A change in the Church’s Handbook 1 contains new language that bars the children of same-gender couples from receiving a name and a blessing and from being “baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service” without approval of the First Presidency. In response, I share the following scripture verses and leave it to you to consider how they match with this new policy. I honestly don’t know.
And I am filled with charity, which is everlasting love; wherefore, all children are alike unto me; wherefore, I love little children with a perfect love; and they are all alike and partakers of salvation. (Moroni 8:17)
But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 19:14. See also Luke 18:16; Mark 10:14)
And it came to pass that he commanded that their little children should be brought.
So they brought their little children and set them down upon the ground round about him, and Jesus stood in the midst; and the multitude gave way till they had all been brought unto him. (3 Nephi 17:11-12)
We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression. (Articles of Faith 1:2)
Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world. (Moses 6:54)
And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse. (Malachi 4:6)
For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: (Mark 7:10)
And again, by way of commandment to the church concerning the manner of baptism—All those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church. (D&C 20:37)
For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. (2 Nephi 26:33)
Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. (Matthew 25:37-40)
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. (John 13:34-35)
Jason, you "honestly don't know." I believe you, because you prefaced the statement with, "honestly." I would suggest that the fact that you don't know is a seriously pervasive (and sad) issue in our church. i experience it in everybody. What do we do when the leaders go against the scriptures or teach against the scriptures or teach against what previous prophets (read latterday dead ones) have said? They stick your head in the sand and answer what all my family says, "just follow the prophet, he knows the way." Course the scriptures forgot to mention that teaching, but I digress. And if you press them, uh, it must be new revelation. Problem is the new revelation only seems to show up in secret handbooks (Bishops, Temple) and if it is new revelation, shouldn't it be added to the D&C? Course one of those dead latter day prophets said that you should check all new revelation against the scriptures, it will never go against them….but I digress. This stance makes the Book of Mormon (and Bible) flimsy, weak and nearly worthless documents. It is supposed to be the most correct book on earth. We change temple ordinances even though the scriptures state it defiles the earth to do so and says its a no-no (revelation?). We are commanded hundreds of times from the mouth of Christ himself in the scriptures to give our money to and take care of the poor and needy and we build 5 billion dollar shopping malls filled with costly apparel and overflowing with immodest garb to push the homeless and needy away in the name of urban blight. (revelation?). We are warned against costly apparrel in the scriptures and are the most well dressed expensive suit and clothes wearing church on the planet. I guess it is scarey for people to think that when they see policies and teachings that are against the scriptures to just say, oh…the leaders aren't following God again on that one…I guess it shakes their foundation about a prophet and all the idol worship done on "leaders". Perhaps we should get a new perspective on these italian suit wearers. Helaman 5:12 is pretty clear on who you should base your testimony on…but I hear a lot of leaders matter of factly and overtly saying, "come follow me." Christ is the only perfect leader, the rock, all other leaders are faulty and following them is a sandy foundation. Just sayin.
“And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them.” (3 Nephi 16:10–11) The new policy sounds like pride, mischief, hypocrisy and priestcraft to me.
Denying baby blessings and baptism for little kids because their folks are gay rejects the Lord’s profound love for those children and would seem to ignore their claim on him for salvation. (Moroni 8:17)
For all the talk about the atonement at church this policy turns away from the atonement. (Moses 6:54) Is this the face of an organization rejecting the fulness of the gospel?
Jesus blessed little children brought to him (and no doubt prayed for all of them everywhere). There appears to be no administrative component; that is, he wasn’t giving them a blessing and a name whereby they would be known in the Church. They are just straight-forward blessings. Anyone today can do the same – bring a child to any Priesthood holder to receive a Priesthood blessing. There is no issue of church membership involved.
When it comes to baptism, we will baptize a minor with the permission of the parent(s) but not without that permission. Without permission, the child will have to wait until age 18 for baptism (there may be exceptions if the parents are dead or the child is liberated by a court before 18; I don’t know. I describe the general case.)
As far as apostasy goes, different rules do apply. Consider the case of children born into a fundamentalist group, one of the Allred or Jessop kinds of communities. A parent in such a group could not bring their child to an LDS church to have a blessing and name given, or have the child baptized, and retreat back to the fundamentalist society. Of course, such parents wouldn’t desire to do so, but the point is they would simply not be allowed to do so. Once the child became 18, he or she could leave the fundamentalist community (as could the parents) and be baptized in the LDS church after meeting with a general authority – and the same restriction would apply: You can’t be baptized and then return to life in the fundamentalist community. (I’ve known a couple of young men in this situation who became members.) I have not heard anything in the way of protest to this policy. Bottom line: anyone who wants to join the Church will be allowed to.
What has happened is that the same rules and same procedures now apply to same-sex marriage arrangements. I assume it doesn’t matter whether one or both parents are or are not LDS. But in this case the extension of the same policies is producing protests.
Why? For many, being in a same-sex marriage is different than being in a fundamentalist group. It’s an apples-and-oranges kind of thing. For the Church, it isn’t.
For the Church, here’s the sticking point, the dividing line: Is same-sex marriage a violation of God’s laws?
A sizeable body of opinion says no. To proponents of same-sex marriage, the rightness of this is just “obvious” as an extension of social justice and liberal theologies on planet Earth (or at least in the some parts of it). It seems right and fair in the here-and-now – and must be so in God’s eyes as well. This extension of God’s love and justice should be “obvious” to anyone.
But this “obviousness” exists in a particular social and cultural context. Same-sex marriage has been a non-starter for 6,000 years. Not at all obvious. Of course, this doesn’t have to mean that same-sex marriage can’t or shouldn’t be recognized now. Maybe things have changed and for whatever reason God now says yes and therefore the Church ought to as well.
The Church says that God says no. It makes a clear statement on this. The extension of membership rules to the children of same-sex marriages is, from this position, a logical incorporation into existing membership rules. Children aren’t being punished; they are in a living situation where certain rules apply. They can certainly be members, but not until they are able to leave their present circumstances.
Critics think the Church is not reflecting God’s will on same-sex marriage and would find, with correct revelation, that God in fact does say yes.
And therein lies the rub. Is the Church correct in its understanding of God’s will? That’s what it comes down to. If Jesus Christ, the head of the Church, says yes to same-sex marriage, we should of course accept this as God’s will and try to persuade everyone within earshot to do the same – which is what we should also do if the answer is no, correct?
There are those who believe that the Church is going to wise up, get better leadership, receive updated revelation, evolve, cave in to social pressure or by some other dynamic one day change the policy on this and welcome same-sex marriage. A comparison to the coming and going of polygamy is deemed applicable here. Those so believing may become angry at the present Church leadership’s recalcitrance and/or may just try to hang on until the desired change comes.
But it might not come because God says no and means no. The Church may just be pitted against the world on this and yes, it’s going to be difficult.
Tim, amidst so many emotionally charged commentaries on the topic, I find your remarks refreshingly logical. You allude to the reasonable strategy of temperance through time and patience. Again, I find this approach to posses a superior intellect in comparison to the vast contrarian majority. molti elogi per voi
The blow-up over this handbook change misses what I believe is a crucial point. This was in a leadership handbook. Nothing prevents prevents a child from receiving a name and a blessing. It just can't be done in Sacrement Meeting and a membership record won't automatically be created. The lack of a memberhip record prevents possible complications or conflicts down the road. Similarly, baptizing a child without parents that support the church does the child no favors.
I suspect these changes are in direct response to real problems that have happened somewhere and, while the announcement may have been ham-handed, the intention is not to harm little children.
Let's look at this realistically, A lesbian couple have a child. Grandpa Jones wants to give it a a name and a blessing. In the past, Grandpa would do this in church on Sunday, the clerk would create a certificate, and a memberhip record would be created. Some ward would, within a week or two, get a membership record for "Suzy" which would be around until Suzy turned 18. There could be visits and phone calls and conversations, etc. etc. etc. aggravating the parents, worrying the Bishop, and doing no real good. Now, with the change, Grandpa Jones takes his grandchild, blesses her in the livingroom and that's it. The blessing is exactly the same. Maybe he gives her another blessing every year before school. Good. No record. No phone calls. No aggravation. Nothing changes for Suzy. Either way she's blessed and loved.
Change blessing to baptism and the basic scenario stays the same. No hassles, no aggrevation, no questions until the child is a child no longer.
Still struggling with the 18 year old forced to leave home.
Sherman Watkins,
As a small (but relevant) point of clarification: Grandpa Jones’s blessing does not trigger the creation of a record. The record is created when the parents sign a consent form to allow the creation of a record. That consent is retained in original paper for one year and audited at least once during that time, so if at least one of the mom’s doesn’t sign it, there’s no membership record.
Thank you for listing these scriptures. It is hard to reconcile those with this policy. And it makes me sick inside. What makes me sicker is that I can reconcile it with this scripture:
1 Samuel 15:2-3 “This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'”