I sent this to my former bishop on 11/9/2015. We had been discussing the policy a bit. He had linked me the official video response with Christofferson. I replied that I had seen it and discussed it and debated it; that I still found it disdainful; and that I would be willing to discuss further. He hadn’t responded. But I sent this anyway:
[Name],
You didn’t show interest in understanding the other side of the coin, so I apologize that this message doesn’t come in response to your own inquiry. However, it’s become very relevant to our personal situation, and I would appreciate you lending an ear, and ideally, your support.
As I said, yes, I have seen Elder Christofferson’s explanation of the policy. It’s very similar to numerous other explanations I had read prior to the official press release. This is the best summary I can give:
– This is being done for the children
– This is being done for the family
– This has been done before with polygamous families
– The church does not want to put them in the difficult place of choosing between what the church teaches and what their parent or parents teach until they are older and more capable of handling that sort of decision
A few highlights:
“And these questions that have arisen, we’re sympathetic to. They’re difficult, they’re sensitive, they tug at the heartstrings and they’re very real. And this is about family; this is about love and especially the love of the Savior and how He wants people to be helped and fed and lifted, and that’s the whole motivation that underlies our effort.”
“Well, in answering or responding to your question, let me say I speak not only as an apostle in the Church, but as a husband, as a father and as a grandfather. And like others in those more enduring callings, I have a sense of compassion and sympathy and tender feelings that they do. So this policy originates out of that compassion. It originates from a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years. When, for example, there is the formal blessing and naming of a child in the Church, which happens when a child has parents who are members of the Church, it triggers a lot of things. First, a membership record for them. It triggers the assignment of visiting and home teachers. It triggers an expectation that they will be in Primary and the other Church organizations. And that is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting where they’re living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple. We don’t want there to be the conflicts that that would engender. We don’t want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different. And so with the other ordinances on through baptism and so on, there’s time for that if, when a child reaches majority, he or she feels like that’s what they want and they can make an informed and conscious decision about that. Nothing is lost to them in the end if that’s the direction they want to go. In the meantime, they’re not placed in a position where there will be difficulties, challenges, conflicts that can injure their development in very tender years.“
These arguments present a very positive image of the church and the policy. I agree with the agendas highlighted. I would describe them as “noble” and “admirable”. Does this policy accomplish these goals? Let me be one of the few post Mormons to say that yes, it does at least push things in that direction. And for that I’m glad.
The issue, [Name], lies in inconsistency.
If these are the attitudes and stances the church is taking, there should be countless other policies (or at a minimum encouraged practices) which CONSISTENTLY push toward the same goals: Don’t break up families. Don’t force kids to deal with conflicts in beliefs.
But instead, this is what we can expect to see with a child has a parent or parents in a same-sex relationship: Will they be permitted to attend church? Yes. Will they be allowed to sit in classes and be indoctrinated? Yes. Will they be encouraged to join social settings, activities, camps, firesides, etc where this indoctrination will be reinforced? Yes. Will they be exposed to ideas which condemn and vilify their loving parent(s)? Yes. Will they be encouraged to “disavow” (quoting the policy) their parents’ lifestyle? Yes. Will they be pursued in neighborhoods, at school, via the full-time missionaries, through missionary efforts of ward members? Yes. Yes. Yes.
And after all of that, will they be allowed to get baptized and be “in” the group? No.
And that solves the conflict?
The issue extends far beyond children of a parent in a same-sex or polygamous relationship. What about unmarried parents who cohabitate? And what about children with parents who do not believe in Mormon doctrine? What about my kids, [Name]? From a Mormon standpoint, are my beliefs not far worse than any of them? I support same-sex relationships and would even support polygamy (were it informed and consensual). Plus I don’t even believe in Jesus or God or the Spirit.
Where’s the policy to keep my children from the “conflicts that can injure their development in very tender years”? Do you know what has happened instead over the past five years? I was encouraged by three bishops and one stake president to baptize my kids myself. Because I’m heterosexual and monogamous. (Note: I’m only pinning the ALLOWANCE on the church. I accept the moral conflict of the action upon myself. Condemn if you will. It was a terrible time of balancing my beliefs against social pressures and the inevitability that my kids would be baptized anyway and I wish that sort of conflict on no one.)
So the policy is very targeted. It doesn’t matter that there is one other target (polygamy)–that’s problematic as well. It’s completely inconsistent with all other behaviors, culture, policies and even doctrine (Matthew 10:35), and with that inconsistency, this policy by itself ends up just being hateful and mean.
A week or so [Wife] told you she doesn’t believe either. Yesterday she told you she wants out of being the Primary President and attending. Yesterday we told our kids [Wife] doesn’t believe either. We talked about our reasons why. We asked them how they felt about church and the gospel. None of them care about the teachings or beliefs and there was surprisingly a lot of unprompted moral disagreement they themselves added to the mix.
We told them they could choose if they would like to attend. [Son] and [Son] are out, no hesitation. [Daughter] wants to attend classes to see a friend. [Son] wants to attend because he receives a lot of praise for playing the piano and because he feels responsible to the other boys in the teachers quorum, especially since he just got put in as the secretary yesterday.
They are both feeling very conflicted and emotionally overwhelmed, especially [Son]. It would be nice if there were a policy against this sort of thing.
But there isn’t. And because this has already happened, and because he’s already in the grips of the social pressures of Mormonism, releasing him now may be a personal offense, forcing him to stay home may incite indignation, and pressuring him to believe as his parents do (even if only to counter the shameless and relentless pressure to believe the other way which he can expect so long as he associates with Mormons) may lead to resentment.
Is it about family? Is it about the children?
Future topic: What IS the motive behind the policy? Of the many theories I’ve read, the hardest ones to discredit or dismantle are some of the most chilling (e.g., leveraging children for legal maneuvering).