533. Great article! Brian Mickelson's blog on the new Church policy of children of married gay parents not being baptized until 18 years old.

The new Church policy on children of married gay couples actually protects both the children and the parents.  This article by Brian Mickelson is very thoughtful and inspiring.  He is an institute teacher in Logan, Utah.  I can understand this new policy from his inspired explanation, and agree with it!


New post on Brian Mickelson....


My Experience With an Update in Church Policy…

by BJM
Screen Shot 2015-11-06 at 9.14.40 AM



I'll try to keep it brief.
I felt some surprise last night when I opened up my browser to find an update in Church policy regarding married gay couples and their children. My gift of being prone to anxiety (with her soul sister, "over-reaction") caused some immediate feelings of either dread, panic, anxiety, or worry (I never can tell which I'm feeling at the outset) at the headline "LDS Church to exclude children of same-sex couples from membership" (thanks to KUTV for adding click-bait drama to an already controversial subject). Of course I had an immediate response. I was confused. I don't like "exclusion" and I love people and don't like people feeling hurt.
But, following is what happened to me last night. I wouldn't use me as an example, for sure, but I think there is a divine pattern in what I experienced.
  1. Right off the bat, I decided not to go to Facebook and see what everyone thought. And, I decided not to go share a response immediately, since I knew I only had part of the story. Social media is not where I find answers to deep things.
  2. I reached out to people with understanding. I made some phone calls, and received a perfectly timed call from one of my favorite former students. She and I talked through our thoughts and feelings as she reached out to say, "Help me find some understanding here". We acknowledged our feelings and limited understanding and talked about the possible and probable reasons for the policy. We decided we needed more info, but that this was still a hard one.
  3. I looked for an official Church response. There wasn't one. I expect there may be one shortly.
  4. I started asking myself some questions, prayerfully: 1. Why would the leaders of the Church make this policy change? What reasoning could be behind it? Obviously this wasn't meant as a way to attack gay families, since the hasn't been the overall pattern of Church leadership. They've tried to teach true principles and practice kindness in a world that won't allow those two options to exist in the same room at the same time.
  5. I had a moment where the thought came into my mind: Who does this policy protect? And as I pondered that thought for some hours, I had an awakening regarding the matter: This policy protects families with gay parents and children/youth who want to join the Church while living in a family with gay parents (see below for explanation).
  6. I felt some relief and peace, and that peace felt very familiar. It is the same feeling I feel when I have a good scripture study evening, or serve someone, or worship in the temple, or teach the gospel. Peace is a good answer.
  7. I then happened upon a clarifying quote from a comment the Church made about the policy:
The LDS Church says the concern is that the expectations of church attendance, baptism, priesthood ordination and other ordinances would put the child in a very difficult position, considering the parents could not be church members. (Fox13now.com)
In the night, in my personal scripture study, I happened upon D&C 6:14, which reminded me that inquiring of the Lord on these matters will be more helpful than inquiring at the knee of Facebook, Twitter, or the mainstream news media outlets. Joseph Smith "lacked wisdom" and "ask[ed] of God" and received a "pillar of light" as part of the answer. I can testify of that pattern. I went to the Lord for help and received some good instruction. I was happy to see the quote from the news that complimented and confirmed what I felt, but I'm not sure I needed it. I am grateful for personal revelation. I hope more information will be forthcoming. But I am at peace.
Be Encouraging...BJM
(Now, here is my explanation regarding how this new policy is a protective policy, rather than a restrictive policy. If you don't care about my explanation, and I'd agree with that choice, then you've already hit the end of this post for all intents and purposes)
I had a young man come to me some time ago, wanting to sign up for seminary. He isn't a member of our faith, but he has a lot of Mormon friends. His parents are practicing members of another faith, and they're a great family.
He asked me about signing up for seminary even though his parents probably wouldn't like the idea. He was hoping I would support him in his decision to attend anyway. There was a minor feeling of shock when I told him not to attend, at least not without a very long and patient visit with his parents. I don't know if he was hurt or not by my non-support, but I just couldn't let him make a decision that would make his family life harder. I really do want him to take seminary, but right now, that wouldn't bless his life. It might complicate it. So I invited him not to take seminary unless he had the full support of his family.
The policy disallowing children of same-sex couples to be baptized protects that child. It protects that same-sex couple and family. To require a young person to sustain the prophet, attend church regularly, and work toward the temple while living with two same-sex parents (who are most likely wonderful, understanding, and loving parents and providers) is requiring that child to draw a line in the sand in their home that isn't fair to the child or parents, especially at a young age. By allowing baptism, the Church would be putting the child in an almost-impossible situation where keeping covenants might be out of reach or may cause increased tension and contention in the home. The child would eventually have to hurt and offend his/her parents, or back away from important covenants made in the waters of baptism. It would be more wise to wait until the child was more mature and out of the home before making that momentous, covenant-related decision to join the Church through baptism.
Rather than banning or barring children of same-gender couples, I believe the Church is protecting them from a covenant that, in this case, would negatively affect their spiritual progress. I am thankful for thoughtful Church leaders and a loving Heavenly Father who is making it more likely that His children will return to Him.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

2011. “And He Went on His Way Rejoicing”: Mental Health and the Spirit of God By Roger Connors · June 3, 2022, from Meridian Magazine

211. The Palmyra Temple -- The rest of the story -- (History)

471. LDS Church's #IAmAPioneer Campaign Recognizes Past and Present Pioneers. You can contribute your story!