The night of 5 November, 2015, the Mormon online community was in a frenzy over a change in policy that had been very quietly published earlier in the day. The new policy states that
Children of a Parent Living in a Same-Gender
Relationship
A natural or adopted child of
a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is
married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing. A
natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship,
whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may
be baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service
only as follows: A mission president or a stake president may request
approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm,
ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has
lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by
personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met:
1. The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings
and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice
of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.
2. The child is of legal
age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in
a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage.
When a Disciplinary
Council May Be Necessary
Serious Transgression
…It includes (but is
not limited to) attempted murder, forcible rape, sexual abuse, spouse abuse,
intentional serious physical injury of others, adultery, fornication,
homosexual relations (especially sexual cohabitation), deliberate abandonment
of family responsibilities…
When a Disciplinary
Council is Mandatory
Apostasy
As used here, apostasy
refers to members who:
1. Repeatedly act in
clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.
2. Persist in teaching as
Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been
corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
3. Continue to follow the
teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after
being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
4. Are in a same-gender
marriage.
5. Formally join another
church and advocate its teachings.
"There's No One Actually Affected By This Update"
A fellow Mormon discussing the new policy told me that "There's no one actually affected by this update." He wasn't the only one to express that thought. And to his credit, he was right... in a way. His argument went something like this: Before, gay people were seen as committing heinous sexual sin, and their marriage was forbidden by civil law. Now that civil law has changed, the Church has to recognize their marriage as legal, but we don't have to like it. Since we can't say it's illegal, we'll call it apostasy.
For many LGBT+ people, the end result is the same--a group of local leaders gets together and decides whether the person gets excommunicated, barred from certain aspects of public practice, or no penalty. Even if the name changed, it works out just like it did before.
Protecting the Children
Within a couple of days of the announcement, D. Todd Christofferson of the modern group of Twelve Apostles released a video. In that video, he defended and explained the new policy. One of the main points of his argument is that this new policy protects children. It prevents conflict between their home life and their religious activity. LGBT+ parents are committing "a particularly grievous or significant, serious kind of sin," and their values and beliefs must be incompatible with the Church's teachings, the argument goes. We're protecting kids from having to choose between their parents and the Church.
As I read opinions by proponents of the new policy, I noticed a theme emerging: most of them appealed to authority to claim it was God's law. Some of them cited Jesus directly. Some of them appealed to the Bible, where there seems to be some mention of homosexuality. Many of them made an argument that has become common among conservative Mormons in the last few years, and it goes something like this: If you believe in the Church, then you must believe that it was really founded by Joseph Smith, a true prophet like Moses or Elijah. If you believe in Joseph Smith, then you must believe that God has continued to call more modern Moseses...es...(es?) That means the policy was spoken by God and written directly by His servants the prophets. It is the revealed word of God, so it must be perfect. "The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray."
The Church as Safe Haven
In the interest of full disclosure, when I tried to trace news of the policy change back to the source, the farthest I got was John Dehlin, a man excommunicated from the LDS Church for publicly supporting marriage equality. This was right in the groove of his activism. The Church's PR team confirmed that the change had really happened, though. I read and heard many opinions arguing that the new policy was immoral or contrary to the Church's core doctrinal principles and values. Most of these voices appealed to Jesus or to a lack of authority on the issue. For example, some pointed out how inconclusive the biblical evidence is about... well, anything, but especially marriage equality. Others pointed to the story of Jesus with the woman caught in adultery, saying that we imperfect people should not be so quick to attack our neighbors. Some appealed to Mormonism's second article of faith:
We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.They argued that the new policy was tantamount to (read "a terribly perfect example of") punishing children for their parents' actions.
A common theme among the challengers was the idea that the Church should be inclusive. Its leaders should invite all people to participate, learn, and experience God's love. No one should be kicked out for committing to a person they love in front of a civil authority.
There's still more. Thanks for reading!
No comments:
Post a Comment