Skip to main content

Response to The Church of Jesus Christ's Policy on Same-Sex Couples and Children

The young man and his girlfriend had lived together for 8 years. They’d had a daughter together. Both their paychecks went towards sustaining their small home. And they wanted to be baptized. Normally, it would seem rational to tell them to stop living together so they could get baptized. But this was a family. And that’s not how things worked. While separation still an acceptable solution, we were instead encouraged to have them get married before baptism. Why? Because a temporary separation just for the benefits of baptism was no security that they wouldn’t end up living together again—this time breaking sacred covenants. It was strongly urged, then, that they wait for marriage before getting baptized. The waiting process in Brazil is long. And sometimes, one couple or the other also has to  go through a complicated legal process of divorce from a previous partner. But, we tell them, it’s better to wait.

The church has never been interested in a numerical manifestation of church growth. They are more interested in retention and life-long conversion.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks once said: “We do not preach and teach in order to ‘bring people into the Church’ or to increase the membership of the Church. We do not preach and teach just to persuade people to live better lives. … We invite all to come unto Christ by repentance and baptism and confirmation in order to open the doors of the celestial kingdom to the sons and daughters of God.”
The point is that baptism means covenants which brings an added level of personal accountability to the individual who has accepted such covenants. Due to the serious nature of the promises, the church is very careful about the process of who is able, in a given moment, to be baptized.

This is not an immediate indication or confirmation of eligibility for salvation. On the contrary, the pure in heart who would accept the Gospel if given the chance, will always be exalted. However, it does mean that in the formal process of church membership here on earth, precautions are taken to ensure that no one could ever, in any way, be disadvantaged from their membership in the church.
We don’t want to put anyone’s salvation at risk. We don’t want covenants to be casually entered into without the necessary level of conversion and support that would ensure the individual the greatest chance at endurance to the end.

If you haven’t guessed it, this is my response to the recent reports on church changes in policy regarding the baptism of children adopted by same-sex couples (married or cohabiting).

As a friend of mine eloquently put it:

“The idea behind this is not a new one and is not to single out LGBT families. Children of polygamist families are also not allowed to be baptized at 8 years old for the same reason, as well as children whose parents are not members and won't support them and their beliefs. When I was on my mission we taught many children who were interested in learning about the Mormon faith but we were not permitted to baptize them without their parents committing to learn the teaching and commit as well. This was to ensure that the children would have support in the home of their beliefs and support to come to church. These children waited until they turned 18 when they were at an older age to be able to support themselves potentially alone in their beliefs. This was out of respect for both the children, and the parents. The church does not desire to cause confusion and contention in the home.”

The point of any policy in the church is ALWAYS one of maximizing the individual’s chances of eternal life and exaltation. It is a concern for the welfare of souls. It is a loving effort from a wise Heavenly Father who always sees the bigger picture.

Imagine, then, the life of a child who chooses with hesitant parental consent to join the church when everyday it is teaching that the people who raised him are living in fornication and sin punishable by God except on conditions of repentance. To pretend that the child would not be placed in an intense emotional and spiritually difficult situation would be to ignore reality.

That said, it needs to be understood that the policy is less of a change than it is a clarification of how those children still COULD be baptized. A church handbook is not a guideline for how we interact with our neighbors. It is to help church leaders know how to handle specific situations. Like when that Mission President calls about the child raised by a same-sex couple and he wants the First Presidency to help him figure out what would be most advantageous to the spiritual progression of the child.

There could be arguments on both sides. The point of the policy is that the First Presidency will prayerfully examine the case and decide—so that God can tell us how best to save his children.

Can we not see that this is a merciful policy? God is always merciful and sometimes it is our own blindness and limitation that convinces us to trust the mind of man rather than the eternal omnipotence of God.

It doesn’t mean this is an easy policy. We feel for the children. If it’s anything like my mission, there are times where you just want the child to have some spiritual influence because they aren’t getting anything uplifting from home. You long to help them, heal them, and show them the love of God. Can we not just baptize them?

God will never forget his children. This is all an indication to me that we need to trust that His process, policy, and plan has been created as a means best suited to the maximization of salvation for all. God sees all sides of a picture, and sometimes we have to trust him and his servants. 
                                                                                                                                                                   

Comments

  1. Very good, girly! Very good! Well said indeed! :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well said. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dear Sister Sandra, Thank you for your thoughtful insights. Of all the opinions that I read, yours was spot on and admonished each of us to trust Heavenly Father and his servants.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I loved your thoughts. I came to my understanding and peace on this policy in a similar way. I remembered that on my mission to Romania we were not allowed to teach Gypsies unless they had assimilated into Romanian culture, held jobs, and were committed to living the commandments. At first I struggled with this rule because isn't the Gospel of Jesus Christ for everyone? But as I learned more about the Gypsy culture, I saw the wisdom in such a rule because it is at odds with the gospel. I realized that we should not ask people to make a serious covenant such as baptism when they are not in a position to keep it. That is where my mind kept going as I struggled to understand this new policy and I get it. It IS merciful!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your insight into this! I think it is interesting how God can help everyone come to understand truth through their own personal experiences. Thanks for sharing that with me!

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Integrity: the missing ingredient

There was one good thing about Gingrich's response to the opening question of the GOP debate in South Carolina. In his attempt to avoid the question, he provided the answer to it. It's simple really. He has absolutely no understanding of integrity. Or why it matters. Let’s try to clear it up for him. In a recent class I took at BYU, our professor pointed to studies on the relationship between the treatment of women and  the level of corruption within governments and societies. It was a fascinating study. And while the subject may be freely and continually researched, the point here is to lay the groundwork for the casual story. Ultimately, the degradation of the family unit, specifically in the treatment of women,  leads to degradation in our governing institutions. How? Because families are unique in their ability to instill certain values within us, even at an early age. Those who dishonor marital vows ( like through adultery, pornography, ect…) demonstrate a lack of sel

Make America Fake Again

If Hillary got indicted by that right-wing FBI And good ole Bernie’s heart had him lying down to die If all the other candidates were thrown into a ring, And killed each other off with straw-man weaponry If that thing called ‘foreign policy’ was really just a game And experience was more about reality tv show fame If Muslims were all evil and the refugees a scam Or the terrorist threats a joke and the Arab Spring a sham If Americans were morons, duped on marijuana dreams Or Mexicans were rapists, building our walls to stop their schemes If the poor could be delivered by a real estate tycoon And illegals could be rounded up, like animals two by two If truth were merely relative and anything could fly And insults were called speeches—substantive, not denied If the moral compass of the land were broken right in two And intellectuals deported for revealing what is true If the world became a fantasy shrouded in lies and sin,