Why the LDS Church's latest policy is actually the best possible policy.

Image credit to original Artist/Author

Greetings friends,

I’ve hummed and hawed quite bit on whether or not to take the time to write another serious post. This time, regarding the explosion of emotions surrounding the recent awareness of a policy brought sharply to the public in the last day or so. The policy is regarding the LDS Church and it’s definition of Marriage between a same-sex couple, as well as the result that union will have on the children living in that household.

I tend to take hours and hours to write these, carefully selecting words and refining my points; but I don’t feel like I have that amount of time available - I would like to have this message heard sooner rather than later. Because every misunderstanding surrounding this policy, further threatens the people I care most for - you. 

Yes, you. I may not even know you. But I care about you. And I don’t want you to feel hurt from something designed to accomplish the precise opposite.

I tend to be long winded, but I’m going to try my absolute darnedest to be concise. Fortunately, this subject isn’t complicated.

Let me sum it up with few words first, then I’ll get breathy…

According to the LDS Doctrine:

Intimacy Design

Marriage = man & wife = procreation

Procreation = commandment from God = purpose of life

Intimacy Weaknesses

Appetite A (heterosexual) = temptation = not sin

Fornication A = action upon temptation = is sin

Appetite B (homosexual) = temptation = not sin

Fornication B = action upon temptation = is sin

Resolution of Weaknesses

Appetite A resolved by application of Design
Appetite B by is incongruent with Design, therefore it cannot be solved unless ceased.

Doctrinal Conclusion

Same-sex union = renunciation (rejection) of above doctrine = apostasy

I wish I could format that better, and perhaps use better wording, but I think it halfway makes the point in a concise way.

Let’s use an example of a homosexual couple without children for a moment:

Once a couple of the same-sex decide to marry, it’s essentially a formal decision and public acknowledgement that they have decided to live that specific lifestyle; one that is in absolute contradiction to the public and stringent doctrine taught by the LDS faith they were/are a part of.

Keeping at the forefront of your mind, that being an LDS member is 100% voluntary, this means that this couple has volunteered to not follow this voluntary Church. They arrive at a conclusion that their choices do not need to reflect the doctrines taught by this Church, and,  that they have no desire to follow the compass set by this Church any longer.

Pretty straightforward. 

At this point, many of these individuals choose to leave the Church altogether, seeing as how they have voluntarily chosen to disregard the tenants of the faith, and can’t live in harmony with their lifestyle and the doctrines of the Church. 

This is what we call an exercise of agency, and they are of course completely free to do so. 

Many members will mourn their departure, and will likely try to encourage them to reconsider and return - but ultimately that decision to leave, and it’s all it’s effects, rest solely with this same-sex couple.

However, the complexity comes where two parents (meaning there are children involved) have chosen this path of contradiction to the Church doctrine, but still allow or even encourage their children to attend the faith that they themselves have disregarded.

This puts the child in a precarious and frankly, unfair position. 

This child will now be torn between two totally different sets of ideology that are presented as viable; the issue is that they are mutually exclusive. In this specific situation they are not, and cannot be, simultaneously viable. 

The doctrine of marriage as a legal union between a man and woman as taught by the LDS Faith, does not allow any variation of this union. Same-sex marriage is the epitome of a variation. So, in the case of a child attending LDS Church with homosexual parents, they're presented with two entirely incompatible versions of 'right-and-wrong' when it comes to marriage. 

Allow me now to pose some questions:

• Q: Will the parents tell the child that they themselves, the mommies/daddies, are wrong and the church is right? 
• A: Probably not. That would unravel their familial construction.

• Q: Will the Church concede that it’s okay for the child’s parents to be married as the same gender? 
• A: Not ever. It frustrates the Plan of Salvation and core tenants of the Faith. See the chart-thingy above.

This means that the child is left with the impossible dichotomy: someone is wrong; either the church, or their parents. I don’t imagine many 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 year olds that would easily, readily, or capably make that determination. 

So...

In an effort to protect the child from having to make this decision; a decision that could ultimately serve to cause more harm than good at that young age, the Church has removed the expectation of baptism. 

Let me rephrase that, because I think the entire world has gotten this backwards.

The Church is  improving the situation and removing the pressure that would be on this child to be baptized and become a full-fledged, committed and record-holding member of the LDS Church at age 8. 

To continue that point, and help you grasp the weight of this - the decision to be baptized and confirmed a member of the LDS Church would of course inseparably constitute an acknowledgment of the doctrine of the church they’re joining; one which exhorts strongly against the form of household they are still being cared for by.

This removal of expectation or pressure allows the child to continue to live with their parents and go to church without the need to make a formal commitment to either party until they are old enough to make this decision with an added decade of elective wisdom, and with less risk to their environmental situation.

The US government has decided that 18 is the age at which we can be agents unto ourselves. The Church has merely used this same canon to provide the child with an increased opportunity to make an educated and personal decision for themselves with regard to Church membership when they then have a greater ability to do so. Again, all this considering the situation this child has no choice but to exist in.

There is quite literally no kinder policy that could have been initiated for these children.

I am incredibly grateful for the prayerful consideration, which am certain was endlessly spent by the leaders of the LDS Church, in determination of a constructed solution for the children caught in these difficult and impassioned situations.

P.S.

I have seen many posts and arguments over how apocalyptic this will be for the children in terms of judgement and horrendous ridicule from their peers.

I say rubbish. Stop opening your umbrellas before it rains.

If this does occur, the blame and fault will always lie with the persons who choose commit such a lousy and selfish act of judgement. And, the blame should end there.

So the true challenge, the people this policy this most affects, are the remaining members of the Church. 

To Us: Let us ever strive to ensure we are sympathetic and respectful of every situation; of every member who visits with us in worship. Most especially the young and the beautiful souls of the children. 

These little ones need now, more than any other time for the rest of their life, examples of compassion and understanding - not whispered evaluations of our fellow brethren and sisters. 

May we ever strive to chase the Charity of our Lord and Savior, and pray to always see our fellow man as Christ does - with perfect, unending and unconditional love.

That’s my sincere prayer.

- Brady

UPDATE:

This article was written prior to any official statement given from the Church Leadership and was an attempt to tie some logical ropes together. It was not designed to provide official or complete representation of the purpose behind the policy.

The Church has spoken to some of these details now, and I will link to the Press Release here if you would like to hear the official stance.

I must admit, I am pleased to see how parallel the statement is to my original thoughts. Of course, they were articulated with far more delicacy by Elder Christofferson than I was able to.

LDS Church Official Statement