"Suffer the Children to Come unto Me": On the LDS Church's new policy regarding Children of Same-sex couples

 

As requested by several people, I am penning some thoughts regarding the recently announced policy changes in the LDS Church.

According to reports,  a section in Handbook 1 (16.13) has been added stating that a "natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing." The hand book is reported to further stipulate that said children cannot be baptized unless they meet the following conditions:

• "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"
• "does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage"

The changes were reported in several news outlets, including Deseret News, which is owned by the LDS Church.  KSL also reported it saying that these changes were indeed confirmed by the LDS Church. 

 (see here: http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37248288&nid=148&fm=most_popular&s_cid=popular-1  and also here: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865640835/Church-updates-policies-on-families-in-same-sex-marriages.html?pg=all)

The changes are a bit perplexing given that one of the central 13 articles of our faith is that "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression".  This is a clear statement indicating that we only hold people accountable for their own sins. Which begs the question, why disallow persons from entering the faith because of the choices of their parents?

The question becomes especially poignant when we consider the following moment from the life of Jesus Christ:

"And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.

But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God." (Mark 10:13-14). 

Notice that the disciples rebuked "those that brought" the children, not the children themselves. It is not clear what "those that brought" the children were being rebuked for, most interpretations assume that they were being rebuked for bringing the children, but it could be that they were rebuked for any number of things, and I think that is the point. 

Whatever "those that brought" the children were being rebuked for, Jesus made clear that it should have no effect on the children's ability to come to him. The thought of a child's inability to come unto Christ because of the actions of "those that brought" the child not only displeased Jesus, it MUCH displeased him, and he commanded his disciples to "forbid them not". 

The policy seems to directly contradict these more foundational doctrine, and even the very spirit that Christ tried to imbue into His followers. 

The official spokesman did not attempt to reconcile the apparent contradiction. However, a blog post from "A Well-Behaved Mormon Woman" attempted to provide some context and explanation. The author points out that child under the age of 18 already need consent from their parents if that want to be baptized into the church. This point makes the policy change seem even more strange instead of providing adequate explanation. If a person under 18 has permission from their same-sex parents to enter into the kingdom via baptism--- then why hold them back?  

The author also pointed out that the LDS faith is also very careful about how it proselytes to Muslims given the inherent danger in conversion within Muslim majority countries in the Middle East and South East Asia. But again, the author is really only providing half context here. A person who converts in those areas of the world often face physical harm (including death) from family and clan, as well as banishment from the larger community. If a Muslim person is residing in the US, Canada, or Europe, and do not plan to return to that environment, then they are usually baptized. 

The situations are hardly comparable. Children of same-sex couples overwhelming (perhaps 100%) do not reside in countries where conversion presents that type of a problem. As a social scientist I have never observed honor killings or anything of the sort among the gay community.  So again, this does not really present a compelling argument for the policy.  I know that the author states that "The church does a TON to protest children and spouses form being taught one thing at home and another at church."  However, I am not quite sure that holds up to the narratives of several under 18 converts to the church. I have a lot of personal friends who chose to be baptized in high school, and they were taught one thing at home and another at church. It happens all of the time. I am sure there are many members of the church who have a story or two to share about an under 18 youth being baptized and living in a home where things are done contrary to one or more Church teachings. 

And again, if the parents already have to consent to it before the child is baptized, then what is the issue here?  And if the parents consent to it, and the under age person agrees to follow the laws and ordinances of the gospel as taught by the missionaries, then why forbid them to come unto Christ when He expressly commanded us to "forbid them not" even in situations where you may rebuke "those that brought" the children? We allow children of other "non-ideal" families to come into the Kingdom (single parent homes), and we allow children whose parents commit other types of "sin" to come into the Kingdom (drug and alcohol abusers, robbers, etc.). 

We are taught in scripture that "whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all" (James 2:10).  So if we are all sinners, then we have all offended the law in one point, which means we are all guilty of the WHOLE LAW.  If we are all equally guilty of the WHOLE LAW then we are all equally sinful. 

Let me repeat, not only are we all sinners, we are all equally sinful. 

So if you feel, for whatever reason, the need to rebuke "those that brought" the Children to touch and partake of Christ, I would urge you to forbid not the Children because of it. From what I know about Christ in reading scripture, and from what I know about Christ in my personal experiences with Him, He would be displeased if we held people accountable for actions that were not their own. In fact, it seems he would be "much displeased". 

And if this is the case, then can't we simply "suffer the children to come unto me"?