Updates to the Update (or, Say What You Mean)

It turns out (see the linked article, and the First Presidency Letter it refers to) that the new LDS policy doesn't exactly mean what it says. The bit about children only applies to minor children whose primary residence is with a same-sex couple, and if the children are already baptized and actively participating at church, further restrictions aren't required.

This is good. Well, not good, but less bad. (I'm still not a fan of any policy that's going to brand married same-sex couples as apostates and keep the children they are raising out of the church.) (EDIT: on further reflection, I regret even saying this is good.  I feel a sense of relief for the people who are relieved from the policy's effects, but I have to mourn with the people who were told, doubly so today, "We're sorry, we still want all those other people; it's you we really don't want.")

First, it's a little weird that the first thing was a change to the handbook, but this is in a letter. If you give tens of thousands of untrained lay leaders a handbook, they're going to look at the handbook. All those leaders now are getting this letter, but will a new bishop five years from now know it exists? I assume the letter is supposed to be filed away somewhere near the handbook, but it's statistically unlikely that everyone who should do that, will. Since the letter says things like "primary residence" that aren't in the handbook policy at all, I hope the clarification will be added to the actual policy in the book.

Also, I appreciate that the harmful effects of the policy are narrowed, but if it's narrowed on the basis of "primary residence" that's going to make acrimonious custody battles even worse.

Here's something that was weird before, and it's weird now. The formal naming and blessing ceremony is withheld from children of same-sex couples on the basis that it triggers the creation of a formal membership record, with accompanying expectations about the involvement of the church in the child's life. The thing is, a clerk can just create a new membership record without a blessing taking place, and the new policy doesn't say one word about changing that. Either way, the church requires the consent of both parents.

So, if you have a same-sex couple who both want their child to be formally named and blessed, isn't it likely that that's because they want to bring up the child in the LDS church? (And why can't we trust that desire? Why not just have informed consent, instead of an absolute bar?) Isn't it likely that they know about that membership record, know about the tug-of-war of expectations it will produce, and will want the record to be created anyways? Isn't it likely that they will ask the clerk to do exactly that? The thing that is being withheld (unless the policy is changed again) isn't the membership record, it's the formal ceremony where the whole congregation can see that the child is in the fold, now. Was this an oversight, or are church leaders more concerned about the public appearance that the same-sex couple is welcome than about the membership record?

Also, I object to being scolded about the "dangers of drawing conclusions based on incomplete news reports, tweets and Facebook posts without necessary context and accurate information." I was drawing conclusions on the text of the policy itself, that was released to church leaders for immediate effect. Baptisms and ordinations have already been cancelled. If a policy can't be properly understood without "necessary context and accurate information," than that context needs to be in the policy itself, or at least released before the policy takes effect.

In other words, SAY WHAT YOU MEAN THE FIRST TIME. I do appreciate the limits of language, and that words don't convey a meaning with 100% precision. However, if you're creating a policy that marks people as apostates and keeps their children out of the church with immediate effect, it's crucial that the words of that policy are really close to what you mean, the first time. Besides the leaders of congregations to whom the policy is released, missionaries, parents, and leaders of children and youth are going to need to figure out what it means and how to apply it, immediately.  If you don't want to scatter and destroy the Lord's flock, you can't just say something broad, tuck it away in a limited-distribution handbook in case it ever comes up, and trust that anyone discouraged by how bad the words are will call you to see if you really meant something else.  You have to be clear from the start.

In the end, I'm left with two options. First, either church leaders meant what they said the first time, when the literal wording of the policy was much broader than its current interpretation, were shocked by the reaction, and are now backpedaling under the guise of a clarification, to save face. Second, the policy always meant what it means now, and was thoughtlessly released, half-baked, by people who really should have known better, but couldn't or wouldn't take the time to think it through. Neither option makes me feel much better about this whole thing.

About Legal Reasons for the New LDS Policy

I keep seeing speculation about various legal reasons why the LDS church needed to implement its new exclusionary policy. Here's this lawyer's opinion (although I don't practice family law, and this isn't legal advice): THOSE REASONS MAKE NO SENSE.

The rationalization always goes something like this: (1) LGBT people are using (or will soon use) the legal system to attack the church; (2) the church wants to avoid potential legal liability for turning a child against his or her parents; (3) the church can't admit that this is the real reason, because it'd be a PR disaster; (4) but I'm smart enough to have sussed it out; and optionally (5) cut church leaders some slack because you're not a bigot if you're doing what your lawyer said you had to.

Taking these points in order: First, same-sex marriage has been legal in many states and countries for years now -- if the church was worried about attacks based on legal same-sex marriage, it acted very late. Also, the church has a bit of a persecution complex from that time when Joseph Smith was assassinated and we were forced to flee to Utah, but it now enjoys a firm, established, respected, and legally protected position in society. There aren't that many credible threats, and frankly, it demonizes LGBT people more than a little to believe that there are.

Second, the idea is usually that the church would be in some way legally liable if a child is raised as a member of a church that turns the child against at least one of his or her parents by preaching that same-sex cohabitation is wrong, grievously sinful, etc. But anyone who wants to be baptized, confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service is most likely going to church and hearing the same things. How is it any better to tell them, additionally, "oh, you can't even be an official member of the church, and also your mom and her wife are apostates"? How does that turn the child against the parents any less?

(There are other theories about how we have to clarify what we believe for some legal reason, but they similarly fail to explain how the change improves the legal situation. The Family Proclamation might have been drafted 20 years ago for legal reasons, but the church's actions since then have already made its teachings abundantly clear.)

Third, it's hard to imagine a worse PR disaster than now. If the church admitted some sort of legal necessity, it'd probably be more sympathetic, not less.

Fourth, isn't the most straightforward explanation for church leaders calling something "apostasy," rather than just "sin," that they believe it is leading church members away from the truth? I'm not interested in an extraordinary conspiracy theory about the church's secret legal reasons that it can't publicly admit, without extraordinary evidence.

Lastly, I really don't care that much about trying to prove that church leaders had good intentions. I assume that they did; I have every reason to believe they are people of good will. But people of good will can still do things with hateful effects, and it's the effects of this policy that worry me far more than the motives. Also, "we had to do this hurtful, exclusionary thing to protect our right to do this other hurtful, exclusionary thing" isn't really an argument that is going to change my mind about whether your motives are good.

About Elder Christofferson's Explanation of the New LDS Policy

On Thursday (Nov. 5), the LDS Church brought a new policy into effect, defining people in same-sex marriage as apostates (for whom Church discipline is mandatory), and barring children from Church membership if a parent is living or has lived in a same-sex relationship. I've posted enough about this elsewhere; I'll just sum up by saying that this new policy draws a big red line that redefines what it means to be Mormon, and I'm not very happy to see how many people will be painfully excluded.

On Friday, Elder Christofferson of the LDS Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explained the context of the new policy. Here are my thoughts on that explanation.

Mainly, I noticed that the explanation for the policy regarding children is based on avoiding conflict between the parents and the Church, for children living in a home and family setting where the parents are a same sex couple. The policy, however, is not so limited by its own text: children are affected if a parent (whether the child lives in the home of that parent or not), is living or has lived in a same sex relationship. Why the disconnect between the written policy and the explanation? Elder Christofferson is one of the brightest lawyers in the church and one of the fifteen people whose unanimous assent was required for this new policy; why would he assent to something that he is surely capable of seeing the breadth of, and then explain it so narrowly?

I noticed the gentleness of the language, in sharp contrast to the harshness of the decision. The new policy is called a "clarification" that church discipline is mandatory for same-sex marriage. When talking about designating people as apostate, and mandating that disciplinary councils be held to determine who will be excommunicated, "clarification" significantly understates the case. When I was dating, and someone told me "I can't see myself with you anymore," it was indeed clarifying, but I called it "getting dumped."

The justification for the timing of the policy seems strange, too. Christofferson explains: "With the Supreme Court's decision in the United States, there was a need for a distinction to be made between what may be legal and what may be law of the Church..." Is this church only for the United States? If we didn't need this distinction to be made in Canada ten years ago, or in Brazil two years ago, why do we need it once the U.S. Supreme Court does something?

Most significantly, Jesus is invoked. Christofferson says "[Jesus] never excused or winked at sin. He never redefined it. He never changed His mind."

That doesn't sound like we are reading the same Gospels.  The Jesus I believe in is the one who refused to condemn the woman taken in adultery. The one who ate with the people he shouldn't eat with, and healed the people he shouldn't even be near. The one who forgave a woman's many sins, because she loved much. The one who had more regard for healing a soul than for Sabbath restrictions, and who didn't care about eating with unwashed hands, because people are defiled by what goes out of the mouth, not what goes in. And, yes, the one who had strong things to say about sin. It seems to me, though, that His greatest condemnation was reserved for those who sit in Moses' seat, and bind heavy burdens, grievous to be borne -- those who lock people out of the kingdom of heaven. I remember He told them that if they had understood the meaning of "I desire mercy and not sacrifice," they would not have condemned the innocent. But I do not recognize this iron Jesus, who never excused or winked or redefined or changed.