Saintly Sophistry: Doubling Down on Doublethink

A few days, ago, the LDS church was perhaps unfairly forced to announce a new policy regarding the baptism of children whose parents are in a homosexual relationship. I feel a little bad because the church was caught off guard. They were getting ready to publish the new policy in the church handbook of instructions and that sly fox, John Dehlin, somehow found out and leaked the information to the general public. This should be no surprise since Dehlin has a major ax to grind after his excommunication from the church. On the other hand, since they were going to release the new handbook eventually anyways, it isn’t a big deal, right? Maybe.

The new policy requires children of gay parents to be 18 and specifically disavow gay marriage and cohabitation in order to receive baptism or any other church ordinance. Why is the church doing this? No doubt they feel this policy is in their best interest in order protect themselves. I have a few problems with the policy and here’s why: any other kid age 8 or older can get baptized unless their parents are gay, polygamists or won’t give permission. Polygamy is a funny category since it used to be doctrinal; in Brigham Young’s church, you couldn’t be exalted without polygamy and having one wife made you a weakling.

So comparing the restriction on the baptism of kids who parents practice(d) polygamy isn’t a great comparison. I think parental consent is essential; but if you are going to require anybody to denounce polygamy and/or gay marriage, you should require everyone to do so. In general I think the requirements for baptism should be more strict, but that’s another topic for another day.

The real problem is that Todd Christofferson of the church’s 12 apostles indicated early this year that good Mormons could support gay marriage as long as they weren’t involved in apostate groups or getting up in sacrament meeting and teaching gay marriage. It seems the boys in Salt Lake City have put Christofferson in his place by making him appear publicly and correct himself. I feel badly for him. In his previous remarks he seemed to be leading the church forward in acceptance and reasonable disagreement on the issue. The new policy seems to effectively undo any good he may have achieved with what he said before.

The whole mess makes sense when you consider the fact that the leaders of the church are just men trying to figure out how to navigate a difficult situation. The bible and LDS history in general doesn’t favor homosexuality, and God’s church is supposed to be the same yesterday, today and forever. Unfortunately, history paints a picture of men trying to do their best to navigate contemporary culture and attitudes while holding to the iron rod of scriptural precedent. It’s hard to hold to the rod when what you thought was cast iron may really be plated aluminum. I think if God were truly at the helm, he would know how to navigate this situation more successfully.

In the days of yore, I somehow managed to maintain the belief that the doctrines of the church were constant. “Policy changes, but doctrine is immutable.” Given the information I have processed over the years, I just don’t know how to do that anymore. So I integrate the most reliable information as I receive it. I admire and respect faithful Mormons who manage to integrate the reality of today’s world with faith and doctrine. The only way I could manage it today would be how I did it before: through doublethink. In my mind, it is a double standard to require the children of gay parents to disavow gay marriage without specifically requiring it of the church membership at large. Do the children of adulterous or murderous parents have to disavow their parents’ sinful actions specifically? No, they just have to agree to keep the church’s rules and that’s it. I think the missionaries are smart enough and close enough to any potential member of the church’s situation in order to determine what special emphases might be prudent to prepare the candidate for baptism. And if they have any question, they have a mission president who has been trained to deal with the situation. The new policy seems like overkill targeting the children of parents who commit what Mormonism considers perhaps the most grievous sexual transgression, even though the candidate has never participated in the practice personally. What is it about living with gay or polygamous parents that makes those situations so special compared to parents who deal drugs, support Ordain Women or are Satanists?

So how would I address the problem at hand if I was writing church policy? Since polygamy and gay marriage seem to be the big issues, it seems that increased emphasis in how the principles are taught should remedy the situation. So make the missionaries teach marriage between one man and one woman, stating specifically that gay marriage and polygamy are a no-no. Isn’t that enough to keep the church doctrine pure? Isn’t it enough to ask a baptismal candidate “Will you live the law of chastity?” Apparently not. Ted Bundy got baptized after committing a laundry list of heinous crimes and yet a 17-year-old who believes in Mormonism and happened to have the good fortune to be adopted by two men who love each other can’t get baptized until she turns 18 and disavows her parents’ lifestyle. Suffice it to say that I wouldn’t write policy that way. And I don’t think Jesus would, either. But Jesus was special; he had two dads and had no trouble getting John the Baptist to sign off on his baptism. I guess the family connection with John made it possible to pull a few strings. And Jesus was over age 18. I truly wonder: what would Jesus do? I have no doubt that the first presidency and the quorum of the 12 are wondering the same thing, and they are brave to accept the responsibility to try and represent Jesus the best they can, especially in a world that changes so quickly.

I think that for me to embrace the policy as inspired, it would help for them to confirm that Jesus came and told them “This is the right policy for my church.” Maybe it’s implied that such is the case. But if that’s true, then wouldn’t they want the whole world to know it, just like Joseph Smith told everybody about his first vision when he was Jesus? In Joseph Smith’s day, no experience was too sacred to share with the world. But in today’s church, amazing spiritual experiences are too sacred to share. Maybe if ol’ Joe was still around we could just vote on it. I can live with a majority vote even if I disagree with it. But I don’t know how to reconcile the contradictory history of Mormon policy without attributing it to human error shaped by the biases and experiences of the men leading the church. To me, it’s the only explanation that makes sense.

When Grief Wavers Between Jealousy and Nostalgia

Change rarely comes easily. I’ve found that I spend a lot of time reminiscing about how things used to be, sometimes wishing that I could go back to escape the troubles of here and now in exchange for something more familiar. One of these moments happened a few weeks ago when I was riding the bus home and happened to sit behind two LDS missionaries. Seeing them made me think about my baby brother who has 4 weeks before he will leave home to begin his two-year mission for the church. I genuinely envy the missionaries. Having served a church mission myself, I know firsthand the growth and fulfillment they will experience over two years. There really is nothing quite like it to believe in something and to dedicate every moment for two years of your life to that belief. But that doesn’t mean it is easy. I don’t know how anyone could survive a Mormon mission without the absolute conviction that you are in the right place doing the right thing and that God has your back. While it’s tough to serve a mission, it’s even tougher to say goodbye after two years dedicated completely to the ministry. While I envy the experiences the missionaries will have, I am even more jealous of the lifelong peace and comfort they and believing Mormons around the world enjoy every day of their life. As I watched those missionaries get off the bus, part of me longed for what they feel every day as a result of their faith. While it’s been less than two years since I lost my faith in Mormonism, my life without a well-defined belief system to guide me has been the greatest source of isolation, frustration and sorrow that I have ever experienced. While my convictions are a work in progress, I am resigned to the fact that even if I can restore my belief in God and Mormonism that my faith will never be the same as it was before, regardless of the relative strength of my faith in the past, present or future. Losing my faith in Mormonism didn’t just mean losing my God and my spiritual identity in one fell swoop. It meant losing any kind of certainty for my course in life or anything regarding the hereafter. If I think about it too much it makes me want to run away and hide. Sometimes I would rather just disappear than face the harsh reality of my life without God to come to the rescue. Regardless of the truth of what good Mormons believe or the rules they follow, I absolutely envy them what they feel as a result of their faith. And seeing those missionaries made me remember what that was like. I’m not sure I will ever enjoy abiding peace and comfort as the result of my beliefs. God knows that my mission was the happiest two years of my life and I would do just about anything to get back what I used to feel as a Mormon.