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.