this issue will ever be a part of the baptismal interview is if the child, now of age, was raised in a family with two parents of the same sex -- as might be the case for a child growing up in a Utah neighborhood right under the bishop's nose. I just see a whole can of worms being opened up if this policy is ever to be enforced consistently, church-wide. Of course, I don't think it will be, but what on earth would be fair about enforcing it some of the time and not all of the time?

I'm looking forward to your reply.

 

[Katzpur]

And yet, we still have children from polygamous families entering the church at 18, despite the exact same setbacks. For that matter, we don't baptize people if church membership is deemed a source of deadly antagonism, as it is in some Muslim countries. If anyone needed the Gift of the Holy Ghost to guide him, you'd think it would be the young man from the fundamentalist state who could be killed for betraying the faith. Why don't we give that gift to them?

Deadly antagonism might be one reason. Last I knew, having the gift of the Holy Ghost doesn't protect anyone from the choices of fundamentalist nut jobs. I'm sorry, but I really don't think that's a particularly good comparison. Lots of kids of non-LDS hetersexual parents are allowed to be baptized before the age of 18. Some of their parents are actually quite hostile to the Church, but grant their permission anyway. If an LGBT couple felt that the LDS Church could offer their child a good foundation in Christianity and wanted him to be allowed to be baptized, I would think that they'd actually be fairly encouraging of his activity in the Church, despite their own lifestyle.

I think the simplest answer is because they don't need it. The rituals of the Church are nice, but God knows when they will get in the way, and he gives guidance to people who follow him despite that. We are denying these children formal rituals for their spiritual growth, not the blessings that come from God. God blesses whom He will.

Please just explain how baptism and confirmation of an eight-year-old child could conceivably "get in the way" of a child's spiritual growth, particularly when that child's parents are in favor of the baptism? I'm not suggesting that the child be baptized if his parents are opposed.

I think that placing homosexual families and polygamous families under the same rules helps to illustrate the the importance of grounding our families upon the rock of the Gospel, and arouse Godly concern and sympathy for those who do not have such a foundation. Refusing to baptize their children is an admission that we cannot judge children raised from such a foundation, and that such judgement belongs to God alone.

Tell that to the child when he asks why he can't be baptized, when he asks what he did wrong. Tell him we love him so much that we want to let him spend the next ten years in a sort of limbo, neither belonging or not belonging. I'm sorry, I'm just speaking what my conscience is telling me.

 

[DeepShadow]

I'm sorry about the confusion in the posts. You are correct, I was drafting that first reply when you posted your most recent one. I believe I am now current in answering your questions. If I have neglected any, please point them out.

Deadly antagonism might be one reason. Last I knew, having the gift of the Holy Ghost doesn't protect anyone from the choices of fundamentalist nut jobs. I'm sorry, but I really don't think that's a particularly good comparison.

Agreed. I think polygamy is a far better comparison. Why do you think we require children of polygamist parents to be 18 and speak to an Apostle before they are baptized?

Please just explain how baptism and confirmation of an eight-year-old child could conceivably "get in the way" of a child's spiritual growth, particularly when that child's parents are in favor of the baptism? I'm not suggesting that the child be baptized if his parents are opposed.

It's not about baptism and confirmation. It's about the church membership that comes with them. If a 12-year-old is attending a church where she is a recognized member, there is a mutual obligation that binds her there. If she's not a recognized member, there is no mutual obligation--she goes because she wants to, not because she has to. Likewise, without that mutual obligation, if the church members invite her to things as a guest because they want to, not as a member because they are under obligation.

This frees her to from making a continuous social contract that would be contradictory with the continuous social contract her parents have founded her family on. Like I was saying about breaking commandments earlier, no amount of discrete transgressions are going to amount to a continuous violation. The same is true of good behaviors--no amount of discrete acts of faithfulness are going to add up to a continuous commitment.

It's those continuous commitments--covenants--that are the issue here: baptism and marriage. If they contradict, you have to choose one. If a child chooses baptism while still being raised under the umbrella of a homosexual marriage, it puts them at directly at odds with the covenant that fosters them in the home. That's not the same as having parents who fail to live up to their covenants, or who haven't made greater ones.

Tell that to the child when he asks why he can't be baptized, when he asks what he did wrong. Tell him we love him so much that we want to let him spend the next ten years in a sort of limbo, neither belonging or not belonging. I'm sorry, I'm just speaking what my conscience is telling me.

I know you are. I hope that whoever speaks to that child has more of the Spirit of God with them, so that they would never say something so foolish. That's certainly not how I would say it, at any rate. Here's what I'd say:

"You've done nothing wrong. Not all the things we say here apply to you, yet. If you listen with your heart when your Primary teacher is talking, you'll know what parts apply to you."

And then I'd try to discuss what sort of things the Spirit had confirmed to that child, like loving your neighbor, telling the truth, and obeying your parents. Because that's what they need to focus on at 8.

 

[DeepShadow]

Whoops, looks like I have more questions here to cover:

Not baptizing them until they are 18 may not be condemning them, but it certainly is marginalizing them in the eyes of their peers. And seriously, do you really think that an 8-year old kid who wanted to be baptized would buy into that? If he'd learned anything at all about the gospel, he'd have every right to say, "But under the terms of the baptismal covenant, couldn't I still be forgiven of my future sins if I were truly sorry for them and repented?" I don't see that withholding baptism, and particularly the gift of the Holy Ghost can be seen as any kind of a blessing. Besides, if it really is a blessing to just "be covered by the mercy of Christ," why don't we allow all children -- the children of hetersexual parents as well as the children of homosexual parents -- the same blessing?

It's a blessing to a child raised by homosexual or polygamous parents, because it renders them unaccountable for the spiritual instability of their upbringing. Other children don't need such a blessing, because there is no such instability that needs to be accounted for.

Lastly, I really wonder how well this ruling can ever be enforced.

That I don't know. I'm guessing it would be a question in the baptismal interview.

Are prospective converts going to be asked, "Were you raised by same-sex parents?" And if the answer is, "Yes, I was," is the next question going to be, "Are you willing to disavow your parents' marriage?" That's simply not going to happen.

I don't understand. It's already happening. We have children of same-sex parents who join the church, and disavow same-sex marriages.

There! NOW I think I'm caught up....

 

[Katzpur]

Agreed. I think polygamy is a far better comparison. Why do you think we require children of polygamist parents to be 18 and speak to an Apostle before they are baptized?

Well, I'm sure it's probably for the same reason, but I don't think it's a very good policy in the case of children of polygamists either.

It's not about baptism and confirmation. It's about the church membership that comes with them. If a 12-year-old is attending a church where she is a recognized member, there is a mutual obligation that binds her there. If she's not a recognized member, there is no mutual obligation--she goes because she wants to, not because she has to. Likewise, without that mutual obligation, if the church members invite her to things as a guest because they want to, not as a member because they are under obligation.

Wait a minute. I'm confused. Are you saying that if a person is a recognized member of the Church, he is compelled to attend meetings and participate in social functions, and his fellow members are compelled to invite him to those things? And that if he is not a recognized member, it's okay for the other members of the ward to not extend the hand of fellowship if they don't want to? If someone wanted to be a member (let's say, the 16-year-old daughter of a same-sex couple), wouldn't it be even more important for the members to want her to feel accepted -- particularly if they knew that she'd jump at the chance to be baptized? For the members to be able to feel justified in not doing everything they could to encourage this young girl to be as much a part of the ward family as possible seems really cruel to me.

This frees her to from making a continuous social contract that would be contradictory with the continuous social contract her parents have founded her family on. Like I was saying about breaking commandments earlier, no amount of discrete transgressions are going to amount to a continuous violation. The same is true of good behaviors--no amount of discrete acts of faithfulness are going to add up to a continuous commitment.

It's those continuous commitments--covenants--that are the issue here: baptism and marriage. If they contradict, you have to choose one. If a child chooses baptism while still being raised under the umbrella of a homosexual marriage, it puts them at directly at odds with the covenant that fosters them in the home. That's not the same as having parents who fail to live up to their covenants, or who haven't made greater ones.

I don't know. I'm really not sure I agree with you there.

I know you are. I hope that whoever speaks to that child has more of the Spirit of God with them, so that they would never say something so foolish. That's certainly not how I would say it, at any rate. Here's what I'd say:

"You've done nothing wrong. Not all the things we say here apply to you, yet. If you listen with your heart when your Primary teacher is talking, you'll know what parts apply to you."

And then I'd try to discuss what sort of things the Spirit had confirmed to that child, like loving your neighbor, telling the truth, and obeying your parents. Because that's what they need to focus on at 8.

And that is a beautiful response! I hope kids who find themselves in that position end up talking to someone who has the insight and compassion to answer in that way. I'm just not all that convinced that a lot of people would be. And children, especially, can be so cruel. All it would take is one overheard conversation between their parents about "poor Joey, having to be raised by those godless gays" for them to feel okay about making sure poor Joey never wants to become a Mormon.

 

[Katzpur]

It's a blessing to a child raised by homosexual or polygamous parents, because it renders them unaccountable for the spiritual instability of their upbringing. Other children don't need such a blessing, because there is no such instability that needs to be accounted for.

I don't know. I sense a certain degree in spiritual instability in a great many families -- even the supposedly "ideal" ones.

That I don't know. I'm guessing it would be a question in the baptismal interview.

Well, the policy has been in place for six months now. I wonder if every new potential convert over the age of 18, particularly in parts of the country where there are very few polygamists, is being asked that question. My guess is that they aren't.

I don't understand. It's already happening. We have children of same-sex parents who join the church, and disavow same-sex marriages.

I guess it really gets down to what is meant by the word "disavow." It could mean something as simple as, "Do you agree that God intended marriage to be only between a man and a woman?" It could also mean, "Are you willing to sever all ties with your parents and to publicly condemn their marriage?"

 

[DeepShadow]

(Replying here to both of your posts from last week. Trying to get this back into one post, one reply)

Well, I'm sure it's probably for the same reason, but I don't think it's a very good policy in the case of children of polygamists either.

Wait, you said it's for the same reason--what reason? Previously you said that homosexual activity is the reason gay marriage leads to excommunication, but that obviously doesn't apply in cases of (heterosexual) polygamy. Why do you think children of polygamous unions must wait to 18 before baptism?

Wait a minute. I'm confused. Are you saying that if a person is a recognized member of the Church, he is compelled to attend meetings and participate in social functions, and his fellow members are compelled to invite him to those things? And that if he is not a recognized member, it's okay for the other members of the ward to not extend the hand of fellowship if they don't want to?

No, but rereading what I said, I can see why you might think so. Let me try again, using an example. You talked about a 16-year-old daughter of homosexual parents. Let's use that. So, if she were to be baptized seven years prior, her name would be on the official list of Laurels, people the Laurels presidency has promised to nurture spiritually, whether they know her or not. Even if she's a stranger to them, they have a formal obligation to reach out to her, which may cause friction in her family if they don't know the right channels to communicate with her. If they do the job they have promised to do, they will have to use their best judgement on how to approach her, even if she doesn't want to be contacted, even if her parents have asked for no contact.

On the other hand, if she's known to the girls, but not baptized, then they can still include her in their activities, but without the obligation of future strangers to continue to do so. As she grew up, she might have attended as a beehive, moved to a new ward area and lost contact (because there are no formal records), and had to reach out to new LDS youth to join their activities as a MIA Maid. Because she is initiating, she tells her new friends the best way to contact her, if there is any need for discretion. The ball remains in her court. She keeps the benefits of genuine friendships she has formed, without any formal obligations on the part of future strangers to blunder into her family causing strife.

And that is a beautiful response! I hope kids who find themselves in that position end up talking to someone who has the insight and compassion to answer in that way. I'm just not all that convinced that a lot of people would be. And children, especially, can be so cruel. All it would take is one overheard conversation between their parents about "poor Joey, having to be raised by those godless gays" for them to feel okay about making sure poor Joey never wants to become a Mormon.

Thank you! You are correct, we need more sensitivity in the church to the living arrangements of children. I'm so glad there was such a good conference talk recently about this. I believe we can all rise to the occasion and be better stewards of the diversity of people who cross our paths.

I don't know. I sense a certain degree in spiritual instability in a great many families -- even the supposedly "ideal" ones.

I completely agree, every family has some instability, but as I said before, there's a difference; you can have an unstable family built on a sure foundation, and it can be improved as the people learn and grow, recommitting to the sacred truths as they learn more, and eradicating false beliefs as they expose them. But if the foundation itself is unstable, that's different. In those cases, a spiritual awakening could actually threaten the foundation of the family itself, causing MORE instability! That's exactly what we are trying to avoid.

Well, the policy has been in place for six months now. I wonder if every new potential convert over the age of 18, particularly in parts of the country where there are very few polygamists, is being asked that question. My guess is that they aren't.

Probably not, any more than they were ever being asked if their parents were polygamist. And yet we manage to enforce that, too. I expect something as big as that comes up during the discussions leading up to baptism.

I guess it really gets down to what is meant by the word "disavow." It could mean something as simple as, "Do you agree that God intended marriage to be only between a man and a woman?" It could also mean, "Are you willing to sever all ties with your parents and to publicly condemn their marriage?"

Based on the examples I've seen, it's the former. I posted the story of the young woman whose parents are lesbians, and she is still very loving toward them, even though she disavowed their marriage. I really don't expect the latter to be an issue, if we follow the examples of our leaders in these last few conferences when it comes to respecting such differences.

 

[Katzpur]

Wait, you said it's for the same reason--what reason? Previously you said that homosexual activity is the reason gay marriage leads to excommunication, but that obviously doesn't apply in cases of (heterosexual) polygamy. Why do you think children of polygamous unions must wait to 18 before baptism?

Okay, so it's not homosexual activity that's the issue here, but a lifestyle that is offensive to the LDS sense of morality. In the case of gays and lesbians, it's sexual relations with someone of the same sex. In the case of polygamists, it's a marriage between one man and more than one woman. So, I'd say that in both situations, baptism is being denied to a child, based on the choices of the child's parents.

No, but rereading what I said, I can see why you might think so. Let me try again, using an example. You talked about a 16-year-old daughter of homosexual parents. Let's use that. So, if she were to be baptized seven years prior, her name would be on the official list of Laurels, people the Laurels presidency has promised to nurture spiritually, whether they know her or not. Even if she's a stranger to them, they have a formal obligation to reach out to her, which may cause friction in her family if they don't know the right channels to communicate with her. If they do the job they have promised to do, they will have to use their best judgement on how to approach her, even if she doesn't want to be contacted, even if her parents have asked for no contact.

Yes, but I have already stated that the child of same-sex parents should be permitted to be baptized only if her parents are not opposed to it. Therefore, I don't think we should assume there will be friction in the family if the LDS community attempts to nurture the child spiritually.

On the other hand, if she's known to the girls, but not baptized, then they can still include her in their activities, but without the obligation of future strangers to continue to do so. As she grew up, she might have attended as a beehive, moved to a new ward area and lost contact (because there are no formal records), and had to reach out to new LDS youth to join their activities as a MIA Maid. Because she is initiating, she tells her new friends the best way to contact her, if there is any need for discretion. The ball remains in her court. She keeps the benefits of genuine friendships she has formed, without any formal obligations on the part of future strangers to blunder into her family causing strife.

I guess I'm just not convinced that most young people are going to extend a hand of fellowship to one of their peers that the Church has refused baptism to. Regardless of the fact that it's not the child's fault that he can't be baptized, she will still more than likely be marginalized by the other youth who are profoundly aware of what sets her apart from the rest of them. Within the first three months of the November, 2015 announcement that the children of same-sex couples could not be baptized and that same sex couples themselves would be subject to excommunication, 32 LGBT Mormons between the ages of 14 and 20 committed suicide. While the Church leaderships used the word "heartbreaking" to describe this tragedy, it has not affected their decision. I'm sorry, but I find this to be terribly disturbing.

Thank you! You are correct, we need more sensitivity in the church to the living arrangements of children. I'm so glad there was such a good conference talk recently about this. I believe we can all rise to the occasion and be better stewards of the diversity of people who cross our paths.

We can rise to the occasion, but with policies such as this in place, even well-meaning members of the Church are somehow at a loss as to how to go about doing so.

I completely agree, every family has some instability, but as I said before, there's a difference; you can have an unstable family built on a sure foundation, and it can be improved as the people learn and grow, recommitting to the sacred truths as they learn more, and eradicating false beliefs as they expose them. But if the foundation itself is unstable, that's different. In those cases, a spiritual awakening could actually threaten the foundation of the family itself, causing MORE instability! That's exactly what we are trying to avoid.

There are definitely going to be trade-offs, but if a child wants to be baptized and the parents are in favor of allowing him to, I see the positives as outweighing the negatives.

Probably not, any more than they were ever being asked if their parents were polygamist. And yet we manage to enforce that, too. I expect something as big as that comes up during the discussions leading up to baptism.

Yes, I'm sure it's enforced when it comes to light, but it's probably not even addressed most of the time. I think back to when Black men were not allowed to hold the priesthood, and specifically to when the "one drop rule" applied. How many thousands of men were baptized with no one even questioning the possibility that great, great great-grandpa John was Black. If a person didn't appear to be Black, no one even questioned his genetics. How many such individuals were baptized between the time the ban was instituted and when it was reversed? I'm just saying that I don't believe the policy is going to be equitably enforced, and I doubt very much that every potential baptismal candidate in his or her late teens is being asked, "Were you raised by polygamous or same-sex parents?" I could be wrong, but that's my hunch.

Based on the examples I've seen, it's the former. I posted the story of the young woman whose parents are lesbians, and she is still very loving toward them, even though she disavowed their marriage. I really don't expect the latter to be an issue, if we follow the examples of our leaders in these last few conferences when it comes to respecting such differences.

Well, I would hope you're right about that.

 

[DeepShadow]

Thank you, Katzpur (and any audience members) for your patience. I am now in a position to respond again, and resume my commitment to weekly participation in the forum.

I'd like to revisit this discussion by focusing very close on a point I made last time, Katz, which I don't think you have fully addressed.

Okay, so it's not homosexual activity that's the issue here, but a lifestyle that is offensive to the LDS sense of morality. In the case of gays and lesbians, it's sexual relations with someone of the same sex.

Um...isn't that homosexual activity?

This appears to be a serious sticking point for you, so I'd like to ask to remain here on this topic for a little bit. This is a central topic, and it cannot be ignored: the offence in the case of a same-sex marriage is not the sexual activity between the partners. It's a completely separate transgression, and I believe it's the exact same transgression being committed by polygamous families: the formation of a distorted family unit.

So, I'd say that in both situations, baptism is being denied to a child, based on the choices of the child's parents.

If we were talking about the parents' homosexual activities, I would agree that this is a problem. However, if the name of the offence is "formation of a distorted family unit," then the children are made members in that unit by virtue of the choices of their parents. So no matter what, the children have to live with the consequences of their parents' actions. The church policy is a reaction to the distorted nature of the family unit, not a punishment on the children.

Yes, but I have already stated that the child of same-sex parents should be permitted to be baptized only if her parents are not opposed to it. Therefore, I don't think we should assume there will be friction in the family if the LDS community attempts to nurture the child spiritually.

Okay, but we've actually switched topics now: the pragmatics/logistics of HOW we handle the children of a same-sex household. That topic cannot really be broached until we've addressed the first issue of WHAT a same-sex household is. That appears to be where our disagreement lies.

Your position, at least as I understand it from your original post, is that a same-sex household is like a heterosexual household, except for the regular violation of a particular commandment by the parents, which violation does not extend to the children. If that were the case, the logical HOW that would extend from that WHAT would be to treat the children of that union the same way we treat other members of the church whose parents regularly break certain commandments.

However, if I'm right, and the union itself is a violation of God's law, completely apart from any sexual activity that may or may not be taking place, then the products of that union may have to be dealt with differently on a spiritual level, and that may carry over to the logistical level.

This was actually my big turning point in understanding the new policy, realizing how I had been misunderstanding the policy because I thought it was about homosexuality. It isn't.

I guess I'm just not convinced that most young people are going to extend a hand of fellowship to one of their peers that the Church has refused baptism to. Regardless of the fact that it's not the child's fault that he can't be baptized, she will still more than likely be marginalized by the other youth who are profoundly aware of what sets her apart from the rest of them.

I've seen great acts of fellowship and acceptance by children and teens in our church, more than I've seen prejudice. I'm sorry if your experience has been different.

We can rise to the occasion, but with policies such as this in place, even well-meaning members of the Church are somehow at a loss as to how to go about doing so.

I know. The only place I can advise for a start is within our own hearts. We must pray for the pure love of Christ to manifest itself through us. Have you been able to pray about this?

(I'm not seeing any direct questions in the rest of your post, and I think a lot of it extends logically from the core disagreements above. If you feel something else needs to be addressed, please point it out.)

 

[Katzpur]

Thank you, Katzpur (and any audience members) for your patience. I am now in a position to respond again, and resume my commitment to weekly participation in the forum.

This time it was clearly I who dropped the ball. I guess I'm just having a hard time feeling as if we're making any progress.

I'd like to revisit this discussion by focusing very close on a point I made last time, Katz, which I don't think you have fully addressed.



Um...isn't that homosexual activity?

This appears to be a serious sticking point for you, so I'd like to ask to remain here on this topic for a little bit. This is a central topic, and it cannot be ignored: the offence in the case of a same-sex marriage is not the sexual activity between the partners. It's a completely separate transgression, and I believe it's the exact same transgression being committed by polygamous families: the formation of a distorted family unit.

Okay, Fair enough. So homosexual families and polygamist families are both comprised of distorted family units -- distorted, at least, as the family unit is defined from a religious standpoint.

If we were talking about the parents' homosexual activities, I would agree that this is a problem. However, if the name of the offence is "formation of a distorted family unit," then the children are made members in that unit by virtue of the choices of their parents. So no matter what, the children have to live with the consequences of their parents' actions. The church policy is a reaction to the distorted nature of the family unit, not a punishment on the children.

And yet, unless I am mistaken, the child of an LDS but inactive single mother who has a live-in boyfriend could be baptized, provided he had her consent. Am I wrong about this?

Yes, the children of homosexual and polygamist parents do have to live with the consequences of their parents' actions. And this is what I believe to be wrong. Despite the "distorted nature of the family unit," I see the innocent children as the ones who are being marginalized. A child growing up in such a family needs a ward family more than ever, and would (I believe) be much more likely to remain a faithful member of the Church as a adult than if he was made to spend his formative years thinking that, because of his parents choices, he was deemed "unworthy." You may say that it has nothing to do with his personal worthiness, and that may be the case. But perceptions matter, and you can't tell me that the child who is being told he can't be baptized when all of his friends are getting baptized is going to see it the way you, as as adult, do.

Okay, but we've actually switched topics now: the pragmatics/logistics of HOW we handle the children of a same-sex household. That topic cannot really be broached until we've addressed the first issue of WHAT a same-sex household is. That appears to be where our disagreement lies.

Your position, at least as I understand it from your original post, is that a same-sex household is like a heterosexual household, except for the regular violation of a particular commandment by the parents, which violation does not extend to the children. If that were the case, the logical HOW that would extend from that WHAT would be to treat the children of that union the same way we treat other members of the church whose parents regularly break certain commandments.

However, if I'm right, and the union itself is a violation of God's law, completely apart from any sexual activity that may or may not be taking place, then the products of that union may have to be dealt with differently on a spiritual level, and that may carry over to the logistical level.

This was actually my big turning point in understanding the new policy, realizing how I had been misunderstanding the policy because I thought it was about homosexuality. It isn't.

Seriously, I think you're splitting hairs, but even if I go along with your statement that "the union itself is a violation of God's law," I don't see why the "products of that union" have to be treated like they're somehow flawed themselves. Your use of the phrase "products of this union" really bothers me. These "products" are human beings with feelings, human beings who should be given all of the same rights and privileges as anyone else.

I've seen great acts of fellowship and acceptance by children and teens in our church, more than I've seen prejudice. I'm sorry if your experience has been different.

Honestly, I haven't really seen much acceptance or rejection first hand, particularly of children who have not been able to be baptized. I do know that President Howard W. Hunter, whose father wouldn't allow him to be baptized as a child, felt very left out when all the other boys his age were passing the sacrament and he wasn't allowed to. The way he tells it, "I sat in sacrament meetings with the other boys. When it was time for them to pass the sacrament, I would slump down in my seat. I felt so left out. I wanted to pass the sacrament, but couldn’t because I had not been baptized.” Sure, he remained faithful, but he had one advantage over kids from same-sex families. When kids would ask him why he had never been baptized, he could say, "My dad won't let me." When the children of same-sex parents are asked that question, they have to say, "Well, my family is 'distorted.' When I'm 18 and can denounce my parents' marriage, I will. Then I can be baptized." Why would you think it was okay to put a child in this position?

I know. The only place I can advise for a start is within our own hearts. We must pray for the pure love of Christ to manifest itself through us. Have you been able to pray about this?

I'm always praying that I will be the kind of daughter my Father in Heaven can be proud of, and I can only do that by listening to my conscience.

If you think we can ultimately come to some kind of agreement on this, I'd welcome a continued discussion. You know how much I admire you, and it's always a privilege to have a dialogue with you. (Heck, I'll keep talking forever, just to see you back on RF. )

 

[DeepShadow]

(Heck, I'll keep talking forever, just to see you back on RF. )

LOL, I will reply to the rest eventually, but in all transparency, I believe this tactic would work. Keep it up, keep me coming back!

 

[DeepShadow]

And yet, unless I am mistaken, the child of an LDS but inactive single mother who has a live-in boyfriend could be baptized, provided he had her consent. Am I wrong about this?

Not at all, you are correct. This is allowed because there is no official union between the two parents, distorted or not. Once there is an official union between the parents, the church MUST grapple with it.

That's part of the general principle here, that the Church takes social/legal constructs seriously. They cannot just ignore them, as they are made of the same "stuff" that the Church itself is made of. People always say that a marriage license is just a piece of paper, but it's not. It has symbolic power as a social/legal construct that allows it to interact with other such constructs.

You may say that it has nothing to do with his personal worthiness, and that may be the case. But perceptions matter, and you can't tell me that the child who is being told he can't be baptized when all of his friends are getting baptized is going to see it the way you, as as adult, do.

Of course not, but the Church has gone to great lengths to educate their members on how we ought to treat homosexuals and their children. If anyone has made such a child feel it's about their own worthiness, that's on them, and leaders have made it clear that person has cause to repent. If members of the church have followed the proper teachings and the child still misunderstands, well such misunderstanding is the work of the Adversary, and we can only hope the Spirit will intervene and help the child see things more clearly.

Seriously, I think you're splitting hairs, but even if I go along with your statement that "the union itself is a violation of God's law," I don't see why the "products of that union" have to be treated like they're somehow flawed themselves.

They shouldn't be. Leaders have made it clear we are not supposed to treat the children of homosexuals like they are flawed.

Your use of the phrase "products of this union" really bothers me. These "products" are human beings with feelings, human beings who should be given all of the same rights and privileges as anyone else.

I didn't like using that term either. I came up with it to emphasize the relationship between the union and the child, which seemed like it was getting lost. I'd be happy to stop using it.

Honestly, I haven't really seen much acceptance or rejection first hand, particularly of children who have not been able to be baptized.

I'm glad. I expect you would speak up if you saw anything, as would I.

I do know that President Howard W. Hunter, whose father wouldn't allow him to be baptized as a child, felt very left out when all the other boys his age were passing the sacrament and he wasn't allowed to. .... Why would you think it was okay to put a child in this position?

I don't, but I don't think it's the Church that is putting the child in this position. Like in the case of President Hunter, it's the parent(s) who has put him in this position. That homosexual parents may be doing this ignorantly, they are still making all sorts of choices their child will have to live with. This is just one of many unintended consequences.

How about this--did the Church have a responsibility to change their policies to allow young Howard to be baptized without his father's permission? Was it on the Church to spare him that suffering? We both know he suffered--who's responsibility is it to alleviate that suffering?

I'm always praying that I will be the kind of daughter my Father in Heaven can be proud of, and I can only do that by listening to my conscience.

I would expect nothing less. But have you prayed and asked if this policy is actually God's will, and not merely man's?

If you think we can ultimately come to some kind of agreement on this, I'd welcome a continued discussion. You know how much I admire you, and it's always a privilege to have a dialogue with you. (Heck, I'll keep talking forever, just to see you back on RF. )

It's working. Thank you for your patience, I underestimated the forces that pull me away. But I've identified a big one lately, and will work more diligently to see that it does not keep me from you.