I am still appalled by the new church policy banning baptisms for children of gays and polygamists until age 18. A distant relative of mine was just released as stake president, and I told him that I feel this new church policy has set the church back 100 years. That was an understatement; it’s more like 150 years.
I’ve blogged considerably about the priesthood and temple ban. The purpose of this ban was to stop acceptance of interracial marriages occurring in Mormonism. Two interracial marriages were discovered in 1846-47. Massachusetts had legalized interracial marriages in the 1840s, and black church member Enoch Lewis married white church member Matilda Webster. When mission president William Appleby discovered their mixed race child, he wrote Brigham Young asking whether such marriages were authorized.
Soon after this, Warner McCary began propositioning white church members to be his polygamist wives. McCary claimed to be Indian, though he was really an escaped slave and many church members believed he was black. His propositions excited great animosity, and church members threatened to shoot him.
Following these two scandalous marriages, Brigham Young implemented a policy forbidding blacks to be ordained or enter the temple, and no further black church members were ordained. Despite helping to build the Salt Lake Temple and previously receiving his washings and annointings in the Kirtland temple, even Elijah Abel was denied admission to the temple. Young formulated a ban forbidding black ordinations and temple ordinances in a quiet way, just as with the recent handbook changes. Young didn’t openly proclaim the policy for a few years (1846-1852). The policy wasn’t openly acknowledged until 1852 when Young announced that Black’s were cursed from Cain and unworthy of the priesthood. The reason for this ban was to prevent blacks from marrying whites in the temple.
History repeated itself in the early 1900s when the Church, in an effort to stigmatize polygamists. Polygamists started their own rival organizations (the FLDS Church, Apostolic United Brethren, Kingston group, and others) and in response the LDS Church forbade their children from joining the LDS CHurch without First Presidency approval. This is also an unrighteous policy. In my previous post I talked about Madison Brown‘s reaction to being denied baptism even though she has said multiple times that she will not live polygamy.
“I don’t know if I want to [join the Mormon Church] now, because if they want me to publicly denounce my family, why would I want to be a part of your church?”…..
“It shocks me. From day one I’ve said, I don’t want to be a polygamist, but I love my family. I love my parents, but it’s their choices. I will continue to love and support and endorse their choices if it makes them happy,” vows Madison. “[The Mormon Church elders] didn’t like that.”
In a Salt Lake Tribune op-ed article, Lance Allred describes being bullied by others because of his polygamist upbringing.
The LDS Church and its devout followers are playing coy and completely disregarding the social ramifications a child will endure when it flippantly says, “When they are 18 they can be baptized.” Sure, when they are 18, after going through their most formative years as a teen, through a gantlet of mental abuse, developing who knows what kind of emotional complexes and illnesses.
Church leaders are stigmatizing another group of children. They seem to justify this unfair treatment because they’ve done it before. In the recent Race and Priesthood essay,
The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah.10 According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel.11 Those who accepted this view believed that God’s “curse” on Cain was the mark of a dark skin. Black servitude was sometimes viewed as a second curse placed upon Noah’s grandson Canaan as a result of Ham’s indiscretion toward his father.12
They finally repudiated this view.
Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.24
Yet they have now just committed the same error as Brigham Young. It is time to stop repeating the errors of the past. Jesus said in Matthew 18:6
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
This is strong condemnation from the Savior. End this policy today which offends the Savior. Allow children of gays and polygamists to be baptized without pre-conditions of disavowing parents. It is an evil policy, and cannot be defended on scriptural, doctrinal, moral, or ethical grounds. Any attempts to portray this as protecting children are misguided at best, and dishonest at worst. God loves all his children, black and white, gay and straight, monogamist and polygamist.
Comments?
Wheat & Tares 
First paragraph is it supposed to be ‘beloved’ or believed?
Interesting read.
Ha look at mine a typo too! Meant third paragraph.
The follies of man!
Yes “Believed”. Spell check doesn’t work for the wrong word spelled right!
Having worked very closely with a number of politicians in my time, you can make anything sound like anything if you use the right words. Cutting the government deficit by not funding critical social services is being fiscally responsible. Spending lots of government money building up those services again is being nation building. Blah blah.
In politics, most minions believe the rhetoric
In the church most Mormons do to. and that’s fine – for them – but I don’t buy it.
I’ll never forget the feelings I felt when I first read this policy.
1. Made up by some maniac with a gripe against the church.
2. Hang on, the church actually wrote this.
3. Surely they have made a mistake
4. No mistake – apostle just came out and defended it.
So yes, MH, different times, different policy…same mistake.
MH,
What shall we do? Are you calling on fellow members to vote NO at the next opportunity for sustaining church officers? Are you calling on low-level church officers to disobey the policy? Are you calling on members to abandon the good ship Zion? I hear your anger and your rantings and ravings, but what do you want your readers to do?
On another thread, you tried to convince me that the policy has nothing to do with opposition to same-sex marriage. I disagree. But is this really the problem? Do you want the Church to legitimize same-sex marriage? If it did, there would be no further need for the policy.
I prefer simply letting bishops, stake presidents, and affected members work things out themselves. All the outrage, real and pretended, and shrill voices may make it harder for accommodations to be realized.
I agree with Mormon Heretic on this 100%. I am still fuming that the leaders took this step to stop children from becoming members. I also agree that it is wrong to stop children of people practicing polygamy from getting baptized. For me, it is a violation of Christ like love.
The long term damage (beyond the individuals harmed) is to the Church’ reputation and image. For the next few decades, missionaries will be told: “Oh, you’re with that bigoted church . .”.
JI, I think we as members should continue to voice our displeasure with this policy, and we should pray that the leaders follow the scriptures and Christ’s admonition. You’ve given some other ideas. I’m not necessarily advocating those, but if someone feels the need to do those, I would support them.
“On another thread, you tried to convince me that the policy has nothing to do with opposition to same-sex marriage.” If that’s what you thought, that is not what I meant. I do believe that the leaders are making this policy as a reaction to the law of the land. However, I think it is 100% unrighteous dominion to punish children by denying them baptism. My outrage is not over the desire of church leaders to try to do something about SSM, my outrage is that they are making children collateral damage in the fight for SSM. That is 100% wrong. You (and church leaders) are conflating 2 issues that are only tangentially related. That’s my issue–the children are innocent pawns and should not be mistreated, and any spin to say that the leaders are trying to protect children is merely an attempt to minimize the very real spiritual damage they are doing to these innocent children.
When you started talking about SSM in the other thread, my issue is the children, not SSM. Children are not in SSM marriages and are innocent pawns. Any policies about SSM should not impact children period, and I didn’t want to get into the rightness or wrongness of SSM. This policy is the wrong remedy to the problem church leaders are dealing with, and they are spiritually slaying children who want to be baptized. That is wrong on all levels.
I think church leaders should understand that members hate this policy, and I believe this policy is not guided by the Holy Ghost and is a false revelation if anyone wants to make any claims of revelation. I support anyone that brings attention to this wicked policy.
My wife’s resignation is going in the mail tomorrow. I don’t need to see anything more than that to know how bad this policy is.
Sooner or later they will have to abandon the opposition to marriage equality just like they abandoned the opposition to inter racial marriage. It will become as popular as overt racism is now. In much of the world it already is.
So yes ji abandon it as soon as possible, before too many people of integrity are lost, and others hurt.
The leaders I have experience of recently only see this as a question of obedience. They are not interested in the issues, problems it causes.
On a side note, can a computer person, read my email address so find out who I am from a blog. My SP doesn’t read blogs but knows about my comments on blogs. How?
Brian. Sorry to hear that (if that’s the right thing to say..??). I wish her and you the best for the future.
The Lord gives and the Lord takes away…not “The Brethren”…if you don’t understand that, then the opinion is pretty much “unqualified”…
While i think most decisions made by the church leaders are inspired, I dont believe God had anything to do with this policy, and i dont believe god inspired brigham young’s racist temple policy.
JI, here are some ideas from Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mette-ivie-harrison/13-ways-to-protest-the-ne_b_8629388.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
Brian, any website owner can see the email address you post. Part of this is to deter spammers, but at W&T, on rare occasion we’ve tried to coach people to write better comments. If they put a bogus email address we will simply ban them from commenting in the future.
I suspect you’ve commented on a ward or stake member’s website (or perhaps Facebook.) They then follow you across blogs. You might want to try a different moniker when you comment and/or a different email address if members of the stake are stalking you and reporting you to the stake president. It’s sad when members tattle tale, but many of us comment without our real names for that very reason.
I have a special Facebook account for my blogging, and pretty much never post about religion on my personal Facebook account so I don’t have that problem. (In fact I rarely post on my personal Facebook account about any topic.)
First of all, ANY person under 18 must have the consent of the parent/guardian for baptism; so says my Returned-Missionary Son.
Now everyone imagine for a moment that you are a practicing homosexual; you live with a homosexual partner and there is a minor-child under your care. You KNOW that the LDS Church does not accept or condone this arrangement (same as unmarried couples living together).
WHY-WHY-WHY would you want to have a child become a member??!!?? I can only speculate that it would be to cause contention and that makes the child a pawn for the adult’s “crusade”.
markag – Why do some alcoholic’s want their children raised in the church? The answer is because they believe the church is true (or at least good) and a great place for their child to be raised. The same with some gays. It is the same reasons some gays stay and remain celibate. They have a testimony. I don’t get why some are so quick to say, “a married gay must hate the church”.
And #7 Steve. I live in “the mission field” and the missionaries in my ward were following up with a commitment I made to talk about the church to co-workers. They texted me “how is it going?” I said that I stopped as all I was getting asked was, “Why do you hate gays so much?” The leaders can say all they want that they don’t hate gays, but the policy screams so loud that people scratch their heads when leaders say “we love gays.” Kind of like “I am not doing it for the money.” Yeah – right. I felt sorry for the missionaries and them having a decrease in the number of people even willing to talk with them. I have a missionary serving right now and it saddens me how it will affect his mission experience.
And what to do about this policy? I am not going to say “The Brethren made a huge mistake” (which is what I feel), but I will in church clearly state that I can’t accept this theologically nor is my conscience OK with it, but I am open to the spirit tells me to accept it and it has not yet occurred even though I am asking.”
But back to the blog post. I too very much feel this is blacks and the priesthood version 2.0. In studying that previous issue I have often wondered, “would I have been strong enough to stand up and say, ‘I think this is wrong!’ or would I have just gone along with the crowd?” I feel now I get to find out as I am in the same position.
The Salt Lake Tribune OpEd:
Like many Mormons, I disagree with the church’s position on gay marriage, but I recognize that there is a plausible theological case to be made in its defense. By contrast, this policy could not oppose our foundational doctrine more directly. At the center of Mormonism is Christ. He said, “Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me.” George Q. Cannon, a latter-day apostle, interpreted this verse: “We have no hint that [Jesus] asked whose children they were, or the standing or faith of their parents … All little children, no matter what their parentage may be, are innocent in the sight of heaven, and they should be received as such and blessed as such.” Are we willing to trade that doctrine for this policy?
…How can one publicly dissent without leaving? Here are a few suggestions:
1) Pay 10 percent of your income in fast offerings, rather than tithing…
2) Communicate your concerns about the policy to each other, to local leaders…
3) If you are in a bishopric, I hope that you will choose not to implement this policy…
4) Be an ally to gay Mormons and ex-Mormons and their children…
MH- thanks for the advice. With my wife resigning, I am probably at the end of my W&T days. Been reading and posting since back to Mormon Matters days. Reading this blog served as a release for me. With no immediate connections now to the church, I hope to leave it all in the rear view mirror.
Most of my posts, although not that frequent, have become much too snarky even for me. Good to move on and I am hoping the change in her life will help heal what needs healing.
Thanks again.
This is where my pollyanna view fails. I cannot see dissent, loyal or otherwise, as having any effect on church leaders. The leaders have already skirted around the scriptural story of Christ blessing the children by repeating the permission to give blessings of healing and comfort. Bishops who refuse to implement the policy *will* have to answer to church leaders because they are acting in an official church capacity and are obligated to tow the company line.
Expressing concerns *may* help other members see the negative effects of the policy and help them understand why disagreement with the policy is not disloyalty, but the overall impact will be minimal. Taking concerns to local leaders will result in a very well-meaning guy patting you on the head and testifying that if you just pray hard enough, your testimony of the Lord leading this church through inspired leaders will get you through this. They’ll point to the experiences of others who support the policy, and suggest that those with negative views are outliers. While unfortunate, they’ll explain those resigning memberships are inactives who lost testimonies long ago.
Like the priesthood ban, some members might understand the frustration, but most will feel obligated to uphold the policy out of covenant to defend the “kingdom” and integrity of church leaders. If the policy does eventually get revoked, there will be no credit given to those who dissented.
Unless you can get a couple billionaires to divert their tithing funds elsewhere, a tithing boycott will be useless. It’ll just disqualify you for a temple recommend.
This whole thing is reminding me of Levi Savage. Although members might voice objections, the expectation will be that they will ultimately obey the direction of leaders. Like Savage, members are expected to do what they can to support the ill-fated venture, no matter the casualties that will follow. Those casualties will be held up as martyrs, voluntarily sacrificing for the short-term, knowing that they will not miss out on any blessings in the long run.
My comment somewhat echoes those made by Aussie guy. He is right that politicians can make anything sound like anything, usually for self serving purposes. As a military historian I’ve found that most people do learn lessons from history, just the wrong ones usually cherry picked to support whatever political agenda they have. For example, whenever somebody supports intervention there is the inevitable Hitler and World War II analogy. Whenever a somebody opposes war there is always the Vietnam analogy. In reality, there are some lessons that might be learned, but they are far more limited and nuanced than almost everything heard in contemporary political discourse. Learning the wrong lessons even applies to policy decisions the specific words used. When Bush sent more troops to Iraq it was called a surge, while those who opposed it used the Vietnam dog whistle “escalation.”
So the problem I have with using the Brigham Young analogy is that there were already exceptions made in the case of Elijah Abel and others. And even Brigham Young promised that there would be a day when blacks would enjoy all the rights of white members. But there are no similar parallels with homosexual members. There are no examples of gay temple marriages before this policy change, and no promises that eventually all gay members can marry and similar items. So I find that a pretty significant weakness in comparing Brigham Young’s policies towards blacks with the policy change concerning homosexuals.
You asked for comments…seems this is a perfect place for James 1:19 and practice patience.
Morgan,
You might find interesting the Nov. 18th post at BCC, Continuing Revelation. It includes an account of a transsexual sealing in the late 70s.
The weaknesses you identified in the analogy are not nearly as significant on closer examination. First, by definition “exceptions” are few, and consequently easily ignored, hidden, or discounted. In the case of the temple/priesthood ban, there is now a strong incentive to publicize those exceptions as examples of the true character of the church. At the time the policy was in force, the exact opposite was the case. Exceptions were treated as errors, and knowledge of them was actively suppressed. That you do know of exceptions to the temple/priesthood ban, and not the policy regarding homosexuals is actually unremarkable.
Second, the statements that are now used to try and show that authorities anticipated full, equal participation of Blacks actually meant the exact opposite in the context they were spoken. This is partly due to changes in how we view sealings. Early church sealings were only familial in the case that family approximated priesthood hierarchy. In the context of hierarchical sealings, promising someone that they, in the end, would be included is the same as assuring them that they will always be the least, and never equal. So yes, there are some out of context quotes from the author of the temple/priesthood ban that could be reinterpreted to support ending the ban. The same is true of the policy regarding homosexuals.
Are any of you “dissenters” open minded enough to consider the possibility that the Lord has more information, and a greater perspective, than do we; and that just maybe the wisdom underlying this policy is based on factors that we haven’t even conceived of, let alone considered? And, Mary Ann (#19)–do you realize that unless a person fully supports and sustains the church leadership, they are already “disqualified” from a temple recommend, irregardless of what they might or might not do with their tithing?
Yes it is possible that the Lord does have something in mind – that is why I am asking him. As of yet he has not dispelled the feeling that it is wrong in MY heart. I am fine if you have prayed about it and feel right with it. Good for you and go for it. If you have not prayed, then it feels to me you are maybe turning your moral authority. For some of us “dissenters” we feel that when we read church history, we can see some clear cases where the brethren goofed up at times. We don’t see them as infallible.
Now I will agree 100% that there is a proper way to disagree and one where you are tearing down the church and/or the leaders. Don’t assume that someone that says, “I am not down with this policy as from God” that they are apostates ready to burn the church. “Sustain” does not equate in my book to “agree with the no matter what they say.”
Are any of you “supporters” open minded enough to consider the possibility that the Lord has more information, and a greater perspective, than do we; and that just maybe the are completely disregarding scripture and the Lord’s will? Have you considered that Brigham Young was wrong to exclude blacks from the temple, and that God had nothing to do with that evil policy?
And, El Zorrillo (#23)–do you realize that the LDS Church supports a gay group (Boy Scouts of America) and have supported anti-gay discrimination bills in SLC? Are they already “disqualified” from a temple recommend, irregardless of what they might or might not do with their tithing?
I get so tired of conservatives attacking “dissenters” as less faithful. Was Abraham’s dissent evil of trying to save Lot’s family when God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah? Were Zelophehad’s daughter’s dissenting against Moses when they asked him to change policy and allow them to inherit their father’s estate?
Morgan, lots of gays have priesthood, and more gays will be ordained. It’s not quite so simple as looking at race–you generally can’t look at a person and know they’re gay in the same way you can look at a black man and know he’s black. But the ostracization is the same policy. Sure the church is going to try to stamp it out, and just as it was so hard for mixed races to identify who had “one drop” of black blood, this policy is going to be impossibly hard to implement.
Brian, you will be missed, but I understand where you’re coming from. I hope you do pop in from time to time.
Mary Ann, well said. I ran into a former co-worker today. He’s on the high council in his stake. I asked what he thought of the policy, and he said he thinks it won’t affect very many. He also told me there has been zero discussion on the high council in his stake. I think my conversation helped him change his mind a little. Perhaps these kinds of conversations will help change hearts and minds of leaders. Since he is not in my stake, I felt less danger of retaliation, and it was a really good conversation. My chat with the released stake president went well also. I encourage others to share with church leaders, especially if they are not in your stake. It may help.
Does it occur to any of you that our church leaders expect they will have to account to the Lord oneday for their decisions and actions regarding His church? They have to be quite certain they are on the Lord’s side in any matter.
I get so tired of conservatives attacking “dissenters” as less faithful.
But MH, look at your own recent words regarding the leaders of the Church and those who choose to sustain them. I tire of dissenters who attack “conservatives” as, well, I won’t repeat the words.
@mem – Yes I do think about how the leaders will have to stand before the judgement bar of Christ. I feel this is a huge pressure on their shoulders. I feel for Brigham Young being asked, “So why did you hang on to that Adam God doctrine that the church will still be dealing with 200 years later?” I also wonder if he will be asked, “you set the policy for denying blacks from going to the temple and not being able to get the priesthood, why did you do that?”
I feel for them and the pressure.
I also know I must stand before my God and be answer how I followed HIM. Prophets and Apostles are to help me, but when it comes between following what I feel God is telling me and a policy that feels like a gut punch (even after praying about it for weeks), the for me I will follow God.
JI,
I have appreciated your point of view. Even though it is different than mine, you haven’t resorted to the tired tactic of name calling. Thank you.
In my response to this policy, I have been a little more bold, and have used words that traditionally have been the domain of conservatives: I have called the policy evil and wicked, because I believe that is what Jesus would call the policy, even though I do believe that the authors of the policy are not evil and wicked. I use these words because that is what conservatives traditionally use to describe immoral behavior. I am trying to get conservatives to understand that this policy is immoral. I do believe that this policy is really the philosophies of men who don’t even bother to mingle with scripture. It is simply the philosophies of men. It is a wrong philosophy to combat the problem of SSM.
Like Nephi, I speak with boldness, and some take the truth to be hard. I have tried very hard to couch my disagreement in the scriptures. I haven’t name-called and called the Brethren bigots. I have tried very hard to use conservative methods and the scriptures in my disagreement.
I view people who simply “follow the brethren” as blind. I think they are guilty of idolatry. I think they are worshiping the brethren as teh ancient Egyptians worshiped Pharaoh. I think we need to do better. I do think that there is some awful bigotry in the Bible, and I think we do not need to repeat these mistakes.
Yes, I do believe that the Brethren will stand before God to be judged by him, and I believe God will not be pleased with this policy. I have used scriptures to back up my claims. Supporters of this policy don’t bother appealing to scriptures because they can’t. (Sure there are scriptures against homosexuality, but not against denying children baptism because of parents sins.)
I do believe the Brethren are good men who have made a monumental error in policy, and like Amos or Samuel the Lamanite, I am trying to do my part to get them to open their eyes to this evil policy. If they can change it, I believe it will be better for them at the judgement bar. If I am wrong, I pray that the atonement will cover my error in judgment about this policy. But make no mistake, it is a bad policy, not a doctrine to deny children baptism because of the sins of their parents. I really can’t imagine God condemning children because of sins of their parents. If so, I don’t think I want to go to heaven because that is not a just god. I believe in a just god, not an unjust god. I worship the Almighty God, not the philosophies of men who don’t bother to mingle bad policies with scriptures. I believe I am safe with God in my disagreement.
I just had a thought. Some think that if members put financial pressure on the church by refusing to pay tithing, it will cause leaders to re-think the policy. Many have mentioned that individuals not paying tithing will mainly serve to disqualify themselves from teh temple, and don’t think it will help. Maybe we need to write letters to rich, high-profile church members, such as Mitt Romney, Steve Young, the Huntsmans, etc that if they withhold their millions in tithing, that would have an impact. It’s an interesting thought.
I see Ken Jennings has denounced the policy: http://mormonstories.org/ken-jennings-denounces-lds-church-policy-on-same-sex-relationships-and-children/ It would be nice if high profile church members use the power of persuasion to keep up the pressure.
Blind? Idolotry? Is this really language that leads to an even-handed conversation?
I would not say that I am following blindly or worshiping anyone over this. I CAN say that I am giving the church leaders the benefit of the doubt.
Because in the past when I thought they were wrong on some issues, it turned out they were proven to be right.
So I am humble enough to admit that I do not know everything and just maybe the church leaders are inspired.
That does not make me a blind idol worshipper. No matter what you say. I am not going to be shamed into changing my opinion, so what do you think you are accomplishing with these repeated tirades?
Just sick of this entire conversation. This latest post has added NOTHING to the conversation except insulting those who do not express outrage over the policy. Yes, you bring out a child of polygamy who objects to such policies, we can bring out a child who supports the policy….blah blah.
And for the record, I and others have quoted scriptures on past threads which do back up the policy. You just refuse to accept that interpretation.
All I can tell you is that I have always treated children of gays and children who cannot be baptized with the same respect as any child who walks through the door of my Primary room.
I can’t claim, as you do, to know God’s will for the church, only for myself.
“Blind? Idolotry? Is this really language that leads to an even-handed conversation?”
This is the language I hear at church every Sunday, and now you’re taking offense?
“Because in the past when I thought they were wrong on some issues, it turned out they were proven to be right.”
Such as? (Conservatives make this platitude all the time but will NEVER give specifics.)
“I am not going to be shamed into changing my opinion,…..”
Isn’t that what prophets do? Don’t they shame us into obeying the commandments all the time?
“… so what do you think you are accomplishing with these repeated tirades?”
Leaders are just battening down the hatches and hoping this issue goes away. Eventually it will, but I hope to keep this issue alive, and point out the wrongness of the policy for as long as possible. Maybe they will come to their senses sooner, rather than later.
“And for the record, I and others have quoted scriptures on past threads which do back up the policy. You just refuse to accept that interpretation.”
Sorry, but what scriptures have you pointed out in relation to denying children baptism because of parental sins? I don’t recall anyone pointing out a single one.
If language is offensive, why would you want to repeat it?
I don’t know who is saying that to you, but I don’t hear it every week. I find it offensive, and I don’t think anyone should have to listen to it.
“Such as? (Conservatives make this platitude all the time but will NEVER give specifics.)”
Of course it is never a solid rhetorical position to claim ALWAYS or NEVER, because there are likely exceptions to anything. And I don’t know if I even qualify as a conservative because I can’t keep all the labels straight.
But I have mentioned several times that when the church pushed forward with construction of the BYU Jerusalem Center in the face of opposition from local residents, I thought it was rude and we should not, and I was quite vocal in my opposition. One of the general authorities said that if construction ever stopped, it would never be built. He was right, I was wrong. And I definitely felt unworthy of the compliments a while back when some Jewish friends complimented me on the facility and said the concert or whatever was one of the highlight of their trips to the Holy Land.
I also favored the Equal Rights Amendment for a few years back in the 1970s and later came to appreciate the church’s stance.
“Sorry, but what scriptures have you pointed out in relation to denying children baptism because of parental sins? I don’t recall anyone pointing out a single one.”
And you haven’t pointed out a single scripture where it explicitly says that any child can be baptized. You are choosing to infer offense from this policy and preach against offending children.
There are lots of scriptures about bringing the gospel to different groups of people at different points in time. When I first heard about this policy, I was preparing a lesson about Peter & Cornelius and reviewing the various times during his ministry when Christ refused to allow Gentiles to become part of the new church. Matthew 15 was the one I ended up using in my class, about when He heals the child of a Canaanite woman–yet is clear with her that he had not come to minister to her at that time.
I wonder if loudly and repeatedly telling these children that they have been outrageously offended is actually adding to their burden, and making them a pawn? That if they were quietly left alone, they would be just one more Primary kid who happens to not be baptized until later on?
Bravo Naismith. At least you came up with some actual issues. I guess I will trade my NEVER for RARELY now. I still think there was nothing wrong with ERA, and I don’t see the wisdom in the church’s opposition.
In my previous post, I have pointed out D&C 68:25 says children are to be baptized at age 8 or the sin is on the heads of the parents. With the First Presidency denying baptism of consenting parents, then the sins be on the heads of the First Presidency. Many have pointed out the scripture in Matthew where Jesus tells the apostles not to forbid children to come to him so he can bless them, and the scripture in teh OP this week says “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Jesus said go into all the world, preaching the gospel of repentence. He didn’t say “avoid the gays, blacks” or any other group.
Jesus never gives pre-conditions: only let straight children come to me, God love only straight children, anyone can offend children of gays and that’s just a-ok.
“I wonder if loudly and repeatedly telling these children that they have been outrageously offended is actually adding to their burden, and making them a pawn?”
Well, I didn’t loudly complain about Lance Allred because I didn’t know about the policy. What do you have to say about his bullying? Is it reasonable to expect the same bullying for children of gay parents since gays have the same policy as polygamists?
Wisdom in the church’s stance in ERA. lolz. Have you read Pedestals and Podiums? I know, I know . . . let’s just agree to disagree…..
…this is the end of the road for me. CES Instructor and 25 year Ward Leadership position holder. The Board of Directors in SLC has been exposed. I’m done with what the LDS Church has become…very sad. I talked to my Bishop and he confessed he thinks it’s wrong.
“Wisdom in the church’s stance in ERA. lolz. Have you read Pedestals and Podiums? I know, I know . . . let’s just agree to disagree…..”
Bullying has been mentioned as a concern regarding the issue in the OP. It seems to me that if we don’t want kids to think that bullying is okay for any reason on any topic that we should all demonstrate good behavior.
“lolz” is not a respectful response to someone who is giving a forthright answer. Of course you can laugh all you want, just keep it to yourself.
And the condescension of quoting a book that you have read, and assuming that I couldn’t possibly have read it or I wouldn’t be so stupid to believe what I do is not particularly respectful either.
And while I can’t claim to read all of P & P because it is a massive work of excellent scholarships, I have spent time reading through it. It is considered to be one of the best descriptions of the 1977 debacle in SLC at some women’s meeting.
But it wasn’t written until much later, so it wasn’t available to those of us actually making up our minds in the 1970s and 80s. For me, it was actually a commentator on National Public Radio that got my attention and started me reconsidering my support of ERA. And I did read A LAWYER LOOKS AT THE ERA by Rex E Lee.
Everybody:
Why are you angry at the LDS leaders? If you are and don’t feel they are lead by God, then get out of the Church and find a church that is led by God.
The Church could use a good clean-up.
Find a church with your approved organization and their set of scriptures and interpretations and have a real, fun-loving, blast.
Just don’t stay here.
Wow! From all of these negative comments one might suppose that some people think that 50% or more of the members of the Church are gay AND married to another gay WITH children!
Are the quotes like “Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me.” a statement of how things ARE or how they SHOULD BE in a perfect world (which doesn’t exist on this planet)? If this represents how things are then I think I can prove that statement wrong by uncovering several thousand if not millions or even billions of children that never had the opportunity to even hear the name of Christ let alone learn why they should want to come unto Him. And yet we are supposed to have faith that some little peasant in a far off land who lived and died a thousand years ago and also never had a chance to hear the name of Christ or be baptized will somehow be judged on a level playing field with those of us who were born into a family that has been members of Christ’s Church for generations. Where is the outrage over this peasant’s having to wait for a thousand years to hear the gospel and make a decision whether or not to accept Christ and partake of His atoning sacrifice? Let’s see, 18 years vs. 1,000 years. Yeh, I’ll go with 1,000 years, NOT! Do you really think that his opportunity depends on whether his “parents” were gay or not?
It appears that people who are so upset over this “policy” have lost faith in a loving Heavenly Father who cares about ALL of His children not just those few who happen to live with gay “parents”. Perhaps you think He is not capable of taking our individual circumstances into account fairly with both justice and mercy before assigning us to a kingdom of GLORY! In truth, I can’t even image how it will be done, but then we have been told “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.” Isaiah 55:8
Perhaps the whole thing boils down to “Much Ado About Nothing” if we truly have faith in our Father’s love and his ability and determination to bless all of his posterity in a way that we will all one day have to bow on bended knee and acknowledge that indeed, His ways are the best ways and we will learn what His ways are by listening to His prophet.
PS: If you think the “Mormon” Church is “unfair”, try asking people outside the Church to explain their understanding of what happens to our little peasant. (Think purgatory, hell, everlasting burning, nonexistence, etc.)
Rich – I will be the first to admit that there are certainly some individuals that are inappropriately disparaging the brethren and I do not support that. I do feel one can feel this policy change is not right if they are asking God and are not (yet?) getting any feeling saying it is.
I would say your comments like “the church could use a clean-up” come across very unloving and even a bit self-righteous.
I think it might be good for you to read http://rationalfaiths.com/you-belong/ and think about how you are telling people “if you can’t believe this is from God, then let me help throw you out of the boat!” Why go send missionaries out if the bar for staying in the church is to believe everything and right now. Do we not have to progress in this life? Maybe some of the people you are attacking need to progress, and maybe you could be in need of progressing. I bit of humility on both sides seems the more Christ-like behavior.
Maybe we should give Rich a taste of his own medicine and excommunicate him from the blog if he thinks everyone should think alike and if they don’t, we kick them out.
In yesterdays SS lesson on love one of the scriptures quoted was ! John 4;20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
This pretty much explains my reservations with the attitude of the leaders to gay people and their children.
Let me start out by quoting myself.
“Everybody:
Why are you angry at the LDS leaders? If you are and don’t feel they are led by God, then get out of the Church and find a church that is led by God. The Church could use a good clean-up. Find a church with your approved organization and their set of scriptures and interpretations and have a real, fun-loving, blast. Just don’t stay here.”
Where did I kick somebody out?? Even if I had the authority I would never do it except for adults living together and admitting to sin. I’d have to check out the handbook on that.
Is it because I said, “The Church could use a good clean-up.” I didn’t mean any of the priesthood leadership excommunicating them. I meant the complainers in the Church getting themselves out and as a result of their leaving cleaning up the Church themselves. Now I won’t deny what I’ve just said. You guys complain about it so much and yet you stay in it. WHY?
Now if I would get excommunicated from the blog, I would feel bad but it would feel like being in my SS class in church and my high priests class. They can’t excommunicate me but I feel about them like feel about you guys.
True Blue #43, look at what you said. 1John 4:20, If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
And then comes that bad part. “This pretty much explains my reservations with the attitude of the leaders to gay people and their children.”
That’s terrible. It’s also not true. I could take some time to explain that but what good would it be? You won’t get it anyway. You guys and my classes are pretty much the same thing, only not on this subject. When it comes to scriptural interpretation you just don’t get it.
Rich,
Why are you angry at the [READERS OF OUR BLOG]? If you are and don’t feel they are led by God, then get out of the [BLOG] and find a [BLOG] that is led by God. The [BLOG] could use a good clean-up. Find a [BLOG] with your approved organization and their set of scriptures and interpretations and have a real, fun-loving, blast. Just don’t stay here.
Happy Hubby—
Your answer to the Lord can be simple. “Whether it is by my voice or the voice of my servants, it is the same.” I can’t rightly judge what I haven’t been privy to and don’t know. I answer for what I know to the Lord about my life. I don’t worry how BY or any other church leader will answer to Him.
They do. That’s my point.
Mem – that is the advice I have tried to follow. But I have come to a point where I worry that at times there can be a difference between what the Prophet and other leaders are saying and what the Lord wants. I worry that when I stand before God to be judged, I fear I might be asked, “Did I the Lord tell YOU that those specific words from a leader were mine? Did you get a confirmation from ME that I wanted you to do that? Remember that I told you that I would confirm it to you and did you ask me?”
I think a lot of the banter back and forth on this is if we think that prophets and other top leaders can error in their statements. I hear MANY making statements that really at the core sound to me like, “The prophet can’t ever say anything wrong.” It makes me (and I suspect others) that do feel like we have to balance that a bit and push back publicly. Why publicly? Because I have almost left the church during a faith crisis trying to reconcile all that the leaders have said with the framing that everything they said was correct. I don’t want people to do what I almost did and throw the baby out with the bathwater. We HAVE to give individuals a bit of room. The “believe it all or get the hell out of the church” will certainly leave the church with those (testimony of Christ or no) that believe in blind obedience. To me that sounds a bit too close a plan we rejected before we came here. We came here to learn and grow. I don’t want my kids to only know how to follow what I say or they will not learn how to be a mature adult.
So to sum a too long reply, My #1 goal in life is to follow Christ. Period.
Happy Hubby
I’m with you all the way. Agree 110%. I have decided in recent weeks that this church policy is a test. I don’t mean that the leaders of the church are intentionally testing us. I think that they think that they are doing what’s right. But this is a test for us. The problem is that I’m unsure of what passing this test looks like. I’m currently strongly opposed to the policy because it seems to contradict doctrine. Does passing the test mean that I have to come to know that it is of God? Does passing mean that, even though I can’t support it and feel like this policy is not of God, I hold on to core truths of the gospel? Does passing mean that I remain affiliated with the church while speaking out as a public voice of opposition to help others see how this is wrong? I’m leaning towards that last one. I know people who have left over this policy. I don’t judge them. Sometimes I wish I could just give it all up also but I care too much about the church to bail out. If those who dissent on this issue were to all leave, we would be doing to the church a huge disservice. They need us.
Rich,
Not sure which Christ you are trying to follow but your words of exclusion and disregard don’t sound like the Jesus who I have read about in the scriptures. You are probably sitting by, in front of, or behind people in church each week who hate this new policy. Please be kind to them and maybe go so far as to try to understand what they are feeling rather than dismiss them as dissidents and apostates who lack a strong enough testimony.
Troy,
If this is a test, I think the answer can be found in Matt. 10:40, John 13:20, D&C 84:36, and D&C 112:20. Somehow, I think the Lord our Savior is sincere about what He says here.
Jl,
This is not a test. This is a mistake. Even prophets make them.
MH,
I saw the following today — it might be helpful in this discussion.
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/3261558-155/op-ed-at-18-i-chose-the#PhotoSwipe1449619318169
JI, not helpful. Check my post from 2 weeks ago when I posted about Lance Allred and Madison Brown. I think their experiences are more typical than the one you’ve shown.
Do you have a measure of respect for Levi Savage?
“JI, not helpful. Check my post from 2 weeks ago when I posted about Lance Allred and Madison Brown. I think their experiences are more typical than the one you’ve shown.”
And who the hell gave you authority as the Typical Police????
Seriously, I am so tired of being told that someone else’s experience is more typical than another.
And why? Because it doesn’t fit the narrative you are trying to sell.
Guess what?? There are members of the church all over the world. You do not get to dismiss the experiences of others as unhelpful and atypical and still keep your supposed reputation as someone who actually cares about other people.
And how many people are going to commit suicide because their stories are deemed to be untypical and unhelpful?
Who are you the PC Police? What exactly is wrong with comparing experiences and offering an opinion that some are more typical than others?
And who the hell gave you authority as the Typical Police????
God.
You do not get to dismiss the experiences of others as unhelpful and atypical and still keep your supposed reputation as someone who actually cares about other people.
Sure I do.
I jest, but with your emotional outburst, I felt it was time for a little comic relief.
But seriously Naismith, this isn’t that hard to think about. The new policy requires children to disavow their parents polygamist relationships. Now who easily disavows their parents? Kids with a good relationship? No. Children who have been abused, yeah it’s probably pretty easy to disavow a parent. People with an axe to grind against Mormons, Muslims, Catholics, Baptists, JW’s, Branch Davidians, Scientologists. Sure it is probably easy to disavow a religion if you’ve been burned. Nobody disavows anyone or any religion unless there is some sort of a traumatic experience.
Do you know ANYONE who has disavowed parents? (I don’t.) It took more than 150 years for the church to disavow the priesthood ban. It isn’t easy. And despite the Family Proclamation which tells us how wonderful monogamy is, the LDS Church still hasn’t disavowed polygamy, and in the new essays doubled down on some things like the Law of Sarah. Yet they tell polygamists they have to disavow a doctrine that the LDS Church won’t disavow. Hypocritical? You bet.
So when Madison Brown and Lance Allred tell us how hard it is to join the LDS Church when they are required to disavow their parents, yes I think that is typical. It’s pretty common sense. For God’s sake the LDS Church still won’t disavow polygamy.
I wouldn’t expect anyone to disavow their parents. I would consider disavowing atypical. Have you disavowed your parents Naismith? Do you know anyone who has disavowed parents? Have you ever even considered it? If you have considered disavowing, I’ll bet it was over something pretty traumatic.
So calling Lance and Madison typical doesn’t make me the typical police. It make me have some common sense. But Mark Twain once said that common sense isn’t so common. Perhaps he is right.
There is nothing funny about your bullying.
Most dictionaries define “typical” as something like “a representative specimen.” Indeed, in biology a “type” specimen is stored in a museum somewhere, has all the defining characteristics of that species or variety or whatever, and is used as a reference in making an identification of various samples in the future.
So what makes the stories you like more “typical” than the story posted today?
I believe and respect all three of their stories and appreciate their willingness to share such personal views. Each of their stories are part of the mosaic of Mormon experience.
Why the need to rank order them?
I am not sure there can be a “typical” in the absence of data about what is most common.
And I am not willing to discuss my own relationship with my parents when I left their faith to be baptized into this church because you will likely just ridicule it, and I am not going to bring up that pain to humor you. But a lot of converts have serious breaks with their parents when they are baptized.
We can still love the parents or children or friends while not finding their lifestyle to be in harmony with how we personally choose to live the Gospel.
And let’s please be clear that people are NOT being asked to disavow their parents. Only to “disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.”
Only?
Naismith,
“So what makes the stories you like more “typical” than the story posted today?”
I don’t have data, so you got me. But I believe what I am saying is true. You’re welcome to disagree with what is typical, but I still think I’m right, and I don’t think it takes a rocket study to prove me out. (I’d be happy to contribute to your Kickstarter campaign to study typical FLDS to LDS baptisms where you can use data to prove me wrong. Just let me know where to donate.) We’ll agree to disagree on the point of typical.
“a lot of converts have serious breaks with their parents when they are baptized.”
Sure Naismith, I get that. But Madison has a good relationship with her parents. (I can’t speak to Lance or others.) You still claim, *let’s please be clear that people are NOT being asked to disavow their parents. Only to “disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.”*
Look at the OP to see what Madison said or click here for a longer quote. I’ll quote it here again.
Sounds like her experience isn’t what you are claiming, and I’ll take her word over yours.
“You’re welcome to disagree with what is typical”
The more important point (ignored above) is why you feel the need to designate some as typical and some as not.
Why can we not accept all of the stories as valid? Why this need to turn it into a zero-sum game, with typical and atypical?
All that does is make some feel like outsiders. And I thought that we want everyone to feel welcome.
“but I still think I’m right,”
which makes me wrong. Why this need to declare others as wrong? Why can’t we just be different?
“You still claim, *let’s please be clear that people are NOT being asked to disavow their parents. Only to “disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.”*
That is not my claim, and you don’t have to “take my word” because I don’t have any experience. That quote is the actual policy of the church. And the story that ji posted demonstrates how that policy can be enacted in a way that the actual participants feel respects their family relationships. It is THEIR word that you are rejecting.
In journalism, there is a definition that dog-bites-man is not newsworthy because it happens all the time, but man-bites-dog is newsworthy because it is different.
Thus it is not surprising that we may hear news stories of where the policy does not work for some people (while others quietly go about their lives). But to declare those as “typical”….
Obviously, you believe what you want to believe, accepting only information that you want to believe, and this is NOT a conversation so I bow out.
“Why can we not accept all of the stories as valid? Why this need to turn it into a zero-sum game, with typical and atypical? ”
Naismith, the whole reason I’m making the point about this is a response to Elder Christofferson’s statement that “nothing is lost” if children of polygamists and gay parents wait until 18 until baptism. Madison Brown and Lance Allred directly refute Christofferson’s statements. You’re making a side issue about typical/atypical that is really losing sight of the forest for the trees.
Sure not everyone’s experiences are the same. A friend of mine justified the policy that it won’t affect very many. Once again, Jesus said we should leave the 99 and go after the 1. I’m not sure why you are so strenously objecting to typical/atypical. I’m trying to protect the 1. Sure, I’m not as worried about the 99, and I think that’s what Jesus would have me do.
But this whole typical/atypical conversation is really a tangent.
How are you helping Madison and Lance by exalting Steve Washenko’s opinion as more valid? (You’re doing the same thing I’m doing.) Washenko’s in the 99, not the 1. So yes, I’m not as worried about him, but yes his experience is valid. I’m not “accepting only information that [I] want to believe.” If you think I am, then I think you’re just as guilty of throwing Madison and Lance under the baptismal bus and “accepting only information that you want to believe.”
Pot, meet kettle.
“How are you helping Madison and Lance by exalting Steve Washenko’s opinion as more valid?”
I am NOT exalting his opinion as more valid. I accept all three of those voices as valid and valuable.
Go find someone else to piss on.
This is a little off the thread, but I wonder if we our too quick to judge the leaders for what the people wanted. Think of the people of Israel and the law of Moses, God wanted to give the law of the gospel, but the Israelites wouldn’t accept it. Same thing with Samael and having a king. Are we blaming past leaders for the preisthood ban when it may have been more the members fault for not accepting blacks as equals? I don’t pretend to know how this baptism and blessing ban will play out, but I am confident in a loving and merciful God who will provide a way to salvation and exualtation to all of his children in his own time frame.