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.