"Hang on, it's going to get bumpy!"

Last night, the media learned that local leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recently received updated instruction relating to homosexuality and same-sex marriage.  For those who are familiar with the Church and follow its movements, it was perhaps not all that surprising that policies were clarified to confirm that homosexual cohabitation will subject participants to Church discipline and entering into same sex marriage is defined as apostasy.  But the new policy regarding children living with same sex couples was surprising and, for many Latter-day Saints, confusing and disturbing.  I don't want to misquote so here is the policy in full, as leaked to the media and confirmed by Church spokesman, Eric Hawkins:

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.

A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may be baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows:

A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met:

1.       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.

2.       The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage.

Last night, I was among those confused and unsettled by this news.  I still have some questions that I hope are clarified in the coming days.  Even for one who has come to peace with this policy (spoiler alert), there are still some ambiguities surrounding the language of the policy.  (Perhaps intentionally so as to provide flexibility in execution of the policy?)  For example: 

1. What exactly is required to “disavow” the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage?  Is it simply an acknowledgement that these practices are contrary to God’s commandments or is there more required?
2. The requirements 1 and 2 speak of “the child” taking certain actions.  Is there a cutoff for when an individual who grew up with same-sex parents must get First Presidency approval for baptism?  i.e., does a 45 year old still have to get approval?  Or only 18 year olds?  Maybe the cutoff is age 21?
3. Is there a new baptismal interview question to reflect this new policy or does it only apply if the interviewer is aware of a situation triggering this requirement (less likely to be an issue for an 18 year old, but if it applies to the 45 year old, an interviewer won’t necessarily be aware of the baptismal candidate’s background).
4. Does this apply in situations where a child’s non-custodial parent is in a same-sex cohabitation/marriage but the custodial parent is not gay (i.e., the child doesn’t live with the gay parent)?  What if the child lives with the gay parent some of the time?  Does it make a difference if it’s half the time, a quarter of the time, or just every other weekend?
5. How stringently is the “has lived” language to be read in the second requirement?  For example, let’s imagine a circumstance where a child has two parents, both of whom have participated in homosexual cohabitation.  At the time of the child’s 18^th birthday, the parent with whom the child lives is still cohabitating but with another partner.  The other non-custodial parent has repented and is in full fellowship with the Church.  Technically, this requirement would be read to exclude the child from going to live with the parent that has repented and is in full fellowship with the Church because the parent "has lived" in a same-gender cohabitation.  Is that how this requirement is to be understood?

Well, after pondering these questions and reading some initial reactions of peers online last night, I finally knelt down and prayed.  I prayed for understanding, peace, and resolve.  The thoughts contained in this post are a result of those prayers, and I wanted to share in case it helps anyone else who may be struggling with this news.

First, let’s be clear what this instruction is and what it isn’t.  It is policy and not doctrine.  While doctrines are eternal, policies in the Church come and go.  (Though it is true that our understanding of doctrine may change over time.)  I have seen a lot of changes in policy in the Church even in my relatively short lifetime.  Because of this, I would be surprised if during my lifetime this new policy is not changed in some way, whether it be clarifications, exceptions, complete reversal, or otherwise.  

Next, I want to clarify that I believe that it is possible to have reservations about certain policies of the Church and still sustain the leaders of the Church.  Church leaders have long admitted that they are not infallible.  As recently as this last General Conference in October 2015, Elder M. Russell Ballard said, “Too many people think Church leaders and members should be perfect or nearly perfect.  They forget that the Lord’s grace is sufficient to accomplish His work through mortals.  Our leaders have the best intentions, but sometimes we make mistakes.”

So, I conclude that it is possible that this policy is more manmade than divinely appointed.  However, an important part of my testimony is that I know that I don’t know everything.  I am in no position to state conclusively that this policy is not God’s will.  “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.  For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”  (Isaiah 55:8-9)  There are a lot of good ideas bouncing around the Internet today to brainstorm possible reasons for the policy.  Most of the ideas I have seen are from individual Facebook comments and posts, which I won’t re-hash here.  But here is one example of some insights:

http://wellbehavedmormonwoman.blogspot.com/2015/11/response-to-new-church-policy-gay-marriage-children-baptism.html?m=1

[EDIT: shortly after I published this post, the Church released an interview clarifying some of the confusion surrounding the policy and explaining reasons for the policy: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/handbook-changes-same-sex-marriages-elder-christofferson]

[EDIT 2: one week after I published this post, the Church released additional insights clarifying the new policy.  See here: https://www.lds.org/pages/church-handbook-changes?cid=HP_WE_11-11-2015_dPFD_fCNWS_xLIDyL1-A_&lang=eng and here: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/commentary-understanding-the-handbook.]

And, still a third possibility is a combination of the two, that the policy reflects God’s will to weigh carefully the baptism of children living in homes with same-gender parents but the specifics are limited by man’s execution of the policy.  I don’t know if the policy was drafted intentionally ambiguous to enable flexibility in its execution, but as stated above, there are a lot of unanswered questions from my perspective.  Perhaps the policy will be further refined to become more clear, if nothing else.

So, if I am willing to entertain the idea that this policy could be more manmade than divinely appointed, does that put in jeopardy the claim that the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency are prophets?  Many would attempt to make this a zero sum game, but I submit that the answer to this question is "No."  I believe that the Church, being led by imperfect people, is much like us as individuals striving to better ourselves in that our progression has an upward arc (hopefully), but there are little (or big) valleys on the line of our progression where we may get a little (or a lot) off track.  Similarly, prophets and apostles are leading the work of God forward, refining and progressing, but the Church may have taken some missteps in its nearly 200 year history.  

Truth be told, I have a strong conviction that the Church is led by prophets called of God.  Back to Elder M. Russell Ballard (long quote, but important in my view):

"The Church of Jesus Christ has always been led by living prophets and apostles.  Though mortal and subject to human imperfection, the Lord’s servants are inspired to help us avoid obstacles that are spiritually life threatening and to help us pass safely through mortality to our final, ultimate, heavenly destination. 

During my nearly 40 years of close association, I have been a personal witness as both quiet inspiration and profound revelation have moved to action the prophets and apostles, the General Authorities, and the auxiliary leaders.  While neither perfect nor infallible, these good men and women have been perfectly dedicated to leading the work of the Lord forward as He has directed. 

. . . .

Too many people think Church leaders and members should be perfect of nearly perfect.  They forget that the Lord’s grace is sufficient to accomplish His work through mortals.  Our leaders have the best intentions, but sometimes we make mistakes . . . .

Looking for human weakness in others is rather easy.  However, we make a serious mistake by noticing only the human nature of one another and then failing to see God’s hand working through those He has called. 

Focusing on how the Lord inspires His chosen leaders and how He moves the saints to do remarkable and extraordinary things despite their humanity is one way that we hold on to the gospel of Jesus Christ and stay safely aboard the Old Ship Zion.”

I have received a witness from the Holy Spirit that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is led by prophets of God.  I have made a covenant with God to sustain and support them.  So, what does that mean for me personally in this case, where I admittedly have reservations about this new policy?  How do I sustain them in spite of this issue?

• Whether or not this policy is manmade or divinely appointed, I pray for these fifteen men and I will continue to pray for them.  Whether or not this policy is manmade or divinely appointed, I firmly believe that this policy is not motivated by animus, and these men are doing the best they can in a calling they did not seek.  I cannot fathom the incredible burden they carry to lead the Church and teach the world correct principles, particularly in light of the intense scrutiny and criticism they face.  
• Whether or not this policy is manmade or divinely appointed, and despite my admitted reservations with the policy, I support them in their decision to implement the policy.  While I acknowledge the possibility that this policy is more manmade than divinely appointed, I acknowledge that I just don't have the ability to conclusively say that is the case.  Again, I don't know all the reasons behind the policy, and I trust that the prophets and apostles (1) are doing the best they can and (2) see things from their vantage point that I haven't even considered.  Again, Isaiah 55:8-9.

And that's what God has told me as I have prayed and pondered about this over the last 24 hours.  Also, interestingly to me, one of the first impressions I had as I was praying about this was that the gap between the position of the Church and the accepted view of society is only going to continue to widen.  And these words entered my mind and heart: "Hang on, it's going to get bumpy in the last days!"  No one knows when Christ will return again, but each day is one day closer to that event, and based on God's message to me, it sounds to me like the coming days will require me to have a tight grip on the iron rod and healthy spiritual reserves!

As a final thought, I want to turn back to the dichotomy between policies and doctrines.  I note that for me, it was focusing on the doctrine of Christ that ultimately helped me to come to peace in the face of this new policy.  As I turn to the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, it leads me to the Atonement of Jesus Christ.   I readily acknowledge that for many, this policy strikes much more close to home than it does for me.  There are people who are hurting over this policy in principle, and there will undoubtedly be people hurt by this new policy as it is put into practice.  I sympathize with these people, and I strive my best to empathize with them.  From one point of view, it looks unfair to put additional hurdles to baptism for people who did not choose their parentage.  Nonetheless, I do believe that "all that is unfair about life can be made right through the Atonement of Jesus Christ," (See Lesson 2 in Preach My Gospel) or in other words, as Elder Ballard said, "the Lord’s grace is sufficient to accomplish His work through mortals."   Whether in this life or the next, Christ's grace will right all wrongs.  It is my conviction of the fundamental principles of the gospel that helps me to navigate issues such as this new policy from the perspective of faith.  And I suspect this won't be the last time – because it's going to get bumpy!  Hang on!