 |
| D. Todd Christofferson explains LDS church's new policies |
As you may have heard (especially if you keep up with current events in Mormonism), The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recently enacted new policies related to people in homosexual relationships.
Essentially, 1) it now defines being in a homosexual relationship as apostasy (click here for more information) and 2) children of homosexual parents may not be baptized until: a) they are of legal age b) they no longer live with the parents c) they disavow the practice of homosexual relationships. Even after meeting those requirements, the mission or stake president still has to request approval from the First Presidency (the top governing body of the LDS church comprised of 3 men; click here for more information).
A day after this news broke out, the LDS church released video of an interview with apostle D. Todd Christofferson. It doesn’t answer every question, but at least it provides "authoritative commentary," in the words of one Facebook user. He confirmed what many were suspecting, that the Church views homosexual relationships as analogous to polygamous marriage, and that this policy is meant to ease the burden on the children and their families.
The whole time, my Facebook newsfeed was lit up with opinions coming from people on both sides of the issue.
I wanted to hold my peace until a statement from the Church came out. Plus, I needed time to formulate my own opinion. At first my feelings were too nebulous and ambiguous to write down.
Now that I’ve had time to organize my thoughts, here are my two and a half cents on the controversial new policies that the LDS Church has enacted. I don't pretend to be authoritative, nor that I can provide a satisfactory perspective. I don't attempt to answer to all possible objections. I'm just throwing out some ideas from the perspective of a “TBM” (true believing Mormon).
To my friends in the LGBT community: I'm sorry. This must feel like a slap in the face. I'm not going to try to "mansplain" (or whatever would be the equivalent of an ignorant straight guy talking down and "explaining" something to a gay person). Know that many of us devout Latter-day Saints are as troubled by it as you must be. I don’t like it (there are other policies I dislike, or at least that I don’t understand).
Initially, I was troubled by it even more than the Boy Scout statement (you can read my reaction here). It would appear I'm not the only one troubled by this. Lots of people (myself included) who love the Church and believe in the gospel are hurt and confused. The thing that kept running through my mind (and still is to a certain extent) is “Why?”
I’m not sure, but perhaps there were people wondering if the Church would eventually perform gay marriages, especially now that gay marriage is legal? Did the Church want it perfectly clear where they stood (even though there probably weren’t many who doubted it)?
For one thing, this goes to show the delicate balance the Church has to play, since it has a fundamental difference of opinion with the rest of the world. With such a touchy issue, it's difficult to please everybody. As long as the Church teaches that homosexual relationships are a sin, it will be walking on egg shells no matter what.
On an individual level, it shows just how tricky it is to keep one's feet in both worlds. In the words of Neal A. Maxwell, “Make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters; in the months and years ahead, events will require of each member that he or she decide whether or not he or she will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions” (click here for the full text of the speech).
I’m troubled by some of the reactions from both sides. Many of my faithful Latter-day Saints may not recognize how painful this new policy must be. Some have even said it doesn’t affect most people in the Church. That may be true, but that doesn’t make it less troubling (imagine saying the same thing for the former ban on blacks receiving the priesthood).
And I’m troubled by the people who paint these new policies in the worst light possible, with no benefit of the doubt given (although I’m not really surprised at such people’s reaction).
When it comes to LGBT relations, the LDS church seems to go back and forth between things that the public views as positive and negative. But even the negative incidents have a positive side to them.
Positive:
- Sponsoring gay rights legislation in Utah which prohibits discrimination in housing and employment based on sexual orientation (click here for more information).
- Apostle Dallin H. Oaks frowning on Kim Davis’ refusal to perform her duties as a government employee (he didn’t mention her by name, but it was clear that he was talking about her) (click here for more information).
Negative:
- Frowning on allowing gay men to be Scout masters. The Church ultimately decided to stay with the BSA, so that's got to be at least somewhat positive as far as LGBT relations.
- Officially being opposed to legalizing gay marriage (including its involvement with California’s prop 8), right up until the US Supreme Court decision legalizing it. But after prop 8, the Church didn't urge Church-wide involvement in passing related legislation, nor did it recommend which way to vote, so that should also be a plus. Also, Christofferson (the same person from the video cited above) told church members it was okay to support gay marriage, despite the Church’s opposition to it.
- Officially being opposed to legalizing gay marriage (including its involvement with California’s prop 8), right up until the US Supreme Court decision legalizing it. But after prop 8, the Church didn't urge Church-wide involvement in passing related legislation, nor did it recommend which way to vote, so that should also be a plus. Also, Christofferson (the same person from the video cited above) told church members it was okay to support gay marriage, despite the Church’s opposition to it.
- Most recent statements defining apostasy, and regarding children whose parents are in a gay relationship. An LDS woman who was raised by lesbian parents expressed her opinion of the wisdom of this policy in this article. At least children of gay parents (heck, even the parents themselves) will still be allowed to associate with the church and even be “dry Mormons” (a person who is so involved with the Church that it’s easy to forget that they’re technically not baptized).
I often encountered “dry Mormons” on my mission. There were several investigators (a term we use for people looking into the Church) who adored the Church and participated in as many
activities as possible, but they couldn’t get baptized for one reason or another.
The most common situation I encountered was that they were legally married to someone in a different country but were co-habitating with someone else here in the states. Getting a divorce from that foreign country and then getting legally married in this country often was complicated.
The ones who wanted to make it happen made it happen. But even then, it could be time-consuming.
Another common situation was a child whose parents didn’t approve of them getting baptized. As long as the child is a minor, Church policy dictates respecting the wishes of the parents in that regard.
It was often a huge disappointment to me as a missionary because I loved these people and it was exciting to finally have investigators who *wanted* to be baptized, but weren’t allowed to because of a technicality with Church policy. That was even more discouraging to me than people who weren’t interested.
One way I consoled myself is that living out one’s faith almost always has obstacles to overcome, and as long as one has the desire and the trust in the Lord, the Lord will provide.
Another way I consoled myself was reminding myself that the Savior didn’t withhold love from those people for being unable to be baptized at the time. And I myself certainly didn’t stop loving investigators in those situations.
Further, I know for a fact that the Savior doesn’t withhold love from children under the age of 8 (the minimum age for baptism into the LDS church).
I imagine the missionaries will encounter similar conundrums with this new policy. In that vein, I came across a thoughtful article (by a gay Mormon, no less) about people he met who had to obtain special permission before being baptized (such as being children of polygamous families or from fundamentalist Muslim countries):
"Whatever the reason, God himself understands all personal situations, blesses His children, and always charts the path they will need to follow to find baptism. In His eyes, life is just a speck in time. And an blessing we have to work or wait for, He will give us a hundredfold."
"Whatever the reason, God himself understands all personal situations, blesses His children, and always charts the path they will need to follow to find baptism. In His eyes, life is just a speck in time. And an blessing we have to work or wait for, He will give us a hundredfold."
I’m reminded of a saying in the Church: doctrines don’t change but policies do. I think that’s relevant here, but I would modify that saying: the truth doesn’t change but our understanding of it (i.e. doctrine) and Church policies do change. I say that because of the many doctrines the Church used to teach but either downplays or disavows now, hence the need for continuing revelation from a living prophet (but that’s a discussion for a different day). This article on Patheos (written by the husband of a friend of mine) has some good thoughts related to that subject.
My point is this: these policies, as they are written right now, won't last forever. If they don't get eliminated entirely, they'll at least have to be modified to make exceptions that accommodate certain scenarios.
My point is this: these policies, as they are written right now, won't last forever. If they don't get eliminated entirely, they'll at least have to be modified to make exceptions that accommodate certain scenarios.
Perhaps it's a matter of perspective: if you view it as cutting off children of gays from the community of Saints, or punishing the children for their parents’ choices (as I initially thought), it would seem cruel. If you view it as relieving the family (parents and children alike) of the burden of having a child join (make a covenant with God through) a church that teaches that their parents' lifestyle is a sin, that might seem merciful.
My first thought was “How is that any different from children whose parents are co-habitating?” (I baptized several children on my mission who were in that situation). I think it goes back to how the Church views those relationships: a co-habitating heterosexual couple is not apostate, but a homosexual relationship is. Why is a homosexual relationship considered apostate? Not sure exactly why (in fact, I am not sure I completely understand the broader question of why homosexual relationships are sinful), but Elder Christofferson said, in that regard, there is a parallel to polygamy.
If the Church didn’t view homosexual relationships as apostasy, then the policy regarding children of parents in homosexual relationships probably wouldn’t be in place. If homosexual acts in general weren’t considered a sin by the Church, there would certainly be less tension between the Church and the outside world, and fewer struggles from within.
I think it’s interesting to note:
• Mormon church’s history of polygamy outrages people of a more conservative view on marriage (although I think it's a little unfair how critics are unwilling to credit the Church for moving past it and even making it a sin that is an excommunicable offense).
• Mormon church’s history against same-sex marriage outrages people of a more liberal view on marriage.
As I said, the Church often has to walk a tight rope, since it is so different from the rest of the world. It’s impossible to please everybody.
I’ve often heard the paradoxical observation that religions that flow with the current of popular thought tend to lose committed followers. That reminds me of this article (completely unrelated to Mormonism or homosexuality) where the author expresses disillusionment with religions that try too hard to be cool and that ignore the substance of Christian worship.
It would appear there's something to be said for religions that require difficult, painful things that outsiders (and even insiders) might object to. Joseph Smith said, “A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation” (Lectures on Faith, p. 69).
At the end of the day, I am confident that, as Brigham Young said, God is at the helm of the Old Ship Zion. In his sermon entitled “God Is at the Helm” apostle M. Russell Ballard stated:
"Too many people think Church leaders and members should be perfect or nearly perfect. They forget that the Lord’s grace is sufficient to accomplish His work through mortals. Our leaders have the best intentions, but sometimes we make mistakes. This is not unique to Church relationships, as the same thing occurs in our relationships among friends, neighbors, and workplace associates and even between spouses and in families.
"Too many people think Church leaders and members should be perfect or nearly perfect. They forget that the Lord’s grace is sufficient to accomplish His work through mortals. Our leaders have the best intentions, but sometimes we make mistakes. This is not unique to Church relationships, as the same thing occurs in our relationships among friends, neighbors, and workplace associates and even between spouses and in families.
"God’s plan is in place. He is at the helm, and His great and powerful ship flows toward salvation and exaltation. Remember that we cannot get there by jumping out of the boat and trying to swim there by ourselves…
"Let us be grateful for the beautiful Old Ship Zion, for without it we are cast adrift, alone and powerless, swept along without rudder or oar, swirling with the strong currents of the adversary’s wind and waves.
"Hold tight, brothers and sisters, and sail on within the glorious ship, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and we will reach our eternal destination."
Here are my final thoughts. And these go for everybody regardless of your opinion on these new policies.
Jesus loved everyone. I’ve noticed people on all sides of this debate get into a contest over who’s the better person. In the ongoing verbal war between believers and non-believers, supporters and opponents of gay marriage, let’s remember the more important part: being kind to our neighbor. Further, actually helping people who are in need, instead of bragging about how right you think you are or putting down those you think are wrong.
The gospel isn’t about proving that you’re right and that your opponents are wrong (that’s why missionaries are discouraged from “Bible bashing”). It’s about helping people who need help.
Even though Jesus was a skilled debater, I don’t imagine him saying, “Ha! In your face! I win!” Nor did he ever say, “I’m more compassionate than you” (even though he most certainly was the most compassionate person in the history of world).
Rather, he said just the right thing to pierce the soul in order to motivate the listener to change their life for the better.
So here are some ideas regardless of your view on homosexuality or the Mormon church:
• Participate in a gay pride parade.
• Speak kind words to someone who feels unaccepted because of their sexual orientation.
I know that's not much, but it's a start. Let’s both reach out in love to our brothers and sisters, without turning it into a competition over who is more caring.
The Savior's love is unconditional, regardless of religious status.
P.S. I want to point out that right now, the Church is urging its members to help refugees (definitely a positive, in my opinion). I add my voice to theirs: please help the refugees, including donating money for their aid (whether through the Church or some other charitable organization).
In my opinion, helping with the refugee crisis is more important than one’s stance on the Church’s policy.
In my opinion, helping with the refugee crisis is more important than one’s stance on the Church’s policy.
