Answer the dang phone, people

I feel compelled to find a way to explain the recent adjustment to LDS church policy. I don't represent the church, but I am a believing member, and I have family and friends who are as well.  

I also have family and friends who do not in any way believe like I do. In fact, it always blows me away when I think about just how different our belief systems are - and we are still familiar and friendly. I hope to continue that.

One of them reminded me that "Friendship that insists upon agreement on all matters is not worthy of the name".

I once wrote a mother's story about when she had been a bit abrupt with her small child after she found him playing in the road in front of the home. The theme was that this mothers actions may have appeared to an outsider to be mean and un-provoked. How dare she swat that kid on the behind and scold him. It sure didn't seem like a Christian thing to do. However, the mother was trying to teach the child to stay out of the road for obvious reasons. She was looking at the big picture. 

It’s a lovely story, but it doesn’t quite work in this case. There is a better one.

"What would Jesus do?"

There is a biblical account of our Savior and how he treated different ethnic groups... well, differently. He personally spoke to, taught, and ministered to all groups. However, He very clearly included only the Israelite people as members of His church, the Church of Jesus Christ. 

The policy to baptize only Israelites was not a new policy, but one that had been around for years before Christ’s birth. He continued the policy. Several people have tried to make sense of the policy that excluded non-Israelite's from being members of Christ's church, but there is no information that clarifies or explains. Later, it was revealed to the prophet, Peter, that the then current policy of exclusion should be discontinued. If he knew the reason why, he did not explain it to anyone who wrote it down - not that I know of.

This current policy adjustment at first look (even a second look) appears to exclude children of same-sex couples just as the policy in Christ's time excluded non-Israelites. It looks like that because it does exclude them. This could be due to custody issues or harmony-in-the-family issues --as has been explained on-line by several Mormon apologists that are smarter than I am. 

If you look at the policy -- and you may need to wipe away a few tears to do so -- it allows these children to be baptized with intervention from the priesthood leaders, who will look at each case individually to insure safety for the child. It’s a big picture scenario. It is also a scenario that includes the distinct possibility that god knows more than we do. No decent man would have thought this up on their own. I believe the General Authorities of the LDS church are, at very least, decent men.

It boils down to this. This policy was adjusted under the direction of the prophet. Does the prophet speak for God, or not? Is the Savior leading this church or not? If he is, as I believe, there is faith and compassion involved -- faith that He leads his church and has everyone’s best interest at heart; and compassion to all everywhere regardless of their belief, political involvement, religion, age, sex, nationality, race, or --fortunately for me, IQ.

Are children being punished for the sins of the fathers? 

Suffer the little children to come unto me, and keep them safe from all danger.

First, it is not my place to identify same sex partners as sinners. There are judges in Zion and I am not one of them. 

Second, no. Children are not being punished. But it appeared like it when I first read the news. It seemed like someone was saying "Go ahead and get married to whoever you want.  Now take this...!"  I am sure that is not the case.  But there is a consequence for actions in and out of the church -- clearly -- for same-sex marriage as far as family is concerned. Creating personal conflict between a child who wishes to be baptized a member of the LDS church (which is crystal in its support of family and man/woman marriage) and parents in a same-sex marriage is not prudent for anyone – mostly the children.

Additionally, there may be custody issues as well. All that is needed is for one parent to agree to baptism, as has been the case for years. If there is a disagreement concerning the baptism and one parent agrees over the wishes of the other parent, that parent may sue over custodial interference and change the custodial status.

Bringing it home

I received a letter from someone who had been invited to a child's baptism this weekend. My friend does not want to support the LDS church because of this policy. Regardless of my own belief, I support my friend and his decision. I believe that he is taking a stance because he cares. I would encourage him to support the child regardless of his personal belief concerning the child's religious affiliation. Would he support a child being baptized into the Seventh Day Adventists or Catholic church -- whose policies he does not agree with either? Sure he would. 

One last thought:  

A saying on a church bill board said, "Don't care how tough you think you are.  When a two year old hands you a toy phone, you answer it." 

Regardless of policy perception, answer the dang phone, people.

Posting the heck out of the day: The LDS Policy Adjustments

The recent policy adjustments from my church (Mormon) have had me in tears. So I took it upon myself to research the issue and drown my sadness in Diet Coke. 

I pretty much drown everything in Diet Coke.

Here are a few points I would like to make that I have recently learned, or reminded myself that I learned long ago based on information readily available.

The LDS church does not seek to drive wedges between family members. I would not remain a member of an organization that did.

No child can get baptized without the approval of their parents. This has been the case in the Mormon church for some time, at least since the mid 80's when I was a missionary in Central America. By the same token, nor can a married adult be baptized without the consent of their spouse. A child from a polygamous family cannot either.

There are groups of people and areas of population where the LDS church treads very carefully so as not to put the safety of the native people in jeopardy. Take, for example, the proselyting in communist countries, or of Muslims. There are cultural differences that make it deadly for those in some cultures to convert to Mormonism/Christianity. Policy's that have been in place for some time are an issue of safety. 

The LDS church has a responsibility to all those who choose to be baptized. Those who are considering becoming a member of the LDS church should not have to choose between their membership and having a place to live or food to eat. They should not have to make a choice between their religious beliefs and their family. 

The only way same sex married couples would be able to live as their son or daughter believes as new members their parents should live would be for the couple to split up, and that is not what the LDS church wants. No prophet of god would ask that any child, or anyone in a culture that would harm them,  to have to choose between their family and their religious beliefs -- though some have made that choice.

Regarding the referring to same-sex married couples as apostates. Apostate is a strong word that we associate with anti-Mormons who cause pain to members of the church both in modern and ancient times. The current, accepted definition is thus: A person who renounces a religious or political belief or principle.

Same sex marriage is at odds with the purpose of the church. It is possible to be gay without being considered an apostate. I am generally not considered an apostate – at least not by my bishop or stake president. But for a Mormon to marry one of the same sex would be considered generaly to be a renunciation of belief, an act of defiance – for lack of a better word. Dissenter, maybe? A subversion? That action would buck key issues of LDS belief and would be a step toward apostasy.

Second is the issue of judging and being judged. Judgment is not mine. Judgment is not yours. Judgment is His. And sometimes he delegates judgment to his servants. No one else.

A point I would like to make: People are being treated individually. This is not a blanket that covers anyone to shield them from the light. Bishops and stake presidents/mission presidents have been instructed to handle any exception themselves. Personally. This requires meeting with those involved who wish to be represented.

Are there extras that have to happen for any child who is in a home where the heads of that home are considered to have apostatized from the church? Yes. There may be extra steps they would need to take for other reasons as well. I myself had extras I had to do in order to marry my wife because I am a gay man. 

We are treated like individuals.

I must tell you that I am feeling much better about the recent events after I studied a bit and kept an attitude of prayer. While I grieve for those who are hurt by this action, I rejoice in the fact that God is just, and that His judgment will be fair and will be made out of love for us – with our best interest in a mind that is infinitely more complex than ours.