Friday, November 6, 10:00 a.m.

I’ve added some lengthy thoughts to the end of the original post. Comments will remain closed. I realize that lessens any value this post may have, but I’m not up to dealing with the moderation I think the discussion would require. I’m sorry.

-oooOooo-

(Note: If you’ve come just to vent your outrage, please skip to the bottom of the post to read special moderating rules for this post. You can hate me for not letting you vent here, but you don’t get to hate me for wasting your time reading with the unfulfilled expectation of venting.)

If you’re plugged into Mormon social media, you know that a recent change has been made to the definition of apostasy in Handbook 1, the Church’s guide for ward and stake leaders. Entering a same-sex marriage or cohabitation is now to be considered as evidence of apostasy, and members in such marriages or cohabitations face the same consequences as other forms of apostasy.

The change has additional consequences for the children of same-sex parents: Such children may not be blessed, or baptized (leading to a prohibition against ordination, mission service, temple marriage, etc.) unless they meet a much higher bar to Church membership than most children: They must be of legal age and not live with the parent in the same sex relationship, and in interviews with their mission or stake president they must specifically disavow the practice of same-sex marriage or cohabitation and commit to living the teachings of the Church with respect to marriage. Even then, the baptism and later ordinances and service may be performed only when approval has been given by the First Presidency.

It isn’t clear to me from the preliminary reports I’ve read whether that applies to all children of all parents in same-sex partnerships – children are born to couples who later separate because one of the parents is gay; if a child remains with the heterosexual parent (whether that parent remains single or marries again in a man/woman marriage), while the gay parent marries or cohabits with a same-sex partner, is that child subject to the new consequences? or is he subject to those consequences only if he lives with the gay parent and that parent’s new partner? That may be made clear by the time this posts, but I don’t understand that point yet.

This news has been greeted, predictably, by an outpouring of outrage, sorrow, and generally negative emotion. So far I haven’t seen any calm or reasoned discussion about what may be the purpose for the new practice. That’s fine – people’s emotions are what they are. I’m not policing that – I merely would like to start, however prematurely, to have that calm and reasoned discussion that is the only path to real understanding.

What strikes me first about the restrictions on the membership of children of married/cohabiting gay parents is that they are identical to the restrictions that have long (since the 1920s) been in place for the children of polygamous parents. Children of polygamous parents could not and cannot be baptized until they are of legal age, disavow their parents’ polygamous example, and receive permission from the First Presidency. No, I can’t quote Handbook 1 or some other official document on this point, but I have seen it explained over and over and over in correspondence throughout the 20th century which I have read in the course of my historical research: from time to time, local Church leaders have written to general Church leaders with questions about the children of polygamists who live in their wards whose polygamous parents nevertheless want them blessed or baptized, or who themselves ask for baptism in their teens, and those general Church leaders have written back to the local leaders to explain the policy. For the sake of discussion on this post, please assume that I know what I’m talking about; you can dispute me another time if you think I’m wrong.

I think it might be useful in helping us move beyond the emotional outburst of tonight if we looked for patterns between the two situations. Finding those patterns could help us understand what underlies the Church’s position. It is not necessary to assume without question that the Church hates gays, or that the policy is a punishment for children or a pressure point for parents. That is not generally how the Church operates, despite what disaffected or believing-but-disappointed people immediately conclude.

When I mentioned on Facebook the similarity of policy between the children of married gay parents and the children of polygamists, some immediately proposed objections:

One said that the situations were different because polygamous families were not members of the Church, and gay families are members. That is true … but only because the policy is so new (hours old). Gay families are members, and polygamous families are not members, in 2015. In 1925, however, many polygamous people were members, and tried to hide their polygamous status in order to remain members. The child of parents discovered to be in polygamy but who had previously been active, even holding temple recommends, was in the same position in 1925 as the child of a gay parent or parents is today. It isn’t hard to imagine that as today’s gay couples are “handled” for their membership (that’s an old term, but one that was very widespread in the 20th century), the children of those gay parents in 2025 could easily be in exactly the same boat as the children of polygamous parents are today.

Someone else objected to my putting the two situations in parallel because “fundamentalist polygamous marriages usually involve claims of authorized priesthood ordinances contrary to the Church’s claims of sole authority to perform sealing ordinances.” That is a difference, but it doesn’t negate everything else the two situations have in common – it’s as irrelevant as other easily noted differences, such as the difference that polygamous marriages involve at least three adults, while gay marriages involve two.

Both situations involve marriages of types that are strongly disapproved by the Church. That is a compelling similarity. It is a relevant similarity because the formation of the right kind of families (“right” being defined as those eligible for priesthood sealing) is of paramount importance in Mormon doctrine.

The relationship of gay parents is supported by civil society, and is becoming more and more accepted by society, protected by law, and welcomed by friends and family. That would seem to put it at odds with the relationship of polygamous families … but that’s true in 2015, and not necessarily in the Church culture of 1925. As much as Church members strongly disapprove of polygamous relationships today, that was not always the case. There were many sympathizers in the first generation after the Manifesto. Even today mainstream Latter-day Saints are drawn away into polygamous practices, convinced of its rightness by those who teach it. That was certainly true in the 1920s and 1930s – I’ve seen the letters by local leaders who investigated such cases, and seen the lists published in Church publications of excommunications of those found in polygamy.

So perhaps the Church is concerned about a growing acceptance of same-sex marriages and practices, in the same way they were concerned about acceptance of polygamy within the Church in an earlier generation. Perhaps that is one reason for the new policy: prohibiting the baptism of those who might theoretically be most sympathetic to gay marriages could help to “keep the doctrine pure,” as the phrase is.

But that of course does nothing to prevent the growing acceptance of gay marriages by heterosexuals who are already members of the Church. I’m not taking any kind of stand on that point, merely trying to think more rationally and less emotionally than what I have seen so far.

I do not want to host the same angry remarks on Keepa that I have been seeing on Facebook and that will no doubt be spreading on the blogs – perhaps have already started while I have been writing this. For that reason, I am setting this post to require all comments to be approved before they are posted.

I do not want, this time, comments that merely express anger or sadness – even from regular commenters. Please do not be offended if I do not post such remarks; I love you and I value your participation, but posting such remarks, even from you, makes it that much harder for me to moderate comments from strangers drawn by the inflammatory topic.

What I’m looking for is honest attempts to reason through, in a logical and/or doctrinal manner (I know those two do not necessarily always coincide), why the Church may have decided to implement a policy with such important consequences to children who have not themselves violated any law of the Church. I especially welcome comments that note parallels between the situations of the children of polygamous parents and those of married/cohabiting gay parents. I don’t know yet what we might learn by that, but examining patterns in other matters often yields good results.

-oooOooo-

A few more ideas have occurred to me over a largely sleepless night, and in response to the emailed comments of some readers:

1. The Church supports families, yes, but has never endorsed families in the abstract: The Church has an interest in families that best protect and promote the eternal purposes of the plan of salvation.

• A heterosexual marriage even between non-members has the potential to become an eternal marriage.
• A single-parent family, whether the singleness was caused by death, divorce, or entire lack of marriage, has the potential to become whole.
• A family that is effectively headed by a single parent in the sense that one partner is a member and the other is not likewise has the potential to become united in the gospel at some point.

But:

• A polygamous family that is formed because the parents reject the priesthood authority of the man who holds the keys to that ordinance does more harm than good, by taking families beyond the pale of priesthood.
• A same-sex marriage cannot be sealed for eternity, and any children of that family cannot be sealed into an eternal family network through their parents.

These are grave consequences from the point of view of the Church.

2. There is no reason, only emotion, to interpret the newly announced consequences for children of gay parents as punishments for those children. Infant blessing is not a salvific ordinance. It is one that not only welcomes the child into the fold of the Church, but initiates a qualified membership record for that child. But there is no long-lasting consequence, or punishment, to the child who is not blessed.

Neither are the restrictions permanent. They only delay essential ordinances, like baptism, until a child who can easily be expected to be sympathetic to unacceptable marriage arrangements can be mature enough to deal with the additional stumblingblock to his making that covenant.

Holocaust victims are not being punished because their temple ordinances are delayed indefinitely for the sake of agreements made by the Church. Converts from Islam are not being punished because they are asked to delay baptism indefinitely for their own safety.

Children of single-parent families are not being punished because they are not permitted to be sealed to their single parent. That blessing is delayed until they can be sealed as children of an appropriate marriage, but that delay is not imposed as a punishment to children.

3. Church leaders have, in fact, told us that we can support same-sex marriage without consequence to individual membership. Some people are interpreting this overnight news as a recision of that promise. I think that’s a misunderstanding: It seems to me that whenever I have heard a Church leader speak about our right to support same-sex marriage, it has been in the context of civil or legal or social support. We can still support same-sex marriage in the civil sphere. But the Church has not changed its moral or doctrinal opposition to same-sex marriage, and we’ve never been told it’s okay to assume it has, or that to advocate for such changes is acceptable.

4. Yes, I wish this news had reached us in a different way.

In the Church’s defense, this was obviously not how they planned to introduce the policy. They did not foresee someone with access to the new Handbook page who, unworthy of the trust of his calling, broke his neck racing to send a copy of the page to a man who orchestrated its release in the most sensational and vindictive way imaginable. We haven’t heard from the Church at all, yet, beyond a simple confirmation that the leaked page is genuine. We don’t yet know what explanation or teaching they might yet give us.

On the other hand, to the Church’s shame, they should have anticipated a leak like this and been prepared to handle it more promptly and with greater care than has been the case. Leaks like this are a certainty in this age. Nothing is going to fly under the radar. The Church ought to know that, and ought to be prepared, and if they aren’t, they (and we) suffer the consequences.

5. Facebook has been covered overnight with suicide hotline references, in the fear that some LGBT families or children might find this news the last straw and take their own lives. I hope nothing like that actually happened.

But it would be just as self-destructive to act impulsively in any other direction, to rashly renounce Church membership, for instance, in the heat of the moment. That’s why I’ve stuck my neck out to comment on this issue in a way that has negative social consequences for me.

Don’t do anything rash – anything – until you’ve had time to coolly and rationally think the matter through, and to counsel with people you trust, and with the Lord. Nothing has to be done now that cannot be done weeks from now. Doing the wrong thing now cannot be easily withdrawn. Patience. Hope. Please.