Per usual, the mainstream media withholds information or takes things out of context. Recently the LDS Church established a policy where baptism of underage children, who come from same-sex homes, should wait until they are adults. They will also not have baby blessings. The uproar centers around the child being the victim. The perception is the child is considered broken, damaged goods and is being "punished" for coming from same-sex parents and therefore banished.
It makes a great spin, and whether it's purposeful or not, mainstream media largely benefits from any social or political uproar. The traffic, comments, and advertising income (online ad clicks and cross-sells) increase dramatically.
How many times have we seen an explosive story take the internet by storm, only to have the non-sensational, clarifying details come out a week or two later when no one is looking or reading anymore?
So I wasn't surprised to see that almost none of the major news outlets quoted Elder Christofferson as to why the policy came about.
I thought I would post his explanation here for you ~ just in case you missed it:
"He said the new policy restricting children of same-sex couples from baptism until they are 18 originated from "a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years."
"We don't want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the church are very different," he said.
"The policy changes released Thursday are meant to protect family relationships, Elder Christofferson said, not to limit the opportunities for children in the church."
"Instead, the goal is to protect children, he said, so "they're not placed in a position where there will be difficulties, challenges, conflicts that can injure their development in very tender years."
Did anyone stop to think about the huge conflict of interest under these circumstances and how it would make the child feel?
They used the example of the baby blessing and the baptism and the process and what the conflict is.
"Experts say such conflict is bad for family harmony and the long-term spiritual journeys of children."
"Discord in the home is disruptive in terms of the socialization of a child into a religion," said Kevin Dougherty, a sociology professor at Baylor University. "The highest probability of an individual choosing to follow the faith of parents is when both parents are actively engaged in the same faith perspective and that they model that and envelop the child into those beliefs and practices themselves. If anything disrupts that, the outcome is a lot lower probability for a child to take that faith perspective."
"The example of the baby blessing highlighted the issue. In the LDS Church, giving an infant a formal name and blessing is an ordinance that places the name of the infant on formal church records of the church and begins a life-long series of church-related actions, events and expectations, Elder Christofferson said. For example, once a baby is blessed and becomes a child of record, she is assigned home teachers and visiting teachers. That could create awkward situations and tension between parents and children as practicing Latter-day Saints visit the home and teach. Eventually, the child would learn that his parents in same-sex relationship have chosen a life contrary to the church's most basic doctrines."
"Also, the congregation's bishop shares the responsibility with the parents of seeing that a “child of record” progresses toward baptism and ultimately is baptized. The new policy is designed to refrain from injecting undue pressure or influence from the church into the relationship children have with their parents."
"That would violate a basic church tenet. Church leaders consider the family the center core and most sacred institution of the church. LDS prophets and apostles always have taught local church leaders to avoid policies and practices that would interfere with the family leadership of a father and a mother, who are to raise their children with the church in support."
I've posted part of the statement here, but you can read the entire article here.
The LDS Church will not disrupt child-parent relationships nor get in a tug-of-war over an underage child. Those most offended by this move, may not have thought this through ~ how such a huge conflict of interest would develop between the parents and their child in everyday family life. As the child grows older, the strife and confusion sparked by the opposing teachings would result in notable episodes of serious consequence to the child's family.
Can you imagine the media uproar if the LDS Church did the opposite, and told the children, never mind about your parents...we're right so you can ignore them? Or just override them?
This same baptism policy applies to children of polygamous marriages, including in countries where polygamy is legal. Both same-sex marriages and polygamous marriages by those already Mormon, are openly apostate actions within that community. Especially when they are sealed by a government contract (marriage license or other form of ceremony and declaration) and thus are public displays of dissent with the LDS Church, its membership vows, etc.
Apostate: renouncing a religious or political belief or principle.
However, apostasy is not to be confused with sinning. Everyone is a sinner and the LDS Church is composed of 15 million plus sinners. I've read it argued that any other adultery is equivalent to same-sex marriage but this is not a parallel example. Sinning is not the same as renouncing a pivotal, central Mormon doctrine such as, marriage = one man and one woman, and making a ceremonial point of it. That crosses the line to apostasy.
And everyone is free to make that choice, and I support anyone whose beliefs are different than my own. But what the public cannot do is define a religion's belief system and values for them. It works both ways.
Christ said, "Neither do I condemn thee, go they way and sin no more" to a woman found in adultery. (John 8:11) This advice applies to almost anyone at any time. But "sin no more" is not very applicable in the two above situations where a formal same-sex or polygamous marriage or partnership is declared. It doesn't really work to tell someone to stop being married. That's a pretty deeply established institution for anyone. We all sin, as in none of us are perfect, but we don't all apostatize, as in declare a pivotal doctrine from a religion we belong to, null and void. Actual apostasy is the distinction made here and the line drawn.
Going along with the same policy of NOT undermining parents, the LDS Church also requires the permission of both non-member parents when a child is baptized. They will never willingly engage in a situation where the parents are diminished in the child's eyes or viewed as "wrong" and therefore obsolete. The strength of family relationships are a high priority and conversion can wait until a child is an adult.
I would think most same-sex families, if they thought about it, would prefer that...