The Church's update of its policies regarding people in same sex relationships really caught me off guard. Not the clarification that a disciplinary council is possible for someone sexually cohabiting in a same sex relationship. Or that a council is mandatory for someone in a same sex marriage. There is nothing unusual about those changes to me. They are completely consistent with what Church leaders have been teaching for as long as I can remember.
The change that caught me off guard is that children of same sex couples can't join the church until they're of legal age, move out of the house, and get approval from the first presidency. My first thought was: "This can't possibly last." And my second thought was: "Why take it out on the kids?" When the Lord requires His people to exclude someone from church membership, it is generally because of something the individual did - not because of something their parents did. A good example is in Mosiah 26 when a sizable group of people come of age, reject the church, and persuade many church members to ignore the commandments. Alma wanted to know what to do with the church members who disregarded the commandments but still wanted to be part of the church. He went to the Lord with the question. The Lord's response was that "as often as my people repent, I will forgive them their trespasses against me." But "whosoever will not repent of his sins the same shall not be numbered among my people."
Like the church members in Mosiah 26, it makes sense that our individual choices can exclude us from association in God's church. But at first glance, it doesn't make sense that an otherwise willing and accountable person would be excluded from membership solely because of the choices of others.
As I've mulled this over and read how people, including many of my friends, feel about the change, I came to the conclusion that I had been thinking about this wrong.
First, a group of very educated men who, for the most part, leave highly paid and prestigious professions, completely forego retirement, and devote themselves to the service of others until they finally die of old age - all for the sake of an assignment they never sought after or asked for - deserve the benefit of the doubt. Those who have seized on this policy change to try and paint church leaders as attempting to stand between children and Jesus are detached from reality, and are anxiously seeking to be offended. To paraphrase Barney Frank, attempting a conversation with someone who courts offense so ardently is like attempting a conversation with a dining room table. No - in order to understand the policy, we need to recognize that it comes from a good place. For those who insist on believing that church leaders are out to get gay people (and their kids!), there can be no understanding.
Second, it is important to understand that the policy does not exclude the children of same sex couples from participating in the church. Church participation as a teenager is immersive. Between daily seminary classes during the school year, mutual activities, basketball, dances, camp outs, conferences, and then actual church meetings - teenagers will come into contact with the church institution almost every day. And children of same sex couples are welcome to participate in all of those activities. Teenagers who are not members of the church routinely participate in those activities all over the world - it is completely commonplace. For teens who wish to participate but can't get baptized yet, the policy will have very little practical impact on their participation and association with friends and leaders.
Finally, this policy is not a new creation. It fits squarely within policies that have been in place for many years. Proponents of same sex marriage that are equally devoted to advocating for polygamous marriage likely know this already.
Anyone who wants to get baptized must satisfy the basic doctrinal requirements explained in DC 20:37. But over the years, church leaders have carefully placed policies on top of these doctrinal requirements so that even people who satisfy the requirements may not be able to be baptized.
One group of these policies falls under the category of safety. For example, the church is very cagey about letting Muslims get baptized because their baptism could get them killed or jailed depending on where they live. So even a willing and devoted Muslim may be denied baptism in certain circumstances. (A similar policy likely applies to people of other religions or in certain countries for the sake of their safety - but I don't know of any others.)
Another group of these policies falls under the category of family integrity. The family is more fundamental than the church. That is, the church is meant to serve the family - not the other way around. For this reason, the church will not baptize one spouse without the consent of the other spouse. Nor will it baptize an underage child without the consent of the parents. And more to the point, it will not baptize the child of a polygamous marriage until the child has reached legal age and left the house. The new policy on the children of same sex couples falls squarely into this category.
To me, this is sign of respect both to the parents and to the child. Like the other policies in the "family integrity" category, it strikes a balance between enabling a willing and worthy person to get baptized, and maintaining family unity. Additionally, it spares a kid from fully grappling with the conflict between God's commandments and his or her parents' relationship until he or she is old enough to face that kind of dilemma. Covenanting with God and joining the LDS church is a big deal, and of one reasons for the family integrity category of policies is to try and keep that decision from rocking the family boat too hard.
In addition to teaching that children are the kingdom of God - Matthew 19:14 - Jesus also taught that we should completely disregard our family if it means following His gospel - Luke 14:26. There is a vigil planned under the pretense that church leaders have ignored Matthew 19:14, but for some reason there is no vigil planned under the pretense that they have ignored Luke 14:26....
In my opinion, the key to understanding the new policy is believing that it comes from a good place, understanding that it does not actually exclude kids from participation in church activities, and appreciating how the policy fits within existing policies. Declining to baptize the children of same sex couples until they are older and out of the house is, in my mind, both protecting the child from being put in a very difficult place, and a token of respect for the right of same sex couples to raise their kids as they see fit.
(NOTE: This is a blog post, not a book, so I'm aware it doesn't cover everything that could be said about this subject. The requirement that kids of same sex couples renounce same sex marriage as a morally acceptable relationship brings up interesting questions about protecting church culture. And requiring the first presidency, rather than a lower level official, to sign off raises interesting questions about church governance. Additionally, the fact that the church does not have a similar policy for the children of cohabiting heterosexual couples raises its own interesting questions. The discussion above simply shows how I personally have come to understand the new policy.)
