Fact #1: The policy changes punish children.
In any other circumstance, with a parent’s approval, a minor age 8 or older can be baptized into the church. Unless it is a child of a same-sex couple. In this case, even if the parents approve the child cannot be baptized. It would seem that some are dismissing the approval of same-sex parents because it is questionable—since they are rejecting the gospel. This is bigotry. There is a lot more to this gospel than whatever definition of marriage you ascribe to it (polygamy anyone?) and to say that someone who is gay is rejecting the gospel just because they are married is a farce. They can—and many do—still have a testimony of the Savior and many other principles of the gospel. You are not allowed to define their relationship to the gospel entirely by their sexual orientation.
People also argue against fact #1 by turning it on its head and claiming it protects children. This is some of the finest mental gymnastics I’ve ever seen. Except it would hold more water if these children were actually in danger of something. Or even if we applied it to every situation where the children were taught one thing at home and another at church. Or where there were divorced parents with different beliefs and custody issues. But we’re actually just applying this policy to children of same-sex couples. And that is because it is not about protection at all. And, God help me, “this is for your own good” is just exactly the thing abusers say. This punishment is, in fact, spiritual abuse.
Also please tell me in what universe it is not a punishment to deny someone saving ordinances at any point in their life? In Primary, we go on and on about preparing 8-year-olds for baptism and we tell them how much they need it and how much it will mean to them NOW. Are we changing our stance on that? Are we now claiming that there is no benefit to having made the baptismal covenant and having the Gift of the Holy Ghost through the teenage years? Suddenly when it comes to children of same sex couples it is just no big deal to wait.
Fact #2: These new policies unfairly target same-sex couples.
I guess people argue against this because there are other excommunicable offenses on the books? Of course, for all the other excommunicable offenses, aside from polygamy, the children can be baptized with parental consent whenever they please. The church has a long history with polygamy that involves rooting it out of the body of the church. Unless they think children of same-sex couples are going to be coming to church and trying to secretly convince others to enter into same-sex marriages, there really is no relation between the two policies.
It is intellectually dishonest to say that all “sin” is treated the same. Even Christofferson said that homosexuality is considered a more grievous sin. Why on earth, I have no idea, but there it is.
And also this: 
Fact #3: These policies punish children for the perceived sin of their parents.
We aren’t talking about Adam’s transgressions here. This actually doesn’t have anything to do with the 2nd Article of Faith, although some are claiming it does. It has to do with the fact that a child’s participation in saving ordinances is predicated on choices their parents have made. No matter who the child is, what they believe, or what they have done… There is no justification for this in our gospel. None.
Fact #4: These policies require children to reject their parents.
People saying that all the children have to do is say that same sex marriage is wrong are conveniently leaving out the actual language of the policy. These are the requirements:
-
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.
-
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.
Tell me what disavowing the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage looks like when your parents are in a same-sex relationship and you have to commit to disapproving of it FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE. Let me emphasize the second requirement: Does not live with a parent who HAS LIVED or currently lives in a same-gender COHABITATION RELATIONSHIP OR marriage.
Even if the parent just lived with a partner from some length of time 10 years ago, we are asking the child to leave home, and never go back. Because #familyfirst.
Fact #5: These policies treat children as apostates.
Please tell me of another group of people denied any saving ordinances for any period of time? None? Just apostates and these two subsets of children (including children of polygamists)? Oh, I see.
Again, it is logically inconsistent to claim this policy has anything to do with parental approval or protection of the families involved. If that were true, it would be applied to many more cases than just children of same-sex couples.
Fact #6: The Church is pushing LGBTQ* members out the door.
Say what you will about loving the sinner and hating the sin, but it is lip service. Actually, don’t say what you will. You can’t treat people this way and then pat yourself on the back for loving them. You can’t bar them from the doors of the chapel, and then point the finger at them when they do not come in. That the church is full of bigotry is not in doubt, and we are losing precious souls and the beauty they would bring to our congregations because of it.
Fact #7: This hurts me personally.
And not just me. This policy is causing so much pain. Especially those that directly affects, but also those of us whose compassion has led us with them into those dark places. It is thick and it is tangible and so many of us are wading our way through it with confused spirits and broken hearts. What kind of cold, compassionless person tells you that you are not allowed to have feelings about this? Can there be a less empathetic, less Christ-like response? These new policies actually made people want to die. If you can’t actually feel more empathy, then fake it. Whatever you do, don’t accuse us of argumentum ad passiones. Because that is a jackass move.
Fact #8: The Church needs to let this go.
There is an argument that this policy was put in place for legal protection. Since same-sex marriage actually poses no legal threat to the Church, that doesn’t really make sense, does it? Oh, unless you mean that the church put the policy in place to continue to fight against same-sex marriage on legal grounds. That makes more sense. It really feels more like the policy was put in place to draw a line in the sand about the issue. And they really do need to let it go. The church is fighting a losing battle trying to control the issue and the narrative, and now they are using the saving ordinances of children to do it. It is divisive and it is doing damage, and the Church should retract it. We all know where the Church stands on the one man + one woman (+ another woman + another woman + etc.) issue. We don’t need to inflict so much damage over it.
Fact #9: These changes are policy, not doctrine.
Okay, if you’ve figured out the post I’m reacting to here, you’ll note that I am agreeing with that author on this issue. But, you see, I’ve seen more people talk about having faith in the leaders of the church and the gospel in DEFENSE of the policy changes than I have those who have argued against it, or who are upset about it. EVERYONE needs to understand that this is just policy. There is no absolute truth represented in it. I don’t even think God is represented in it. I think it is morally repugnant. And fortunately, since it is not doctrine I don’t have to have faith in it. I don’t have to think the Leaders are automatically right about it just because they are the Leaders. They have been wrong about policy in the past, and we all know it. It can change, and we can hope and pray that it does regardless of our faith in the gospel.
Bonus: This could lead to a great exodus.
At my last count, I have 11 friends resigning over this issue. Three of them have already written their letters. I think the mass exodus is a given. I keep hearing that these people just don’t have enough faith in their leaders. I suppose that is true. But the theme among my friends that are resigning is this: They are putting their faith in the Savior, and not the arm of the flesh. The are following the Spirit. And it is leading them right out the door. Some might say “even the elect will be deceived” in the last days. But who exactly are the elect? We are talking about the marginalized here. The elect all seem pretty comfortable with this new policy if you ask me.
Leah Marie
Leah Marie earned a BA in Political Science, and a Masters in Public Administration. She is currently working towards her PhD in Public Policy. She is wife to an English professor, and mother to 3 beautiful boys.
All posts by Leah Marie
Although I agree with it personally, I sure wish you would have left the "Bonus" section off. My ability to share this with TBM friends who are sendng that 9 Myths garbage out and have them read it with an open mind is diminished.
Your other points are brilliant and well articulated and worth sharing.
why would anyone want to remain in a “church” that preaches “families forever yet has so many conditions on who can be baptized. who can attend your wedding. what we can drink …. etc …. i left the church and now i go to one that reads the ENTIRE bible verse by verse. chapter by chapter. there’s no dress code. no one checks in to see if I’m ok if I miss church. i don’t have to check in with them about my sin (temple recommend). I am responsible for my relationship with the LORD.
I am so sorry to hear you say that this is policy and not doctrine. Because, you are very wrong! Many people don’t realize that the Scriptures speak strongly against same sex relations. In fact, if you check,starting in the book of Genesis, you’ll find that there at least sixteen Scriptures that speak against homosexuality. So, we must hold fast to God’s love, grace, and principles, NO MATTER how difficult it may be.
The world may think and say different,but,we must be “in the world and not of it”.
No
You are wrong!!!
So there.
Fact # 10. The LDS Church enjoys full tax-exempt status while maintaining their bigoted, racist, and homophobic practices. (Unfortunately this 'fight' isn't about God's War, it's about tax exemption.)
Thank you so much for articulating my thoughts! If I read one more time that this is actually to protect the children, my head will explode.
There is not one fact in here.
Im in 99.9% agreement. In regards to not living with the same sex parents, there is nothing saying “never go back”…you’re implying a bit too much and that leans toward sensationalism on the topic. We can understand the implications of the strength of definition of disavowing the lifestyle, but they aren’t told they can’t have a relationship with their “sinful” parents. Otherwise, this policy is a bogus piece of spiritual/emotional blackmail…highly disturbing!
A point I’d like to add about the Bonus is that more people can open their eyes to understanding the REAL Restoration as started by Joseph Smith. After Abinidi preached to wicked King Noah’s court of priests, Alma believed and was run off…he followed the true order of baptism, taught others and we are to liken the scriptures unto us…learn and practice the true order of Christ’s very simple doctrine. Read 3 Nephi to learn exactly how simple and straight forward Christ’s doctrine is…there’s no “plurality” to Christ’s doctrine. This is a time to awake and see ourselves as the poor “zoramites” who weren’t allowed in synagogues to participate in rameumtum idolatry…maybe THAT is what these children are being “saved” from and not invalid ordinances from those who practice unrighteous dominion and have effectively lost their priesthood (if they really had it) and who do NOT enter in while hedging the way for others….delve into the scriptures….Christ employs no gatekeeper, He is the only way, the truth and the life!
The “policy vs. doctrine” dichotomy people keep drawing is a false one. When I’m judged by God, there will be no such distinction allowed. I can’t say, “yes, I committed adultery but it was just a policy thing, not doctrine.” There is “stuff the Church does” and “what the scriptures command”; if the Church comes up lacking compared to the scriptures, it’s wrong, no matter which label we apply to the change.
The commandment is to baptize all those that repent and confess their sins (not the sins of their parents, incidentally). If I’m comfortable claiming authority to baptize, and if someone comes to me seeking baptism and asserting they’ve repented and confessed, it’s my scriptural duty to baptize them, no matter whether they pay tithing, drink coffee, or watch football on Sunday, and no matter whether they were raised by parents, grandparents, homosexuals, or polygamists, or wolves.
I love your response! I honestly don’t think that God is going to care about the rules, policies and procedures we followed. Did we do as He commanded according to His Word? Man has a problem with complicating the most simplest things. Why are we so difficult? One of his commands is that we do not add or take away from His Word. All of the rules, policies and procedures created by all of the world’s religions probably number in the thousands, yet all God is asking us to do is keep the commandments, love and forgive everyone, have faith in God, have true repentance of sins and believe that Jesus saved us. Amen.
http://mysterymormon.com/2015/11/08/the-9-truths-about-the-mormon-lgbt-policy-debunking-the-myths/ this article is in response to the lds.net article you were mentioned in.
the bonus one is in response to the article on lds.net- This article is responding to the lds.net one as well http://mysterymormon.com/2015/11/08/the-9-truths-about-the-mormon-lgbt-policy-debunking-the-myths/
Agreed, Steve. It somewhat reduces the author of the article to looing for validation. As you said, all the 9 points are well articulated, and she didn't need that.
Elizabeth Faust Johnson Thanks. I started to read the article, threw up in my mouth a little, and closed it.
Elizabeth Faust Johnson Thanks. I started to read the article, threw up in my mouth a little, and closed it.
Steve Clark-Rasmussen I didn't like the 9 myths one, the one I posted was in response to the 9 myths one.
True. But, if I understand correctly, if that status were revoked, they could go into the public arena with much greater impunity than they currently can. If that's correct, leave them with their tax-exempt status, IMO. If I'm wrong, please let me know and I'll update my notes.
Frank,
I completely agree, Frank. There are no less than nine facts. Strange that you felt the need to clarify that.
This is perfect! Exactly my thoughts on all of it!
This is perfect! Exactly my thoughts on all of it!
Thanks! The article needed to be responded to.
Thanks! The article needed to be responded to.
Regarding #1, children from polygamous families also cannot be baptized, from what I understand (from situations I have been aware of in the past). They can be baptized when they are older, too, and must disavow polygamy. So, fair or not, the church seems to be placing same-sex marriage into the same category as polygamy in this regard (apostasy, establishing a clear definition of what acceptable marriage is for the church, discouraging sympathy for these alternative lifestyles, etc.).
Excuse me, I wasn't aware my religious beliefs were up for a popularity vote . and as far as being called bigoted, it seems that the pot is calling the kettle black, because I see a lot of hateful un-accepting comments on here. Your religious bigotry is showing my friends. Lastly, yes, wonderful idea, let's leave it up to a bunch of lds hating people to interpret our doctrine and beliefs. Because that is exactly what we would do in any other normal real life situation . If a black man was on trial then we would totally fill the jury full of KKK members and white supremacists. And if you stood outside a Jewish synagogue and protested it would be a hate crime. So tell me, oh enlightened ones, what is the difference ?
Aren't we required to honor our parents. this requres the complete disavow of your parents. Talk about mixed messages.
And after reading this entirely, your entire article is based on a lot of big IF'S. IF both sets of parents are in agreement for the child under 18 to be baptized, IF both gay parents are in agreement, IF church members are as fickle and shallow as you think to ostracize and shun a unbaptized child, then yes they are being punished for their parents sins. However the church, as in many things has special acceptions to everything, . Policy also states young men or women who divorce young and then choose to serve a mission cannot do so, or young men or women who have a child out of wedlock , say at the age of 16, but never marry , can't serve a mission at 18 or 19 either, yet in both instances I personally know exceptions to those rules. The spirit dictates and guides leaders . Not the letter of the law. The real irony here is that I've never seen so many anti-Mormons argue for the baptism of members. Here is a real big IF, what IF the church is true? Then what? Then you better all start paying attention, then this all really does matter and it's not just politics, or what's trending. When these kids who do have to wait to get baptized till they're 18 figure out for themselves the church is true, it will be worth the wait for them. They will line up outside waiting for the waters of baptism , and they won't take for granted the blessings of the gospel that you or I do day by day. They will be the elect because they waited and remained faithful. What their parents do at that point is completely up to them, but their children will be a bridge Of the gospel to them from which blessings will flow.
Judy Passey Harmon,
I have read several different articles on this issue and not once have I read where disavowing parents is required. It only states disavowing the act/choice of homosexuality and same sex relationships/marriages. Why do people keep posting such lies.
"There must be some way that this victimizes me and my beliefs…"
"There must be some way that this victimizes me and my beliefs…"
Pot calling the kettle black. Because that's exactly what I could say to you for being so "outraged by the crimes against humanity" going on here. "There must be some way that those Mormons are victimizing me and my beliefs."
You know… It's funny how one's perspective on what is morally right or wrong can spin two entirely different stories from the same series of "facts." Everyone is so close-minded and one-sided these days… I'm kind of sick of it.
You know… It's funny how one's perspective on what is morally right or wrong can spin two entirely different stories from the same series of "facts." Everyone is so close-minded and one-sided these days… I'm kind of sick of it.
The "sins" that you're speaking of, the minor made all on their own. It wasn't because of their parents actions. I don't see how you can find them them even close.
Jordan, I have no problem that you choose to live in a LDS temple marriage. I also have no problem with your children, who I'm sure have two very loving parents. Your children can play with my children out in the street and at school and I have no problem with that. In fact, I welcome it! However, because you live in an LDS temple marriage, your children will not be allowed in my home. They will not be allowed in my home until they are at least 18 years old, no longer live with you, can never live with you again, and publically denounce you and your wife's temple marriage. To show you how serious this is, it is more important to me that your children denounce your temple marriage to enter my home than if they were the children of physical and/or sexual abusers, rapists, and attempted murderers.
Definition: FACT
"a thing that is indisputably the case."
Excepting the FACT that this policy is actually in place and #9 – not a single thing you have said is actually fact. It's all opinion. And that's ok. It's ok to call what you say as opinion, they can still hold just as much value. You are clearly educated your opinion does matter. But every point you have said is quite disputable. If it wasn't this wouldn't be the hottest debate since …. last week when I'm sure the world was super angry and offended about something else.
Or flip it the other way Andrew. My wife and kids love to have your kids over, we let them play in mud, where shoes in the house , dessert before dinner, stay up as late as they want on sleep overs, play video games , skip school, whatever, it's a safe place, a good atmosphere, just fundamentally not how things are run in your home. Now when they come home and like things to be run a different way and you aren't willing to change, you'll still be their parents but guess who they are spending more time with? The reality is, neither of these situations is the reality right? Try this one, I grew up with a kid who was Jewish, he was my best friend even though our families had fundamental differences in religion. They're were somethings I couldn't do there out of respect for them and their beliefs but I was always welcomed into their home, to their dinner table, and even invited to their kids version of synagogue. But I was never treated any differently because I believed in Christ and they didn't, nor was he when he came to my house . There were rules that still applied, and those rules made sense. Coming from a non Jewish family I couldn't join until I was 18 either . I was very grateful for that rule, because as a kid, they're were some Saturday's that I didn't want to have to go home while they went to synagogue and I'd rather gone with them, but I didn't understand the full commitment I was asking to make and what that would mean to my family.
Why antagonize the Church. Why don't you just leave and find or start a church that fits your needs and desires?
Jordan Gustin You are comparing apples and oranges. Your aruments really have no substance. My husband's grandkids call me Papa Roddy. We watch them all the time. Thier other set of grandparents are very active in the Church. This policy, not only affects the children, it affect the other grandparents, the ex-wilfe of a man who has custody of his children for part of the year, etc. Frankly, I wonder how many children who see their friends getting babtized, holding the priesthood, etc., would want to be babtized at 18. They have not commited any sin. Call me an apostate. I have absolutely no problem with that. Just don't judge the children.
I honestly don't know how to feel about the new policy, but reading this makes me feel your anger and bitterness, and doesn't make me lean towards your way of thinking at all…
Jordan, as Rod said, you're comparing apples to oranges and missed the point of my post. I took the LDS church's policy and replaced "gay marriage" with "LDS temple marriage". Kind of stings when you look at it that way, doesn't it?
Jordan, as Rod said, you're comparing apples to oranges and missed the point of my post. I took the LDS church's policy and replaced "gay marriage" with "LDS temple marriage". Kind of stings when you look at it that way, doesn't it?
I do not see how tax exemption is in any way connected to this issue
The church is not condenning the kids for the sin of the parents, but is preventing the kids from living in a home where the doctrine they are taught in church comes in direct oposition to what they witness in the home. Those children as members will condenm their parents, even may get to act disrespecfully toward them. The church cannot deprive those parents of their kids by having them live with guardians since their practice has been accepted by the law. Those kids are really living in enemy territories.
Also let us not forget that the parents of the kids in question were once members of the church and they openly oposed the church, how will they be able to teach the kids the moral of the church that they rejected the teachings in that regard? At first it looks unfair to the child but in the long run it is highly beneficial to those kids and is very protective to their rights, of course they can be baptized as converts later in life or if circumstances allowed can even request approval from the first presidency, these would be exeptions since all cases aren’t the same.
Drama queen !!!!!!!! You have a psicologycal problem wich maked you feel the need to be always a victim. I recomend you to get professional help
Psychological*
Makes*
Which*
Being a psychologist I can reassure you that the author needs no “professional help” for sincerely expressing fact based worries. Completely, 100% valid. However, perhaps posting a vague, very unintelligent sounding comment could make people see you that way. I suggest if you disagree express it eloquently, respectfully, and with correct spelling and grammar. Also, you have no right to tell anyone they need to seek help when you mean to be hostile, and especially when you are obviously not speaking from a professional standpoint. I hope you improve your writing and attitude. Thank you.
The book "Christianity Must Change or Die" was a great read. I wonder how the writer would have approached this subject.
You might not be able to see it, but I'm giving you a standing ovation. Reason and passion seamlessly braided together in one incontrovertible article. Bravo. Here's hoping it gets the widest possible readership. (PS: I'm not Mormon, not a parent, and straight, yet I too feel personally affected by this. How can using children as pawns to spread hate be even remotely defensible?!!!)
If this leads to more people seeking their spiritual support elsewhere, and taking their children with them, in a way it save those children from the spiritual abuse of the LDS church….so in a way that scenario does protect the children. If the parents tenaciously hangs on to membership, then No this does not protect them, it makes them a target.
Your definition of facts is a little sketchy.
Not to start anything, but your argument is highly biased and without proper reasoning. You make your points, but your utter refusal to even try to understand the church's reasoning is appalling. For example, argument number 2 states that you don't understand why Christopherson said it was a more grievous sin followed by the meme. Maybe he said that its a grievous sin because it states it in the Bible. As for the meme with its highlighted section, the actions taken in the may be section could be done accidently. How do accidently marry somebody?
Now please understand, I am not saying that I agree or disagree with you. Being a member of the the Mormon church, I learned that I won't always understand why the prophet takes certain positions, but I pray about and get a confirmation from the Lord. For example, I was all for cutting ties with the BSA when they allowed openly gay scout leaders. And before you start with the whole homophobe thing, I don't care about anybody's sexual preference. That is between them and God. But when you start rubbing my nose in it, I get irritated. Why do we need to know a scout leader's sexual preference? Its the whole openly gay thing. In working with the scouts, I am not there to recruit for anything but scouting. My whole thing is that even if you have 99 great homosexual scout leaders, you still run the risk of the recruiter, and please don't even insult me by saying they don't exist. I have seen too many gay people sue businesses that they targeted for so called discrimination, knowing well in advance that these business would object to what they wanted. A child shouldn't have to worry about sexuality so early in life.
Maybe that is why the church won't do it. They don't want to cause dissension in the home. Maybe they don't want to cause all those problems you stated above by turning a child against their parents. Who knows?
As far as the whole hypocrite thing goes. Who is the hypocrite? The church that states its position or the people who join the church knowing its position, knowing that they don't follow it.
As far as number 9 goes, its a policy. Its a policy that the leaders of the church probably prayed, fasted, and worried over before implementing. They knew that everybody wouldn't like it, but probably hoped that the members would have enough sense to pray about it. You see, in the end, I sustain my leaders, especially the FIrst Presidency and Quorum of the 12. Yes, they aren't perfect, but as I told another member of the church, if its a choice between a member of the church and the men who we sustain as prophets, I will choose the prophets. Otherwise, what's the point?
Not to start anything, but your argument is highly biased and without proper reasoning. You make your points, but your utter refusal to even try to understand the church's reasoning is appalling. For example, argument number 2 states that you don't understand why Christopherson said it was a more grievous sin followed by the meme. Maybe he said that its a grievous sin because it states it in the Bible. As for the meme with its highlighted section, the actions taken in the may be section could be done accidently. How do accidently marry somebody?
Now please understand, I am not saying that I agree or disagree with you. Being a member of the the Mormon church, I learned that I won't always understand why the prophet takes certain positions, but I pray about and get a confirmation from the Lord. For example, I was all for cutting ties with the BSA when they allowed openly gay scout leaders. And before you start with the whole homophobe thing, I don't care about anybody's sexual preference. That is between them and God. But when you start rubbing my nose in it, I get irritated. Why do we need to know a scout leader's sexual preference? Its the whole openly gay thing. In working with the scouts, I am not there to recruit for anything but scouting. My whole thing is that even if you have 99 great homosexual scout leaders, you still run the risk of the recruiter, and please don't even insult me by saying they don't exist. I have seen too many gay people sue businesses that they targeted for so called discrimination, knowing well in advance that these business would object to what they wanted. A child shouldn't have to worry about sexuality so early in life.
Maybe that is why the church won't do it. They don't want to cause dissension in the home. Maybe they don't want to cause all those problems you stated above by turning a child against their parents. Who knows?
As far as the whole hypocrite thing goes. Who is the hypocrite? The church that states its position or the people who join the church knowing its position, knowing that they don't follow it.
As far as number 9 goes, its a policy. Its a policy that the leaders of the church probably prayed, fasted, and worried over before implementing. They knew that everybody wouldn't like it, but probably hoped that the members would have enough sense to pray about it. You see, in the end, I sustain my leaders, especially the FIrst Presidency and Quorum of the 12. Yes, they aren't perfect, but as I told another member of the church, if its a choice between a member of the church and the men who we sustain as prophets, I will choose the prophets. Otherwise, what's the point?
Leah I think you are possibly confusing "facts" vs "opinions". You have eloquently stated some of your opinions in #1-6 and #8, a fact in #7 and fact+opinion in #9. This policy change has been very upsetting for everyone including every Mormon I have spoken to about it who is not gay. But it is especially upsetting for so many of us Mormons that know and love our gay friends and family, I have many. So I understand and feel the emotional range on this, though admittedly not to the degree of gay parents. It was stated by Elder Christofferson that this policy is designed to protect gay family relationships and the love that exists therein. Thus preventing the minor child from being put in a position to choose between the parents they love and the gospel principal of marriage. It is also to reaffirm the Church and the gospel's stand on what constitutes marriage in the eyes of God. That does not mean that God loves gays any less than you and me. In the mean time the children can attend all church services and participate in all church programs. When children are of majority they can make an adult and informed choice to join the church and serve a mission if they wish to do so. They must accept the gospel principal of marriage between one man and one woman but they will never be asked to disavow the parents they love. Below is the link to Elder Christofferson's interview. I hope my comments aren't offensive and are taken in the spirit given. I expect and respect your rebuttal here but unfortunately I might not see it. I'm not very facebook savy.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865640934/Elder-Christofferson-explains-updated-LDS-Church-policies-on-same-sex-marriage-and-children.html?pg=all
Leah I think you are possibly confusing "facts" vs "opinions". You have eloquently stated some of your opinions in #1-6 and #8, a fact in #7 and fact+opinion in #9. This policy change has been very upsetting for everyone including every Mormon I have spoken to about it who is not gay. But it is especially upsetting for so many of us Mormons that know and love our gay friends and family, I have many. So I understand and feel the emotional range on this, though admittedly not to the degree of gay parents. It was stated by Elder Christofferson that this policy is designed to protect gay family relationships and the love that exists therein. Thus preventing the minor child from being put in a position to choose between the parents they love and the gospel principal of marriage. It is also to reaffirm the Church and the gospel's stand on what constitutes marriage in the eyes of God. That does not mean that God loves gays any less than you and me. In the mean time the children can attend all church services and participate in all church programs. When children are of majority they can make an adult and informed choice to join the church and serve a mission if they wish to do so. They must accept the gospel principal of marriage between one man and one woman but they will never be asked to disavow the parents they love. Below is the link to Elder Christofferson's interview. I hope my comments aren't offensive and are taken in the spirit given. I expect and respect your rebuttal here but unfortunately I might not see it. I'm not very facebook savy.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865640934/Elder-Christofferson-explains-updated-LDS-Church-policies-on-same-sex-marriage-and-children.html?pg=all
Don't people see that it is a prejudice! All of us have them in our lives.It is how we dea lwith them that is important! Look what Christians did to blaks! I have read old articles where the LDS church leaders said that it wasn't there fault that blacks are lower beings. I remember, in the chuch, being taught that we were more valiant than them in the pre existence and that is why we were born white! It isn't a good thing to be on this side of the prejudice! People throw basic logic! Why the hell would anyone choose to go through this? What gives anyone theright to say that God is offended? It isn't God, but those who feed that prejudice! It took years, but one dayI realized that there is no way God would ever treat me this way! He created us! It is so unreal that people would dothis to their family members and friends! This is what Hitler did! He started out calling the Jews all sorts of deragitory things and then forced everyone to do the same1 He made it law. Look where that lead to! Think of all the awful things that are said about us! Does anyone even tryto imagine how it is to face this, not just once, but all of our lives! Then to realizethat those you love the most do the same! There is no way this could ever come from God and those who disagree should really think about it! It goes against everything we learn about God! I can tell you that I know He would never do this, and I don't care whoes moth it comes from. They may be inspired, but they are not God! They wanted revenge! Like it said inthe article, they should have stopped, but to put it bluntly, they were pissed to los and to lose to gay people really hurt their egos1 They are use to getting their will. They have usedtheir influence and power to separate us from our families and to make sure that everyone ooks at us like shit! Sorry, but even that word is not strong enough! When will people see the evil that has happened? How can people do this? Because they have allowed themselves to set aside the worth that all human beings have to God! The arroganceis unrel! Then they scream that their freedom of religion is being attacked because we have the nerve to standup to all that bullshit! How do people with such strong belefs in God allow themselves to do this! I would never ever do this to anyone! TLhey say it is God! Well, lets all stand in front of God together!Who do yo think will feel more uncomfortable? It won't be me! They will have to explain why this was done! This has effected all of my life and we get to live with it the rest of our lives! Why don't they just send usto the gas chamber? That is how they care about us! It is sad! So much is lost! Has any of them thought that maybe God allowed these differences to help us learn unconditional love? It won't happen when they do these things!
I have said this to my family and friends, and I will say the same to you. Give this some time, pray about your feelings, if and I repeat, if it is incorrect, the Lord will bring about a change in his own time. The weak will go and the strong will wait on the Lord.
There is a part that you wrote sarcastically explaining where the church stands…"one man + one woman (+ another woman + another woman + etc.)" This already shows that you don't have your facts right.
I am a 74 Year old women born into a mormon family. Pioneers that came out of Utah and Idaho into Arizona in 1875 or so. Iearned to love church and the fellowship of it early. My great grandfather was a polygamist, but left one wife in Utah. polygamy was a way of life until the government forced them to outlaw it. I was taught to love and honor my parents, not to judge them,
When i read that this decree was anounced my heart hurt. I wake up in the middle of the night angry. Jesus Christ wanted to little children to come to him, the chruch doesn't.
How can a "family orientated" church insist that children judge their parents but also to disavow them.
This is disingenous. The Church's position is based on doctrine. See proclamation to the world.
The word “doctrine” is so tricky in the Mormon world.
I am not one to post comments on these types of topics, but I am earnestly seeking to understand all points of view here. I decided to pose the thoughts I had in reaction to each listed fact simply in an effort to organized my concerns. I also realize that this could be debated endlessly and that there might be lots of counter arguments to my "rebuttals" which is exactly what I hope in order to help validate or change my impressions.
1. I don't agree that the church is discounting the approval of gay parents simply because of their sexual orientation. Your biases cause you to reject the stated reasons for the policy. An unbiased observer would at least initially accept them at face value until proven otherwise. Your argument is based on a disagreement with church doctrine and then ascribing the reason for your disagreement to church's perceived bigotry. Seems like in your mind there is no other possible explanation why a person would disagree with your version of the gospel other than the fact that they must be bigots.
2. Depends on your judgement of what constitutes "fair". If a child eventually decides to accept the gospel and covenants to obey ALL of the commandments (not just the ones they agree with), how are they deprived of anything ETERNALLY? Isn't that ultimately what constitutes fair in the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Are the blessings of the gospel meant for this life only? Furthermore, aren't we supposed to reserve these judgements for our Lord and Savior? I agree that church is unfair to a lot of groups using your limited definition, but a belief in the eternal nature of these blessings allows for a merciful and just God to make up for any perceived mortal deprivation.
3. How is waiting to receive these blessings a punishment? See my take in #2. I do concede that a family might not like this policy, but not getting your way doesn't mean you are being punished. I wish my children got this concept also 🙂 Again, you are using an inferred argument. Nowhere in the policy is this listed as a punishment, penalty, or disciplinary action. That said, I understand why you would think this, since delaying membership is being linked to the actions of the parents. My point is that the consequences of their parents actions don't have to necessarily be seen as punishment and therefore in violation of an article of our faith. Maybe an undesireable consequence is a better way to state this, but certainly not a punishment. I believe that the real problem here is the inability for the apostate parent to accept any responsibility for the consequences of their choices in regards to their children. This is natural, as the parent sees nothing wrong with their choice.
4. I don't agree that disavowing the practice of same sex co-habitation and marriage constitutes rejecting your parents. That's ridiculous. I could easily do this if one of my parents made this choice AND I would still love them and visit them, etc. I do wonder about the requirement to avoid living with them, though. It seems like this needs more explanation. For example, if as an adult, one chooses to temporarily live in their home, are you technically part of their household? For church records purposes, one can choose to be listed as a separate head of household at the same of address of your parents if you are an adult.
5. How can you treat a non-member as an apostate?
6. No one is barred from the doors of the chapel. That said, we have a way to go as a membership toward creating a more welcoming atmosphere for LGBT members and investigators. I admit that this policy doesn't help the situation, but I have tremendous admiration for those who successfully embrace their beliefs and reconcile their sexual attractions to gospel doctrine. I don't think that driving the LGBT community from the church was the intent of this policy change. It flies in the face of its very public attempts to teach otherwise.
7. If there are members that say you have no right to feel hurt over this, they are wrong. My hope is that by seeking to understand, the hurt can be lessened. I hope that one day we'll all have the opportunity to see through the eyes of those who have hurt us and come to understand why they chose to do the things they did. I think this level of understanding will go a long way to helping us experience the relief that forgiveness brings.
8. Maybe they do need to let it go. But maybe the LGBT community needs to let it go also. After all, they won the legal battle. What else do they want? Seems to me that they won't stop until religions totally and unequivocably endorse their actions. Government endorses it, why do religions have to endorse it also? What is THEIR endgame?
9. I actually mostly agree with this point. I seek to understand policy and support it in order to sustain my priesthood leaders. Sustaining church leaders is important to the success of the work. We all can choose to sustain or not. I believe in the principle that Christ leads this church and will not allow priesthood leaders to lead us astray. That doesn't mean that there can't be course corrections later on (see blacks in the priesthood). I see it kind of like GPS. If I make a wrong turn, the nice voice prompts me to get back on course. Who knows?, maybe this policy will be refined over time. If it does, I will be first in line to sustain it. Following this principle allows the Lord to actually lead and guide the church through his servants, the prophets. I know most here would disagree with this, but the principle of sustaining is important enough for it to be a question in the temple recommend interview.
10. Sad you consider people losing their faith as a bonus. Not sure how that benefits you other than to confirm that you are not alone in your apostacy. If you really want the church to let people live how they choose, shouldn't you want the same for those who choose to believe? Instead, you revel in their disbelief and all the agony they go through starting from the first doubt to asking to have their names removed. What business is it of yours? Why do you have to actively attempt to tear down the faith of others and put down others who believe differently than you? That's about as cruel a thing as I've ever seen. This really does destroy your credibility as one who holds the moral high ground and how we should accept the truth as you see it.
EXODUS ! Great Point , the Hebrews that were Freed by Moses had to wonder till the Sinful Dispensation had disolved…Wasnt the childrens Fault, it was the Their Fathers and Mothers wickedness ….. Hmmm weird how there are similarities.. And the Law of Moses States Clearly that Homosexuality is an Abomination.. Sounds like Gods Laws havent Changed much in a few thousand years
Jerry, I appreciate your calm, thoughtful response. As such, I would be curious to hear your rebuttal to Leah's point above: "Are we now claiming that there is no benefit to having made the baptismal covenant and having the Gift of the Holy Ghost through the teenage years? Suddenly when it comes to children of same sex couples it is just no big deal to wait". This is one of the most stark contradictions I've seen within the church. At age 8 children become accountable and "capable" of deciding their spirtual fate, correct? In addition, my understanding is those who die in this life after age 8 unbaptized go to "Spirit Prison", rather than baptized members who go to Paradise to await the 2nd coming. How can anyone honestly justify that a 12 year or 14 year old or 17 year who tragically dies early (god forbid), is ineligible for Paradise–just because their parent is gay? If I was the 15 year-old daughter of a gay parent, I'd sure feel slighted by God knowing that if I am killed in a car accident with 3 other baptized LDS friends (who are just as faithful as me), those 3 get to go to Paradise but I go to Spirit Prision. Just because my parents are gay. Please tell me how that's not a remarkable contradiction. Please tell me how that is Christ-like.
I believe Ms. Silverman is referencing the LDS practice of a man being able to be sealed to more than one woman.
Hmm, I understand that. But that is completely different than how it came off in this article. She makes it sound as thought we believe in polygamy, which would be furthest from the truth.
It coupd lead to very serious social issues..including bullying, harassing, social pyriahs, social targets. Let us not be in denial here. History has observed horrifically how singling out, isolating and ostrasizing to a particular group of people has resulted in. Specifically, the Nuremberg Laws of 1935. If are not aware of this, please study it. This policy is very eerily like that. What is next for these souls and children after being so singled out and secluded ? Persecution? Is society going to go after them? Are we going to see the LDS Church launch its very own 'holocaust' against this group? If they go after one, then who else will they target? So very much like Mr Adolf….You all should feel so proud…Shame! :((
On the contrary. Church leaders would not allow my husband to cancel his sealing to his ex-wife either when they divorced or when he married me. I am _in_ a polygamous marry. It is still very much a part of our theology.
The handbook does not stipulate any exceptions.
I agree with every 3rd point. Yes the children are being punished for the parent's sin and that is wrong. Yes the church is pushing gays out. They always have and for good reason. As I am glad that it is recognized this is policy, not doctrine. But your assertion that the church requires children to reject their parents is a bit of a stretch. All it requires is that the child rejects the parents sins. Same as if the child him/herself had committed a sin, to repent it must be forsaken. But the Doctrine as laid out in The Family: A Proclamtion To The World still demands a degree of love amongst the members of a family no matter what.
Also you should change the wording of point 7. Not to belittle your personal feelings, but that's all they are. Feelings and Opinions do not belong in an article advertised to be about Facts.
That bothered me at one point too when I thought about it, however, all that is beyond the "veil" as we call it, is something we on this earth, can't comprehend and are not supposed to understand the "why" yet. We are here on this earth, and this policy is dealing with matters on this earth, which is what we all seem to be focusing on, since this policy is in regards to THIS life, not the next. We don't know God's plans for us in the next life. But as for us now on this earth, we do NOT practice polygamy, and again, this article did make it sound like it is something we practice by law now, which is not true.
You couldn’t be more wrong.
This policy is not based on doctrine.
In fact, it is completely contradictory to the established doctrine of the LDS Church.
It contradicts the Bible teaching of Jesus saying to let the children come unto him.
It contradicts the Pearl of Great Price Article of Faith No. 2 that we are not punished for the sins of another.
It contradicts D&C which states that children are to be baptized at the age of 8, or the sin be upon the heads of the parents. (On whose head will the sin be now that the Church has forbidden baptism to certain children until they are 18?)
And it even contradicts the fundamental scripture of Mormonism that depicts a resurrected Jesus commanding all the children be brought to him for a blessing, and the heavens opening and the angels encircling the children with protective fire.
The new policy of the LDS Church contradicts the doctrine of all four standard works.
And the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve all signed off on this, per Elder Christofferson.
Who said the prophet will never lead the Church astray?
Salt Lake City, we have a problem!
This is a direct quote from Oaks:
We remember our Savior’s teaching as He placed a little child before His followers and declared:
“And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
“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” (Matthew 18:5–6).
When we consider the dangers from which children should be protected, we should also include psychological abuse. Parents or other caregivers or teachers or peers who demean, bully, or humiliate children or youth can inflict harm more permanent than physical injury. Making a child or youth feel worthless, unloved, or unwanted can inflict serious and long-lasting injury on his or her emotional well-being and development.9 Young people struggling with any exceptional condition, including same-gender attraction, are particularly vulnerable and need loving understanding—not bullying or ostracism.10
With the help of the Lord, we can repent and change and be more loving and helpful to children—our own and those around us.
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/protect-the-children?lang=eng
I heard in one coference while ago that in the latter days the wrongs ( defining wrong to everything out of the basic 10 comandements) will be justify as right; and the rights will be justify as old ( defining old as obsolete, not open, idealistic, dreamer…). Are we talking about that kind os situation ??? Trying to justify that we now deep inside that is wrong ??? I am not against LBGTQ members ( I have strong personal reasons not to ), in fact I was shocked when I learned about this. But, I have the courage to admit that the principles of the gospel were, are and will be unbreakable during this last dispensation like it or not. What's about the children ??? hard to say something without hurt someone pro or con. LDS doctrine clairly said that children do not pay for the sins of the parents… why the children ??? mmm….. Perhaps teaching them the plan of salvation, the cration, the roll of the father and the mother, the proclamation of the family…etc…etc. might be a constant conflic an confution for them from a couple with same sex sharing. Don't you think?
Leah Marie Pickren Silverman Not allowing your husband to cancel his sealing to his ex has nothing to do with polygamy. It has to do with preserving the ordinance for his ex-wife so that if she should die before she remarries she will still have the benefit of the promised blessings of a temple marriage, assuming she is remains faithful.
Misty D. Hudson Women are also able to be sealed to more than one man.
I can see that you are a lot smarter than the prophets and apostles (all 15 of them) and ought to be the one running the Church. Being so much closer to God than the First Presidency is, and receiving revelations on this subject as you no doubt have, it must be hard for you to watch the First Presidency botch things up like this. Why God hasn't called you to preside is beyond me. You really ought to consider starting your own church and show them how it should be done. From reading the posts here I think you already have some devoted followers.
Good grief, James.
My dog is smarter than the prophets and apostles on this.
And he’s not even an especially smart dog.
The church and brethren would never let her run things, she’s a woman.
Andrew Chaney That was some good imagry.
Tim Sphar https://stevebloor.wordpress.com/2015/11/07/why-the-mormons-targeted-children/
Agreed, it weakens my ability to post as a readable counter for TBMs.
A woman can be sealed to more than one man after she dies, as long as all the men are dead too. While she is alive she can only be sealed to one man, living or no. If she divorces or her husband dies, she has to get a cancellation before she can be sealed to another (especially egregious for widows–and not something that applies to widowers). My living husband is sealed to two living women. And if it helps you sleep better at night you can tell yourself that has nothing to do with polygamy. It does not change the fact that it _is_ polygamy, and it is only the principle of polygamy that allows it. If Mormons actually believed the "one man, one woman" rhetoric, then all of us would only be allowed one sealing, ever.
Adam Brown That is my point as well. But also, Jordan seems to think expceptions could be made for children under 18. No exceptions are stipulated in the handbook. These children can only be baptized at 18, with 3P approval.
I don't know. I wasn't going to respond to this, but here I am.
Guys, the TBM problem isn't that I make leaving the church seem like a good thing. It is that I don't make it seem like a _bad enough_ thing.
In truth, my only assertaion is that it is inevitable. You could also infer that I don't think highly of people who defend the policy change. Anything else you read into it is not my problem.
I stand by what I've written.
Leah Marie Pickren Silverman A. The doctrine of polygamy might be the reason your husband can be sealed to two living women at the same time, but it is not the reason the Church wouldn't cancel his sealing to his ex. My previous answer to that still stands. B. I am curious about your attitude regarding polygamy. If it is polygamy that has enabled you and your husband to be sealed in the Temple, are you then grateful and happy for the principle of polygamy, without which you wouldn't have a temple marriage? (BTW I sleep very well at night. Thank you for your concern.)
James M. Bryant Are you trolling me? Polygamy is not the reason I was "allowed" to marry my husband. That would've happened either way. Without polygamy the sealing to his first wife would've been cancelled first. Is your position that the church would force all people to stay married to their first spouses? Your mental gymnastics are fierce.
This article would be improved by the inclusion of a link to the actual document.
Church Handbook of Instruction 1 is not online; the actual document cannot be linked to.
If people can find a way to surreptitiously film temple ceremonies and post them online, I feel like what you describe is a hurdle that could have been overcome with a scanner and a modicum of effort and attention to detail.
For what purpose are you writing this? Is the church true or not? Are men called of God or not? Are the prophet & apostles bigots, racists, haters of children, haters of LBGT people, mean-spirited, or not? Do we have a living prophet or not? Choose and leave or stay.
“Choose and leave or stay.”
Pretty sure no one put you in charge of what other people have to do.
Doesn’t your church call that “unrighteous dominion?”
This policy has been hatched by unaccountable and unapproachable men who are determined to cleanse the Mormon church of all lgbt members and their children.
It is a policy based on cruelty and hate, with young children being the innocents who are abused and the Mormon church the abusers.
Horrifying and depressing but tragically true.
2 Timothy 3. Read the full chapter. When you study Christ and his doctrine the only conclusion that one can come to is that he clearly defined what he requires from us, how to do it and who will be with him in his kingdom.Unfortunately he CHRIST DID NOT INCLUDE THOSE WHO ARE MARGINALIZING AND CUSTOMIZING HIS DOCTRINE FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL JUSTIFICATION. If you gave the time and studying and prayer to learning of the Christ you claim to know as you have to all of your other degrees which from your post has no scriptural basis only mans selfish and prideful interpretation you will hopefully join the Lord. No matter how much you try to talk discuss or rationalize the issue of any sins pertaining to immorality GOD DOES NOT CONDONE IT NOW OR EVER WILL. But he did promise you and all that would repent that he will forgive you. You can look up all the scriptural references yourself I know them. You will also find that Christ insulted the intelligence of the Pharisees because he knows all. So if you want to correct all my punctuation and grammatical errors feel free because you are far more qualified than me but please for your own salvation QUIT TRYING TO CORRECT THE LORD OR HIS DOCTRINES BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT
Are you serious? Have you done your home work or are you just speaking off the top of your head. The church clarified that same sex marrage is an apostate act. The same policy has been in effect for children of poligimist groups and other apostate off shoots of the LDS Church. The must wait until they are 18 and must disavow their parents religion. Any religion has the right to enforce it's moral code. You don't have to agree with it. If your views differ then you are free to not join or to leave at any time. If you continue teaching contrary doctrine as a member you will be warned , if you persist then you will be difellowshiped or excommunicated. The choice is up to you. No one makes you be mormon. As far as your statement that the church is pushing away this group of people, go back and review the policy for any sexual acts outside of marriage. You will find it to be excommunicational as well. The policy did not push me away growing up in the area o free love in the 70s. It kept me free from the disease and complications of sexual promiscuity.
Are you serious? Have you done your home work or are you just speaking off the top of your head. The church clarified that same sex marrage is an apostate act. The same policy has been in effect for children of poligimist groups and other apostate off shoots of the LDS Church. The must wait until they are 18 and must disavow their parents religion. Any religion has the right to enforce it's moral code. You don't have to agree with it. If your views differ then you are free to not join or to leave at any time. If you continue teaching contrary doctrine as a member you will be warned , if you persist then you will be difellowshiped or excommunicated. The choice is up to you. No one makes you be mormon. As far as your statement that the church is pushing away this group of people, go back and review the policy for any sexual acts outside of marriage. You will find it to be excommunicational as well. The policy did not push me away growing up in the area o free love in the 70s. It kept me free from the disease and complications of sexual promiscuity.
Just an additional comment here. As a missionary and as a former Ward Mission Leader, I can relate the following —– any child desiring to be baptized who is under parent's supervision requires the permisssion of the parents to participate in that ordinance. However, if in the discretion of the missionaries or the WML that child would be continually exposed to the actions of the parents that would be detrimental to the child's success within the gospel ( living out of wedlock – word of wisdom issues – addictions – domestic abuse – etc). we would not be inclined to issue a baptismal recommend but continue to work with that family to attempt to resolve outstanding issues so that the spirit may be accepted within the home and that the child would receive support in their church (Gospel releated) activities. The object is to unite the family unit in the Gospel, not tear it apart.
Now if members choose to use their agency to leave the church, then so be it as that has been the case throughout the history of man. And the consequences of that use of agenct will be what it is.
We are to teach correct principles and we do. It is then up to all to study – ponder and then move to the highest authority for validation and again that is a choice. No one forces anyone to accept the doctrines of God and His church — it is an individual's choice to accept or reject just as it was in the Great Council In Heaven where we first exercised our gift of free agency to choose one of two plans. It seems we chose the Savior's and rejected Satan's. So now we deal with the consequences of the choice.
Elder David A. Bednar spoke of this subject in an answer to a question given him in Chile if one cares to look it up.
Leah Marie Pickren Silverman, I would be interested in knowing how you managed to be able to be sealed to your husband without having his first sealing cancelled. My ex won't let our sealing be cancelled, so I can't be sealed to my current wife. Maybe I need to talk with a different stake president.
James M. Bryant a cancellation of blessings can take place, only with both parties agreement.
Leah Marie Pickren Silverman also, I was told that the only way I could be sealed to my current wife is if the ex passed away, since she hasn't agreed to the cancellation.
Any time you question church regulation you are questioning your faith in it. We don't base our faith on worldly views. If you have questions about your faith you need to ask God to find a testimony of the truth. Whoever wrote this needs to Pray to find out why and the church takes the stance it is taking.
I honestly think the writer is using this whole ordeal as an excuse to leave the church.
The whole thing is simple pray to find out the truth and trust your answer. Don't waste your time trying to beg the world for approval of your disbelief.
I can say I was baptized at the age of 11 and a very faithful member until I turned 13, when my cousin decided to transition. The hate my cousin received from my family was unbearable, my grandma even saying if any of her kids had been gay she would’ve “kicked them out faster than they could blink”. My childhood was learning about the church and things I thought I could thrive from, then I started doubting and eventually researching. Leaders never taught us about the polygamy, only mentioned it in passing. They never told us the difference between policies and true doctrine. They said church leaders spoke truth, that it was the ONLY TRUE CHURCH, then weakly encouraged us to question stuff. But they had carefully avoided teaching us things we could question and have us a pressured environment we were terrified to talk in. They told us being LGBTQ+ was unacceptable and we’d NEED to “repent of our sins”. We were shamed when we talked to trusted members about question sexuality, being teenagers and dating, or anything near exploring sexuality. I was ever coerced into discussing being raped with my Bisop, then further discussing how I could “become worthy” again. It’s sick, it’s all sick. I myself am not of the LGBTQ+ community, but I have family and friends who are and I support them fiercely. It is overall very hard to see people I once trusted and adored from this new perspective. Like they’re preaching policy and not the anything of god. Many of the personal ordeals I’ve faced and seen others face has convinced me I am agnostic, almost an atheist. These policies are painful and completely opposite of Christlike.