This Sunday, November 5, marks the second anniversary of the Church’s exclusion policy. The policy that was established in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges legalizing same-sex marriage in June of that year. The policy that declares members in same-sex marriages to be in apostasy and makes a disciplinary council mandatory. The policy that excludes the children of a parent living in a same-sex relationship from receiving church ordinances unless and until the child: has reached the age of 18; does not live with the parent; “specifically disavows” same-sex relationships; and receives approval from the First Presidency. [1]
The policy hit my family and me in a very personal way – so much so, that I felt compelled to write a letter of objection to my church leaders at the time. My wife and I have served faithfully in the church all our lives and raised our six children (three boys, three girls) that way. All three boys served missions and two of our daughters and one son have married in the temple. But it just so happens that two of our sons are gay. Both served honorable missions, graduated from BYU and are intelligent, thoughtful and spiritual young men. After much soul searching, neither of them felt God calling them to a life of celibacy. They both desire the same thing their parents and married siblings have – a companion whom they can love and cherish and spend their lives with. Before the policy, they had hoped they could still find a place in the church, even if that meant giving up full fellowship and equal treatment. But being officially labeled an apostate made that hope unlikely.
And what of our grandchildren? If our gay sons give us grandchildren at some point in the future, church milestones will no longer have the binding, unifying influence they once had in our family. Quite the opposite, while some of our grandkids will look forward excitedly to baptisms, the gift of the Holy Ghost, priesthood ordinations and missions, the children of our gay sons will be excluded, knowing they aren’t allowed to celebrate these milestones along with their cousins because of something their dads did. How do you explain that to a child? The church that has built its image on “the family” has put a giant wedge in my family.
In the two years since that dark day, it’s been interesting to see how the policy has actually been enforced. I have heard of only a few instances of leaders seeking out same-sex couples for mandatory disciplinary hearings. On the other hand, I know of a number of stake presidents and bishops who have explicitly expressed that they will not enforce the policy or who have not felt impressed to take action on same-sex couples in their stakes and wards. At the same time, we have Tom Christofferson’s new book, published by Deseret Book, that shows a faithful LDS family who loved and accepted their gay family member and his partner, and included them in all family activities without restriction – quite the opposite message of the policy.
These examples indicate that much of the membership is not fully buying into the policy, even if Elder Nelson tried to stave off the leaks and rumors surrounding its origination by claiming it was “revealed to President Monson.” But his claim brings to mind an oft-cited example for testing prophetic pronouncements in this statement from President J. Reuben Clark:
I say it illustrates a principle – that even the President of the Church, himself, may not always be ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost,’ when he addresses the people. This has happened about matters of doctrine (usually of a highly speculative character) where subsequent Presidents of the Church and the peoples themselves have felt that in declaring the doctrine, the announcer was not ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’
How shall the Church know when these adventurous expeditions of the brethren into these highly speculative principles and doctrines meet the requirements of the statutes that the announcers thereof have been ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’? The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest. [2]
What I take from this is that, contrary to what most members may think about the infallibility of prophetic statements, policies and even revelations, such utterances are not automatically God’s words. They must be sustained and felt as such by the “body of the members.” And that is also why I believe the prophet can’t lead the membership astray – because the membership won’t permit it.
What does this mean for the policy? It may stay in the Handbook for some time yet, but if local leaders and the membership ignore it, it becomes of no effect and will ultimately be consigned to the dust heap of past statements, policies and revelations that we no longer remember or follow.
______________________
[1] A “clarification” – which was really a partial retraction – issued a week later stated that the restrictions “apply only to those children whose primary residence is with a couple living in a same-gender marriage or similar relationship.”
[2] J. Reuben Clark Jr., as cited by D. Todd Christofferson, “The Doctrine of Christ,” April 2012 General Conference; see also, James E. Faust, “The Truth Shall Make You Free,” New Era, March 1975; Ensign, July 1981; Ensign, September 1998.
Wheat & Tares 
My Stake President told me and my wife in a private interview shortly after the policy was announced that he doesn’t care if we disavow the policy or not. The next year he just happened to be there when I came in for a temple recommend, and true to his word he signed it.
Not only was this policy a mistake but as evidenced by my experience it is null and void in our stake.
The Church, in my forty years of working on policies and procedures with organizations of all sizes, is the only organization I have experienced that has policies that they don’t enforce.
Bryce
You are not doing your sons any favors by encouraging them down this road.
I recently re read a post that J Stapely did in 2006 about a unique doctrine that we have in Mormonism that parents will have the opportunity to raise their children in the millennium and how that doctrine has evolved. It is a great read and I will post a link on the bottom, but it relates to this topic because it too addresses the need for ordinances. I also took some youth to the temple a couple months ago and one of the temple presidency addressed the youth prior to the baptisms and he made a point to tell them that ordinances were only necessary for admission into the Celestial Kingdom. Then last week I was at a bishopric training and the Stake president received instruction, and chose to pass it onto us, that members who die before they turn 8 do not need any ordinances done for them in the temple. With all of those three experiences my mind turned to the Nov. 5 policy.
In a church that emphasizes ordinances and their requirement for exaltation, a church that spends millions to build temples and asks it’s members to sacrifice to go and do said ordinances, why would this church deny ordinances to any living member who wanted them?
Does a child who dies when they are 9 and who were denied baptism because of their same-sex parents need vicarious ordinances done for them? Do they have to wait until that dead child would have been 18?
If you have a known gay member in your family who dies, can you do temple work for them?
We did 200 baptisms that night and probably vicariously baptized 4 to 8 gay people. Why do Mormons have such hope for people they did temple work for as they walk out of the temple, but have such little hope for their living neighbors?
I know these are stupid questions and technicalities. Especially when considering how many people were born into slavery, ignorance, extreme poverty, etc.. I don’t believe in a micro managing God who cares in all these little details, and I get the leaders have to take some moral stance and make hard decisions, but this policy is extremely hard to swallow.
Elder Oaks combined cohabitation with same sex marriage in the same category last conference. I believe we should have some consistency and all children born to divorced parents, cohabitating parents, and same sex parents should also have to wait until they are 18 and disavow their parents lifestyle to be permitted to partake of these ordinances that we stress so much.
https://bycommonconsent.com/2006/10/24/children-who-pass-away/
Actually lots of groups have policies and laws they don’t enforce.
There are published games where you pull cards and try to guess which ones are current laws no one is enforcing.
This policy is just plain wrong! It’s a portion of the reason that I recently resigned my membership in the church. I believe God loves all of his children, not just those being raised in a properly defined family!
Thank you Bryce for this personal take on the Nov policy. Unlike Jon above, I wish you well in your family. It is the church that has not done them any favours in this scenario…
With the reality of leadership roulette, people’s experiences are going to be different across the world in relation to how the policy is observed. However, I choose to see this policy shift in the context it is given. This is what I see.
1. A church led by old ultra conservative, and generally wealthy men.
2. They all vote republican
3. The church (BYU) has a disgusting history in its treatment of homosexual members. Showing gay men gay porn and electrocuting their genitals was practiced in the 70’s and 80’s and even into the early 90’s apparently.
4. The church using its US members (they don’t really care about other countries like Australia) to fund (monetarily and through unpaid labour) to engage in the front line of proposed legislative change (such as prop 8).
5. Continuing an interesting but damaging dual rhetoric of “we care about gay people” on one hand and “this is why we are excluding them and their children” on the other.
So to me, the notion of not enforcing the policy, if that’s what some leaders are doing, is a moot point. The church is generally going to only provide a toxic place for gay people to be. Hell, my wife and I (who aren’t even gay) were threatened with disciplinary action for having private conversations with friends about the policy in my own home. Guess I lucked out on the leadership roulette thing.
So my take is that the church has decided – at least for now – to travel this very narrow path. It’s culture, policy, general conference talks, most leadership, public persona, media releases, policy, and according to Pres Nelson- the policy came straight from God – all of these things solidify the church’s position on the issue.
Jon – I don’t know Bryce and I presume you don’t either. It’s unusual to offer such personal advice.
Research on people in Bryce sons’ position (such as John Dehlin’s research) would indicate that, at least statistically, those sons are healthier – mentally and physically – and less susceptible to a range of adverse life events if they remain true to who they are and seek and maintain genuine relationships with others, including a spouse.
And what of those people who decide to live a polygamous marriage, and their children? I’m curious to know if you see it differently?
Would you also say for them, “The church that has built its image on “the family” has put a giant wedge in [their] family.”
I ask since this policy was patterned after the much longer standing policy concerning those in polygamous marriages and those who are children of parents in polygamous marriage. For some reason as far as I’ve been able to witness, it seems that people haven’t been as quick to jump to the defense of these families and children. And so I wonder why?
Is it because more people in our time and culture view polygamy as bad or maybe even wrong, and same-sex marriage as good or maybe even right? If not, if a person agrees with the church that both are wrong, then why the outrage over the one and the seeming silence for the most part in regards to the other?
Jon Miranda, Bryce said nothing about encouraging his gay sons down “this road.” He did say they did their own soul searching about their course of action. Instead of preaching without first reading, you might consider mourning with those who mourn — or even keeping silent if you cannot do that. Is there any reason to think your one-liner to Bryce could do him or anyone else any good?
Steve – I’d Ben happy to defer to others like Bryce for a more expert opinion, but my take on your question is that polygamy is something that you do. Being gay is something that you are.
Steve S, I don’t believe the difference in responses to the polygamous family policy and the children-of-gay(s) exclusion policy results from approval of same-sex marriage and disapproval of polygamy, even for those who approve of the availability of same-sex marriage in a pluralistic society and do not approve of polygamy. Instead, it seems primarily the result of the facts that very many people are aware of and concerned about their gay friends and family members and their children while relatively fewer know anyone involved in polygamy . There is also a considerable difference in general awareness of the two policies, as well as a considerable difference in their origins and their purported purposes. Also, prior to the November 2015 policy, few knew of the existence of the long-standing policy as to children of polygamous marriages. The children-of-polygamists policy seems to have been adopted at a time when the Church was struggling to differentiate itself from polygamist branches of the restoration and when some of those polygamist branches were [purportedly] encouraging children to join the LDS church in order to gain access to the LDS temples before engaging in polygamy. The November 2015 policy on the other hand was purportedly adopted out of “a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years” and to avoid facilitating familial discord. The legitimate aspects of those purposes could have been as well served by modifying the existing policy on parental consent to baptism of minors to ensure that it was informed consent as to what the Church expected ultimately to teach children about families and marriage.
Perhaps my speculations are not right. They are clearly limited by my experience and lack of research, and I have left the troublesome “apostacy” aspects of the November 2015 policy aside. Post-1904 it was clear that being in (probably only entering into) a living, polygamous marriage was apostacy from the LDS church. It is much less clear that there is any reasonable distinction to be made, as the November 2015 policy does, between being in a same-sex marriage (“apostacy”) and, e.g., cohabiting heterosexually or homosexually without marriage (merely “serious sin” but not “apostacy”). The latter are “Repeatedly act[ing] in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.” just as much as is being in a same-sex marriage.
LDS_Aussie,
I think a lot of people would agree with you. Is the line of reasoning then, since being gay is not a choice, then ultimately same-sex marriage seems at the very least not as morally wrong as choosing polygamy? And therefore the policy against those who choose to polygamously marry (considered in apostasy) and their children (not able to be baptized before 18) seems more just or understandable?
If this is the general line of reasoning, it seems this might in a way justify the church’s position since 1) We would be admitting that this type of policy could be justifiable to certain types of parental choices, 2) The main argument for differentiation is that we see those parental choices as not as morally wrong, and 3) The church’s position seems to be that same-sex marriage is as morally wrong as, if not more so than, polygamous marriage. And therefore, at the root of it it seems not to be an argument over the nature of the policy as it effects families, so much as a what degree of a moral wrong (if one at all) one views the act of same-sex marriage. If the pushback is due to this type of argument (the overarching morality of same-sex marriage), then perhaps the Church has a solid case for drawing that type of line in the sand so to speak.
JR,
You may be right, perhaps it is simply a matter of awareness. I get the sense though that people don’t feel as deeply opposed to it when they learn about the policy in regards to polygamous marriages and their children. Has that been your experience? And for those who are aware of the policy that I know of (like people you’ll find in the mormon blogging world) I don’t see them including polygamous marriages and children in the conversation really at all, which suggests to me that it doesn’t matter as much to them. If one agrees that both are morally wrong, but that the policy itself is unjust to families and/or children, it seems incongruous to care so deeply about one and to disregard the other.
Side note: It actually does make sense to me to that marriage choices could be treated differently in policy compared to something like co-habitation, adultery, or even open marriages which are much like polygamy. The former make a public contract signaling to the community their intent to live in and be publicly recognized in this type of arrangement, with the intent of that arrangement being permanent. I can see how the more overt nature of it could justify a more overt response.
Jr
Never will I encourage people to go down a road that is contrary to what the Brethren teach.
Jon, Nobody suggested that you should or would. Bryce didn’t say he would or had. I guess I don’t understand your random, disconnected remarks.
SteveS – Similar to what others have said, the policy as applied to polygamists doesn’t relate to gay people because polygamists have to conscientiously choose that practice, whereas gay people, like heterosexuals, are born with their sexual orientation. Children raised in a polygamous household will likely be indoctrinated in that practice and therefore have to take special steps to show that they reject it in order to be admitted into our church. By contrast, gay people cannot be “indoctrinated” into being gay or straight. Straight children raised in a gay-parent household may not believe their gay parents’ relationship is sinful (a belief all members may have without threat to their membership), but they will not choose to be gay and enter into same-sex relationships based on the household they were raised in. So the policy serves no purpose with respect to these children – it simply causes great spiritual harm.
Bryce – that’s what I was trying to say above. Your comment was the clearest and most succinct treatment of that issue I have read. Thank you.
What a difficult subject. I do not envy those whose lives are affected by this. All we can do is continue to pray for further light and knowledge and above all be Christlike in our actions.
Do you truly not understand the parabol of your website’s name?
Tares (unrighteous) are allowed to remain with wheat (righteousness) until harvest time (burned).
The concept that God loves all his children, therefore he will not punish, enforce, or even reject, is false doctrine. He has the highest standards and one of those is he doesn’t support gay marriage or homosexuality at all. He will not tolerate sin.
He’s giving you every opportunity possible to change your ways. Clock is ticking.
How it is that an organization that teaches the Doctrine of Christ which as the Savior himself made clear in 3 Nephi 12 is to permit all repentant souls to be baptized and receive the saving ordinances can say that NO you may NOT be baptized not because of anything you have done but because of the sins of your parents is beyond me . To punish someone not for their own transgressions but for the sins of their parents is not only contrary to the express teachings of the Savior but has no precedent in any Christian group anywhere in the world so far as I am aware.. I believe this pernicious policy is not inspired by the forces of light but by the enemy of truth.. It staggers me to be asked to believe a group of men who we revere as apostles of Christ can come up with something so damaging and so contrary to what the Savior himself taught. If the Catholics did it we would ridicule them and cite this as proof of their corrupt nature. But when in happens in thre midst of an organization we have revered all our lives we whisper about in the the corners of the chapel rather than follow the example of Luther and publicly denounce error within our beloved church when we see it. Protestant s celebrated the 500 year anniversary of the Reformation last week. We could learn a great lesson on bravery from them
Bryce Cook,
So to clarify, you’re saying because of the difference you describe you do believe the policy as applied to polygamous marriages / children is just, or at least more just?
I have enjoyed the logica, loving, and faithful voice of Bryce on this this topic. I have come to agree with the assertion that the church will not be led astray instead of the prophet is infallible. I heard someone mention that they were told about the policy, “Well maybe it is a test” implying a test of obedience to the leaders. Their response was wonderful, “yes, maybe it is a test. A test to see if we will follow God and the holy ghost telling us to just love.”
I do have to say that I have one bone to pick with one statement. Bryce said, “but if local leaders and the membership ignore it, it becomes of no effect.” I think I get what he is saying, but I think to have your spiritual leaders in essence saying they disdain what you are more than most any other “sin” is spiritually damaging without much of an equivalent.
Bryce Cook,
Also, given that logic, what do you think of “[gay] children raised in a gay-parent household”? Does the “indoctrination” then matter in your opinion?
Jeremy,
The point of the parable of the wheat & the tares is that you can’t distinguish who is righteous and who is not until late in the game. If you are looking today and thinking, “X is clearly definitely an unrighteous tare,” then you miss the point of the parable — the entire point is that at harvest time, there will be quite a few surprised regarding who were wheat and who were tares.
The entire point of the parable is that although the servants of the Master believe they have identified the tares from the wheat, the Master says they should hold off, because the Master knows that the servants will make mistakes and uproot wheat along with what they think are tares.
See also the parable of the sheep and the goats — where even many righteous will not know that they were righteous (and many people who thought they were righteous will instead find out they were wicked).
SteveS – For kids raised in polygamous families, I see the church’s logic in denying them membership until they are older and have represented that they reject apostate polygamous teachings. Because polygamy is a doctrine that has proved highly infectious throughout church history, the church has taken a very cautious approach in allowing polygamists and their families into the fold. Polygamists can recruit and convert others to their way of life, same-sex couples can’t (unless someone is already gay), which addresses your next question. The “indoctrination” of a child – gay or straight – into the acceptance of same-sex marriage should not matter, because the church does not hold the rest of its membership to that test. For instance, I don’t believe SSM to be a sin, but my temple and membership privileges have not been restricted or threatened in any way (so far).
HappyHubby – by the policy having “no effect,” I meant that it would not be enforced. However, I totally agree with you that just by its very existence in the church handbook, it is a stain that still causes great emotional and spiritual harm. At the very least, I hope it will come to be seen as the odd pet issue of one or two of the older brethren, and not fully sustained and loved by the rest of them – similar to leaders’ tacit acceptance but later disavowal of Brigham’s pet Adam-God theory.
Steve S,
My personal opinion on the children of gay parents vs. children of polygamous parents policy issues: I absolutely think it is just as bad to not allow children of polygamous parents to be baptized as it is to not allow children of gay parents to be baptized. I was unaware of the polygamy policy until shortly before the other policy came out (I believe Mormon Heretic posted something about it here on W&T and that was the first I’d heard of it). I will admit that I have a harder time mustering up the emotional energy to fight the polygamy policy and that is mostly because of fear. Gay marriage and polygamy have a very different impact on me personally. Gay marriage doesn’t come with a subtle implication that God values his sons more than his daughters, polygamy does (at least as Mormons teach it). Gay marriage hasn’t permeated our deepest and most sacred doctrines and ordinances, polygamy has. Gay marriage doesn’t cause a looming fear over many of the women of the church that at any moment they could be asked (or perhaps commanded) by a prophet to upend their entire marriage and be forced to live in a marriage they don’t want and didn’t choose (or be destroyed), polygamy does. Gay marriage doesn’t make many women wonder if getting into the Celestial Kingdom will actually be a step closer to hell, polygamy does. So yes, chalk it up to selfish fear. Logically I agree that both policies are equally wrong, but my fear prevents me from fighting for a world in which all the Mormon men I know begin to think of polygamy as a viable option now. It’s creepier than the idea that most the Mormon men I know believe they’ll be living it in heaven.
This policy does damage to families such as Bryce’s in quite subtle ways. Previous to this policy, life events such as baptisms, priesthood ordinations, baby blessings, and temple activity could be celebrated by all of the family. Such events typically are a shared cultural marker within an LDS family. Now, since some of the family is unable to participate in those cultural markers, the life events will, of necessity, be downplayed to a degree within the family. They lose their “stickiness”, if you will. Not only does the LDS Church lose credibility and “pull” for the gay family members, it also does so for the straight ones as the life events lose their magic.
Bryce also brings up a good point about the lack of interest by local leadership in enforcing the policy. We’ve all seen the shifting stance on this topic from leadership (LDS Aussie lists them earlier in the comments). They completely lack credibility on the issue and it seems many sense it.
We were all sold the idea that prophets can help provide wisdom in difficult times and the revelation needed to navigate difficult waters. In reality, on every single difficult social issue over the years, church leaders have been proven to be completely wrong. They’re no better than a magic 8 ball.
Bryce,
It seems your position is then, if I’m understanding right, ultimately since you believe same-sex marriage is not a sin that the policy is therefore not just or good. I.e. it is unfairly putting restrictions on people who didn’t choose to be gay (and therefore same-sex marriage should be understandable), and the “indoctrination” of same-sex marriage not being sin should not be seen as a threat (since it only effects gay people, and we should allow them their path of choice anyway). I think that is a totally fair and consistent position.
At the same time, given the church’s position that same-sex marriage is a sin, and starting from that reference rather than yours (that it is not a sin) it seems following your same logic that the policy may be justified.
For example, you say, “The “indoctrination” of a child – gay or straight – into the acceptance of same-sex marriage should not matter, because the church does not hold the rest of its membership to that test.” Whether one believes polygamous marriage is a sin or not, is also not a litmus test for our membership. Rather as you pointed out, the issue is that this “indoctrination” that is “highly infectious” could lead others to accept and ultimately choose polygamous marriage. Likewise, I think from the Church’s reference point, the “indoctrination” of same-sex marriage as not sin would be viewed as just as “highly infectious” in our current cultural climate, and just as threatening – for it could lead others, specifically gay members, to accept and ultimately choose same-sex marriage. This is of course bad if you think it is sin – because it means it will bring them sorrow in this life (wickedness never was happiness) and perhaps even eternal damnation in the word to come. Furthermore the implications that it has towards other topics the Church has concerns about – gender, eternal marriage, eternal progeny, etc. – could also be seen as threatened by this “indoctrination”, it a way that even polygamous marriage doesn’t even touch.
In other words, if putting these restrictions on families and children is justified in one scenario because of the threat of the indoctrination, acceptance, and further perpetuation of the “sin”, and if the Church believes that the other “sin” is just as destructive and indoctrination just as threatening to the Church and the salvation of it’s members, then it seems they are likewise just as justified in implementing those same restrictions to the new scenario.
EBK,
That makes sense, maybe it’s easier to avoid thinking about it since polygamy can be such a sensitive point. Maybe you’re right that it might root in a type of selfish fear, but at the same time I think it’s a totally understandable reaction given that so many of those doctrinal issues have not been clarified for us yet.
“They’re no better than a magic 8 ball.” An 8 ball is random whereas church leadership is predictable. Just see what the evangelicals are saying, and we’re sure to follow.
Steve –
Personally, I think both policies are wrong and damaging because they target people for exclusion based on something the kids can’t control. My kids have gay friends and relatives and think SSM is just fine. I have no doubt if we lived in an area where polygamy was practiced, they’d feel the same about those kids. My kids are thoroughly indoctrinated. But they can get baptized. Kids in gay or polygamous families can’t. That choice is taken from them and their parents (which in a sense infantilizes the parents as well).
“In other words, if putting these restrictions on families and children is justified in one scenario because of the threat of the indoctrination, acceptance, and further perpetuation of the “sin”, and if the Church believes that the other “sin” is just as destructive and indoctrination just as threatening to the Church and the salvation of it’s members, then it seems they are likewise just as justified in implementing those same restrictions to the new scenario.”
You are still confusing behavior with agreement. A child of a gay family can’t perpetrate the ‘sin’ of homosexuality (unless they themselves are gay). And accepting SSM as valid isn’t currently a sin. If what the church cared about was stopping the acceptance of SSM (as a threat to the church), why go after non-gay children? The people to target are the straight family members of LGBTQ who stay in the church and openly support their family members. They are the ones pushing more acceptance. That and teenagers, as good lot of whom see SSM as a non-issue and the chuch’s stance as stupid.
SteveS – The “highly infectious” nature of a doctrine – which ultimately leads to a practice – is only present with polygamy. That’s the difference between polygamy and SSM. We can believe whatever we want about SSM, but indoctrination does not automatically lead to church members entering into SSM; whereas with polygamy, those who believe it tend to want to practice it.
I appreciate your article and love how you expressed it. As parents of a gay son and nephew, this has been devastating to our family. I believe this handbook policy will change or just disappear. In the meantime let’s hope the damage is minimized.
Bryce,
To be clear, I’m not advocating a particular position, but I’m not sure what you mean by that. For our gay members who are convinced and therefore believe that SSM is not a sin, you don’t believe they will “tend to want to practice it”? Given the hardship and prospect of no marriage or companionship at all as the likely alternative (compared with polygamy), I would expect there would be an even higher likelihood of “tend[ing] to want to practice it”. You disagree?
Steve S – C’mon, that’s just nonsense. If the policy was enacted to protect the few gay members who might be tempted to enter a same-sex relationship, why ban ALL children of same-sex parents, 95% of whom are straight?
Great essay Bryce. I definitely disagree with you that the Prophets “can’t lead astray”….that’s hands down my least favorite statement in our curriculum and culture….but I do like what you did with it, and I’ll be saving that quote from J. Reuben Clark in my evernote file titled “Can’t Lead Astray” where I keep my favorite quotes to combat the idolatry that was born and has festered with that statement.
I think Christ meant it when he spoke to another group of leaders who claimed to be the gatekeepers for heaven, when he said in Matthew 23: “13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.”
It has been, and always will be possible, for people in a position of institutional authority to abuse their position of power and effectively halt the progress of those who would otherwise know the grace, beauty, and mercy of God…if only they were taught it correctly.
Thanks as always for your example in leading with love and faithfulness on this issue. Mara and I so enjoyed meeting you and your family, and wish you all the best.
I’ll close with one of my favorite “the prophet CAN lead you astray” quotes:
President George Q. Cannon: “Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a bishop; an apostle, or a president. If you do, they will fail you at some time or place, they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone, but if we lean on God, He never will fail us. When men and women depend on God alone, and trust in Him alone, their faith will not be shaken if the highest in the Church should step aside. They could still see that He is just and true, that truth is lovely in His sight, and the pure in heart are dear to Him. Perhaps it is His own design that faults and weaknesses should appear in high places in order that His saints may learn to trust in Him and not in any man or men!”
I’m note sure why this comment hasn’t posted, trying again….
Great essay Bryce. I definitely disagree with you that the Prophets “can’t lead astray”….that’s hands down my least favorite statement in our curriculum and culture….but I do like what you did with it, and I’ll be saving that quote from J. Reuben Clark in my evernote file titled “Can’t Lead Astray” where I keep my favorite quotes to combat the idolatry that was born and has festered with that statement.
I think Christ meant it when he spoke to another group of leaders who claimed to be the gatekeepers for heaven, when he said in Matthew 23: “13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.”
It has been, and always will be possible, for people in a position of institutional authority to abuse their position of power and effectively halt the progress of those who would otherwise know the grace, beauty, and mercy of God…if only they were taught it correctly.
Thanks as always for your example in leading with love and faithfulness on this issue. Mara and I so enjoyed meeting you and your family, and wish you all the best.
I’ll close with one of my favorite “the prophet CAN lead you astray” quotes:
President George Q. Cannon: “Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a bishop; an apostle, or a president. If you do, they will fail you at some time or place, they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone, but if we lean on God, He never will fail us. When men and women depend on God alone, and trust in Him alone, their faith will not be shaken if the highest in the Church should step aside. They could still see that He is just and true, that truth is lovely in His sight, and the pure in heart are dear to Him. Perhaps it is His own design that faults and weaknesses should appear in high places in order that His saints may learn to trust in Him and not in any man or men!”
Bryce,
I’m not advocating a position, I don’t know why you’re jumping to why “the policy was enacted”, I wasn’t trying to imply such a thing. I don’t have an explanation for what is and I’m not even trying to defend the policy. My own opinion is far removed from where we’ve gone in this conversation, and I’ve only been trying to understand your line of reasoning here. It’s interesting to me because you find the same policy as applied to polygamous marriage situation to be understandable and maybe even valid, whereas applied to same-sex marriage you think it is wrong to the point of implying the church is morally responsible for putting “a giant wedge in [your] family”. That’s a pretty wide gap, which makes me wonder do you hold your opinion because in your heart of hearts you believe it is true (which is of course what everybody will say if you asked that question directly)? Or could it be something like it’s easier to believe given your personal situation? I find that if I follow a person’s line of reasoning, whether I agree with them or not, it’s at the edges of their opinions where I begin to see whether they have integrity in their position, or whether they seem to have some ulterior motives to cling to a particular conclusion and don’t really care about the reasoning they offer on the surface. When I see integrity, the person’s opinion has far more credibility in my eye’s and a much bigger impact on my own opinion. My thoughts around this topic are not set in stone, which is why I have been so interested in exploring your perspective given that you are so personally connected to the subject.
Danny K – thanks for commenting, good thoughts! One way to reconcile our positions on the prophet’s ability to lead the church astray is is to address length of time. I would agree with you that prophets can lead (and have led) the church astray for periods of time – but ultimately, the church finds its way and rejects the false teachings.
I’ve never heard of it referred to as the Exclusion Policy. I prefer to refer to it as the Compassion and Protection Policy. https://www.lds.org/church/news/elder-christofferson-says-handbook-changes-regarding-same-sex-marriages-help-protect-children?lang=eng. There is great compassion and wisdom in a policy that protects children.
“There is great compassion and wisdom in a policy that protects children.”
Interestingly enough, the church published a manual just two years ago that discussed how refusing baptism to children can harm those children. This manual was studied all year in Priesthood and Relief Society in every ward and branch in the church. From “Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Howard W. Hunter”:
“Because Howard had not been baptized, he could not be ordained a deacon when he turned 12. ‘By that time, all my friends had been ordained deacons,’ he said. ‘Because I wasn’t an official member of the Church, I wasn’t able to do many of the things that they did.’ Howard was especially disheartened that he could not pass the sacrament: ‘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.’
Tim, an emotional appeal does not negate truth. The church’s policy does not guarantee that it won’t be difficult. It also doesn’t mean that people’s feelings won’t be hurt. The policy is about what is best for the children, whether or not the children (or adults!) understand or agree, or that their feelings will be “harmed”. My children make emotional appeals every time they want to stay out too late, or go to a party that I feel would be detrimental, or skip school. “But I’ll be the only one not going!” “I can do my chores afterward!”. “But we’ll sleep in separate bedrooms!” Just as adoption is the best policy for an unwed mother, it’s about what is best for the children. All emotional appeals are difficult and real, but that does not negate the truth.
Shouldn’t parents be the ones to decide what is best for their children? Just as an unwed mother is the best (the only!) one who can decide to keep her child or find an adoptive family? If you see a connection between these two items, why does the church allow children of unwed mother’s to be baptized then?
Stan, the compassion and protection policy link you shared is a mess of BS that required the wearing of hip-waiders to read. Jesus loved the sinners and spent time with them. He also rebuked the self righteous religious leaders. Be careful as you find yourself sitting in judgment of God’s children.
This JR is not schizophrenic. There really are two JRs in this and some other comment chains. Sometimes they are in agreement; sometimes not. This one doesn’t care much for that one’s tone even when in agreement. This one already did too much shoveling in the corral after the spring thaw — high boots, but no hip waders needed..
Again we have to look at the rational that is being used. If the goal is to protect children from being taught something at church that could possibly come into conflict with something they are being taught at home by word or example, then why just limit it to children of same sex parents. We already have a list of Orthodox members in each ward. It is the endowed with recommend list. The compassion and protection policy should simply state that only children of TR holders should be able to be baptized.
I know that makes people uncomfortable because we like to rank sin and generally we rank it by the least offensive sins being the ones we commit and the most offensive sins being those others commit. Homosexuality has been the punching bag of the church for too long. Even in GD classes the first thing that the 60 and 70 year olds bring up when we talk about the destruction of the family and moral decay of our society is homosexuality. Give me a break. Take a look at your own damn life and own damn family and quit blaming homosexuals.
I thought that the church was starting to make some progress in the way that it was handling same sex attraction and the policy kind of gave the older BRM and JFK types more validation and ammunition.
One more dumb rhetorical question inspired by Joseph Smith’s brother Alvin’s situation. If someone dies before the age of 8 and God knows that had they grown to adulthood they would have been a homosexual, will they still make it to the CK?
Thank you Zach!!
The policy really doesn’t make a whole lot of sense as a protection for children. But bear in mind that when any organization brings up the word “protection,” you can rest assured they are really talking about lawsuits. Yet even here, the policy fails to comprehend the real life situations that church members are in, often of the church’s creation. There was some speculation that the church didn’t want to be used in a custody battle between parents, so they “recused” themselves with this policy saying “See? Baptism is off the table! It’s not us! Don’t get us in the middle of your custody disputes!” But of course, that doesn’t really take the church out of the custody battle. It just makes it more emotionally fraught, bringing in the child’s eternal salvation as a stake in the game. Now straight couples could be moved to attempt to bar their gay married exes from any custodial relationship (!). The church fails to see several problems with their assumptions:
1) most of these LDS ex-spouses who are now gay married were encouraged by their bishops to marry against their own inclination as a way to stop being gay. And that seldom works out well, either in terms of changing sexual orientation or in terms of having a successful long-term marriage.
2) there are gay people with a testimony of the gospel who can’t commit to lifelong celibacy.
3) this policy inexplicably gives preference to gay promiscuity rather than commitment.
4) gay people are born into LDS families all the time. This doesn’t stop God from sending these gay children to LDS homes; it just makes them unbearably depressed when they see that the Celestial Kingdom wasn’t made for people like them.
It reminds me a little bit of when we went to the Cu Chi Tunnels in Vietnam. There was a film to explain the war from the Vietnamese perspective. Our guide had us sit down, and just as the film was starting he rushed in to ask us our nationality. “You’re Australians, right? Not Americans??” he asked, panicked. “Uhm, no, we’re Americans.” Then he said we should not watch the film because it was not for us, and we might not like it. We assured him we understood that a Vietnamese view of the war wasn’t going to be favorable to the USA, and we did watch it. Like that panicky tour guide–that’s how lame we sound, trying to clear the gay people out of our pews so we can talk trash about them.
Stan H., you clearly accept the notion that this policy is protecting children from having to observe a disparity between the things that they are taught by their religious community and their life at home. I am interested to hear your opinion then on why it is not a problem for a child to observe a similar disparity between their religious teachings and a home where their straight parents are living out of wedlock, or where their straight father is an alcoholic. I have brought this up to several individuals who support this policy and have never received an answer. If you’re all about protection, why do you not wish to extend the same protections to other children.
Also, your assumption that adoption is always the best option for an unwed mother is ignorant and misguided. It must be difficult to breathe from all the way up there in the thin air on your celestial tower where you seemingly know what is best for everybody. No situation in life has a simple, one-size-fits-all approach.
JR, Bryce Cook puts the Christofferson family forward as a good example of a “faithful LDS family who loved and accepted their gay family member and his partner, and included them in all family activities without restriction”. Yet you utterly reject Elder Christofferson’s comments as a “mess of BS”. Assuming you agree with Bryce, where is the congruency in those two opinions?
It was a lot of rationalization and justification to support a baseless position of exclusion! Punish the children for their parents actions claiming you are protecting them? The reality is that using this logic, all children should be excluded from these ordinances! Everywhere they look in the world, they see things that are incongruent with the teachings they hear in church. They should all wait until the age of majority and can swear loyalty to the teachings of the church!
See how stupid that sounds!
Stan H – The question should be “where is the congruency in Elder Christofferson’s statement on the policy and his family’s loving acceptance of their gay son and his partner”? There is a huge disconnect there, like so much of the church’s messaging and actions on LGBT issues. How can Elder Christofferson justify a policy that kicks loving, committed gay couples out of the church (and effectively their children), while at the same time his parents’ family demonstrates how we should do just the opposite – love and include our gay family members and their partners instead of kicking them out?
Troy, thanks for your comments. I apologize, I did not mean to imply that adoption should be the ONLY policy, but I do clearly believe that it is the best policy. I don’t feel that I’m ignorant nor misguided because I have personal experience in this matter. You are correct, there can never be one-size-fits-all policy. But I think you missed the point that I was trying to illustrate. I was simply stating, based on my beliefs and experience, that all policies, whether religious, educational, or governmental, should be based on what protects the children, not based on our good intentions, emotional appeals, etc., and sometimes those policies are painful.
Additionally, I did not state that I “do not wish to extend the same protections to other children”. Those are your words. If an alcoholic father is endangering his children, (for example allowing or encouraging under aged drinking), then the father needs to be held accountable for his actions and measures should be taken to protect the children. His parental rights, emotions, feelings, good intentions, etc., are secondary.
I believe the church’s policy regarding children of same sex marriages is along the same lines. Of course there are differences of opinions, but the church sets a policy based on what it feels is the best for children. The church, just as as school district, must define its policy based on the values of its community. If we as a society can’t protect our children by implementing policies that put children first, even if those policies are painful, then we are society that needs to reevaluate its priorities.
I sure like my good friend Bryce Cook. Thanks for the thought-provoking article. At the end of the day, 95% of us Mormon’s can’t relate or empathize with the impact of this policy, and your article helps us understand that impact deeply. For those that read it with an open heart, it will teach us that we need to show more love and care to all of our fellow brothers and sisters…and their children.
I just don’t buy it.
The quote from the article “Elder Christofferson Says Handbook Changes Regarding Same-Sex Marriages Help Protect Children”:
“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”
What about any other child that joins the church when their parents aren’t members, where the parents, smoke, drink, and engage in any other questionable behaviors? Should this be the policy towards them?
Second, what Children’s Sunday School classes are teaching about homosexuality these days???
Third, “They are not disavowing their parents, but disavowing the practice,” wait, so converts have to be 100% in agreement on every point of doctrine even if they don’t practice it? Are we going to ask children to disavow their parent’s practice of tea and coffee when tea and coffee is infinitely more healthy than an energy drink?
I wonder how many LDS members would change their mind if a some gay families came into the ward and showed them how normal they really are? I wonder if that would lead many more to push for a policy change?
I wonder how much of that has weighed down on these decisions that they’ve made?
“I wonder how many LDS members would change their mind if a some gay families came into the ward and showed them how normal they really are?”
When it comes down to it, this is the only logical reason I can think of for the Nov. 5th policy. Push gay people away from the church and thereby diminish the amount of interaction many members have with gay people.
Of course, it’s just as possible that some senior member of the 12 told a Handbook writer (perhaps an attorney at the church’s law firm) to put together a policy that treats gay families like the church treats polygamous families, the attorney slapped together a first draft to show to the senior member of the 12 and perhaps a couple of others, the 12 quickly read over the policy and authorized it, and just like that–a new policy. Seeing that the church seriously revised the policy several days after its release because of how sloppily it was written, this is my pet theory about why it came to be.
I am no fan of the policy for all the reasons we’ve discussed here. But I honestly don’t think the brethern implemented it to intentionally shove the entire gay population out of the church (those in gay marriages, clearly yes – although even then I wonder if they didn’t realize there actually were married, gay members.). Since the policy was pretty much a copy of how polygamy is handled, it seems to me they duplicated that without putting any thought into the ramifications or just how hurtful it would be or what damage would be done. These guys are in the 70s, 80s, and 90s so I’m willing to cut them some slack (my parents generations – and in them I can definitely see the aging process at work in their decision making abilities). What I have a much harder time accepting is that now that they are informed, they haven’t changed it. Now that families in situations with children who want to be baptized are raising their hands and pointing out the problems, they don’t seem to care.
“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”
This is already going on in many progressive LDS households, mine included. My wife and I spend the drive home from church each week talking to our children, trying to “clarify” what they may have been taught during primary. Sometimes, the messages they receive don’t align with the values of our family, whether as a result of poorly written manuals, teacher biases/errors, or the child’s misinterpretation. We will probably be doing this continuously as they grow up, as we increasingly find our parental expectations at odds with the expectations of the Church.
For this reason, I consider this argument in favor of the Exclusion Policy to be groundless.
Stan, thanks for clearing that up but my question still isn’t answered. Perhaps the example of an alcoholic father is extreme. Of course, if a child is being abused there needs to be protection for that child but being alcoholic doesn’t equal being abusive. My question is, what is so dangerous about having gay parents that you would need to be “protected” from baptism? The church’s position is that it protects the child from having to live in a home where the environment is at odds with what is being taught in church. Thus, this child should not be baptized. But there are probably thousands or tens of thousands of children in the world who have non-member parents (or inactive parents) who make decisions in their life that are at odds with church teachings. If a boy goes home to a mom and dad who are living together unmarried, that is at odds with what the church is teaching but that boy isn’t denied baptism? If a girl lives in a house where dad drinks coffee in the morning and a glass of wine with dinner, is she not also in a position to see a discrepancy between home life and church teachings? Of course she is, but that girl isn’t denied baptism. So, to me, the church’s clarification and justification of this policy simply doesn’t hold up to common sense logic. Now you, apparently, support the policy based on the church’s justification of it. And that’s fine. You have the right to support it but I’m just trying to understand how you reconcile this because you don’t seem to think that children in scenarios such as those that I have mentioned above should be denied baptism. Why do the children of gay parents get treated differently? This is the question that nobody has answered satisfactorily for me yet.
Well asked Troy and you won’t get that answer because it doesn’t exist.
I remember being very depressed about the policy announcement two years ago and wondering if I could ethically keep the temple recommend I had. The news stories about planned baptisms and missions being cancelled and devastation to members who mistakenly thought the policy applied to their children because of their gay ex-spouse were horrible. I wish they had just left the decision to baptize children up to the local leadership. The missionaries in our ward recently baptized a child of inactive parents who work Sunday and will likely never bring the child to church themselves EVER. He is now a permanent project for our meager, rural, geographically huge ward. That action seems far more damaging to the child in my thoughts than baptizing a fully supported child of LGBTparents who, for some reason–as odd as it might be, wants their child to attend the church that excludes them. In comparison to the exclusion of children of polygamist’s–who may theoretically be pushed by family members to join the church and receive endowments with polygamous aspirations hidden, the majority of the children be excluded because their parents are in a same sex marriage are going to be straight. If they are raised with the view that same sex marriage is healthy, they are going to be no different than the majority of their peers in the USA who are all potential converts for our proseltying missionaries. If we are going to protect children from making baptismal covenants where they will be confused–then lets defer baptizing children of non-supportive inactive LDS members until they are 18.
Oh, JR, I think the answer does exist and the longer I go without hearing an explanation that holds up to sound logic and the rules of consistency, the more I begin to think that the answer has something to do with things of which I would prefer to not accuse the church.
Rigel, As far as I can tell there were no “members who mistakenly thought the policy applied to their children because of their gay ex-spouses”. The policy as issued explicitly applied to them. Only the so-called “clarification” letter changed that and only so long as the child did not live “primarily” with the gay ex-spouse. “Primarily” was left quite undefined. That letter was a significant, if insufficient, change to the policy — not a clarification of the policy, though it might have been a clarification of the intent of some of the policy makers.
Troy and other JR, There is no satisfactory basis for the disparate treatment of children of various “sinners.” There is somewhere an answer to the question why the children of gay parents get treated differently from the children of other sexually or otherwise “sinful” parents. I believe that answer lies somewhere in the matrix of D&C 121:41 et seq., junior apostles “sustaining” decisions of senior apostles, legal concerns, lack of thought, sloppy drafting, fear of gay “contagion”, and sour grapes. There will be no persuasive claim that the policy grew out of concern for the children. That’s an after-the-fact PR ploy. There can be no persuasive claim that the consideration of “countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise” led to the policy; the “clarification” letter itself is irrefutable evidence that, while certain brethren may be unable to count, they either had omitted consideration of the children most likely to be affected by the policy, or considered either or both those children and the gift of the Holy Ghost in their younger years to be of no consequence. To some it is significant that not even one of the other members of the Q15 has publicly supported RMN’s claim of revelation in the formation of the policy. To some it is significant that all reference to RMN’s claim was removed, in an embarrassing back-and-forth, in the Seminary manual. See http://religionnews.com/2016/09/03/watch-the-mormon-seminary-curriculum-transform-before-your-very-eyes/ Troy may find an answer, but it won’t be one he likes. It is the latter kind that the other JR says, probably correctly, “doesn’t exist.”
Ahhh, I see where you’re going Troy. Having been officially removed from the records of the church, at my own request, so I’m not worried about accusing the church of anything.
JR, it’s not because I’m still a member of the church that I refrain from elaborating. I don’t want to publicly make any accusations without hard evidence. It’s the scientist in me. However, that other JR just communicated some speculation and evidence that is kind of speaking to what I think may be going on (ie – legal matters, personal politics, senior apostles sort of strong-arming the younger guys, homophobia, etc.)
You know what possibly bothers me more than the policy itself is the dishonest (and completely transparent) attempt on the part of the church to explain it away by saying it’s about caring for the children. Shame on the church for using the children to justify what it has done. I wonder how Christofferson felt when he ended up with the short straw and was selected as the unfortunate soul who got to be the voice for such rubbish.
Yes, Troy, As R.B., Scott quoted in December 2015 one who has “served in … regional and local leadership capacities, and counselled with all of the prophets and many apostles over the past 50 years…: ‘After stepping in fresh ordure, it’s best to scrape it off your boots before it hardens.'” The Brethren didn’t just let it harden, they helped it harden, rather than admit a fresh mistake such as those President Uchtdorf acknowledged vaguely had been made.
JR,
Thank you for recharacerizing the gist of my comment. Your description is correct, I didn’t go into those details, which are still painful to me. Whether those in control had a change of heart in how to write the policy or truly botched up the wording with their first release, the tidal wave of pain may have had fewer casualties if the final version could have been the first one leaked.
The fact that the policies are still in the Handbook remains for me a huge problem. It is not only the threat of their possibly being enforced at any time–say when local leadership changes–but also just the fact of what the policies say about how our church feels about LGBT persons. They are hateful, rejecting policies, regardless of whether a certain Bishop or Stake President chooses to enforce them. These policies have had a major impact on my ability to trust church leadership and my ability to remain committed in full activity in the church. In other words, my own sense of right and wrong and my own personal integrity have led me to pull back my activity in the church. I felt compelled to request release from my calling as Bishop’s Counselor. I no longer pay tithing, nor do I raise my arm to sustain the general authorities, nor do I hold a temple recommend.
Well done, Bryce. Very thoughtful stuff.
As far as the internet is concerned, I am a Nobody. A childhood friend of mine shared this on Facebook and I decided to give it a read. I feel like all of your actions and remarks are in harmony with my own and wanted to tell you This is GREAT!
Trevor, Thank you for posting a comment that resulted in my reviewing in part this 2017 post and its earlier comments. Given the pre-conference event of April 2019, it was useful to be reminded. Note: There were 2 JRs in the chain of comments. I’m the one who posted at November 8, 2017 at 2:56 pm (and some, not all, of the other JR comments).
Matthew Turner, I had not previously seen your comment. (I wonder if you’re still reading this blog.) Others clearly also have issues with respect to trusting church leadership — some of those issues are also directly related to the November 2015 policy. I respect your response to trust issues and the policy. But I note that some views of “sustain” do not require that same response to preserve some others’ personal integrity. I guess what response is necessary may depend in part on what one still trusts church leadership to do and whether one thinks it necessary to assume a definition of “sustain” that it can’t sustain in the face of the November 2015 debacle or other matters not conducive to one’s former kind of trust in church leadership.