First Presidency Changes the Handbook Updates

Two days ago the First Presidency sent a letter to the general and local leaders of the Church, changing some of the recent policy changes that were made last week to Church Handbook of Instruction, Handbook 1 regarding same-sex couples and their children.  The explanation video with Elder Christofferson that was rushed to the public was for the members, to calm them down and ease their minds on the matter; this letter is guidance for the leaders, probably in response to the continued social media outcry over these new policies.

First, here is the part of section 16.13 that this new letter references:

•      A new section in Handbook 1, 16.13 will be added as follows: 

Children of a Parent Living in a Same-Gender Relationship

     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."

And here is the copy of the letter that was just sent out to the leaders of the Church:

THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

OFFICE OF THE FIRST PRESIDENCY

47 EAST SOUTH TEMPLE STREET, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84150-1200

November 13, 2015

To: General Authorities; Area Seventies; General Auxiliary Presidencies; Stake, District, Mission, and Temple Presidents; Bishops and Branch Presidents

Dear Brethren and Sisters:

The Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles provides the following guidance in applying provisions on same-gender marriage recently added to Handbook 1:

Revealed doctrine is clear that families are eternal in nature and purpose. We are obligated to act with that perspective for the welfare of both adults and children. The newly added Handbook provisions affirm that adults who choose to enter into a same-gender marriage or similar relationship commit sin that warrants a Church disciplinary council.

Our concern with respect to children is their current and future well-being and the harmony of their home environment. The provisions of Handbook 1, Section 16.13, that restrict priesthood ordinances for minors, apply only to those children whose primary residence is with a couple living in a same-gender marriage or similar relationship. As always, local leaders may request further guidance in particular instances when they have questions.

When a child living with such a same-gender couple has already been baptized and is actively participating in the Church, provisions of Section 16.13 do not require that his or her membership activities or priesthood privileges be curtailed or that further ordinances be withheld. Decisions about any future ordinances for such children should be made by local leaders with their prime consideration being the preparation and best interests of the child.

All children are to be treated with utmost respect and love. They are welcome to attend Church meetings and participate in Church activities. All children may receive priesthood blessings of healing and spiritual guidance.

May the Lord continue to bless you in your ministry.

Sincerely yours,

I'm going to get into lawyer mode for a few paragraphs because I want to address this letter as not being only a "clarification" of the original wording of the Handbook 1 changes (as the Church page's title suggests here: https://www.lds.org/pages/church-handbook-changes?lang=eng ) but rather this letter is also acting as an addendum to what the original changes said, because this letter adds to and changes the original wording, it does not simply clarify what's already been said.  I'll explain what I'm talking about.

The main issue that stemmed from the wording of the original policy changes was this: there are no provisions for minors of gay parents; in fact, minors were specifically excluded from everything if their parent was sexually cohabiting with or married to someone of the same sex.

Take a look at these two quotes together from the original policy changes:

"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:"

"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."

Notice the second "or" in that first sentence.  If you write that out in a long non-combined sentence and then combine that with the second requirement, here's what it says:

"A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, or to ordain [if already baptized and confirmed], or to recommend mission service [if already baptized and confirmed], for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when . . . 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."

This new policy did three things:

1. It stated that it didn't matter whether the parent used to live or currently lives in a same-gender relationship; it's enough that the parent had at all for these restrictions to be in effect.
2. It stated that an unbaptized child living with a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship couldn't get baptized into the Church until they reached adulthood and didn't live with that parent.
3. It also stated that a baptized child living with a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship couldn't progress in his or her membership activities (being ordained or recommended for a mission) until they reached adulthood and didn't live with that parent.  It halted their progress.

Elder Christofferson expounded on the reasoning behind this new policy (I hate to quote all this text, but I need this for context):

"[This policy] originates from a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years. When, for example, there is the formal blessing and naming of a child in the Church, which happens when a child has parents who are members of the Church, it triggers a lot of things. First, a membership record for them. It triggers the assignment of visiting and home teachers. It triggers an expectation that they will be in Primary and the other Church organizations. And that is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting where they're living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple. We don't want there to be the conflicts that that would engender. 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. And so with the other ordinances on through baptism and so on, there's time for that if, when a child reaches majority, he or she feels like that's what they want and they can make an informed and conscious decision about that. Nothing is lost to them in the end if that's the direction they want to go. In the meantime, they're not placed in a position where there will be difficulties, challenges, conflicts that can injure their development in very tender years."

This upset a lot of people for many reasons, one of which was because neither the original policy changes nor Elder Christofferson's explanation addressed the family situation where a straight parent lives apart from his or her gay spouse and together they share custody of their child, and so the child technically lives in both residences.  What about getting that child a name and a blessing or being baptized?  What about that child's Church progression?  And why halt a child's Church progression if he or she is already baptized and active in the Church while still living with gay parents who have clearly given the child permission to participate in Church life?

So the leaders sought to address those situations.  And to do so, they discarded the original wording of the 16.13 addition to the Handbook and instead said this:

 "The provisions of Handbook 1, Section 16.13, that restrict priesthood ordinances for minors, apply only to those children whose primary residence is with a couple living in a same-gender marriage or similar relationship."

and this:

 "When a child living with such a same-gender couple has already been baptized and is actively participating in the Church, provisions of Section 16.13 do not require that his or her membership activities or priesthood privileges be curtailed or that further ordinances be withheld."

That first statement is actually incorrect, because the second statement shows that the restrictions for minors apply only to children who haven't been baptized yet and whose primary residence is with a gay couple.  The first statement should actually say something like this:

"The provisions of Handbook 1, Section 16.13 that restrict priesthood ordinances for minors apply only to those unbaptized children whose primary residence is with a couple living in a same-gender marriage or similar relationship."

That way the second change regarding baptized children living with a gay couple makes sense.

Now let's look at the specifics of what these newest policies do:

1. They say that an unbaptized minor child of a gay couple can freely be baptized and confirmed as long as the child's primary residence isn't with that gay couple.  So as long as the child's primary residence is with their straight parent, if they have one, then they can get baptized into the Church as early as 8 years old and all that other stuff can follow.
2. They also say that a baptized minor child of a gay couple whose primary residence is with that gay couple and who is active in the Church can continue freely with being ordained or recommended for a mission.
3. They still exclude unbaptized minors of gay couples whose home is the primary residence of their child.  Those children still have to follow the restrictions set forth in the Handbook 1 changes: before they can get baptized into the Church, they still have to wait until they are legally adults, not reside in their gay parents' house, specifically disavow their parents' sexual life choices, and then get approval from the First Presidency.

The first of these newest policies isn't worded quite right, and both of these newest policies contradict the original policy changes and the explanation given by Elder Christofferson.  But that's for the Church's legal department to handle if the need arises.  ;)

Those who have faith in and support the leaders of the Church have to claim that this letter was continued revelation for how the Church should be run, but let's be honest: this was the leaders having an "oh crap!" moment and changing the guidelines to better meet the desires and concerns of the Church members.  This wasn't God changing his mind on His policies, it's the leaders trying to cover their butts.

Still didn't stop thousands of members from handing in their letters of resignation yesterday.  The Salt Lake City news station covered the story:  http://kutv.com/news/local/group-holds-mass-resignation-from-lds-church-in-slc-saturday

None of my conclusions from my last post have changed with this addendum.  Gay parents are still viewed as worse than parents who are involved in any of those other LDS-labeled serious transgressions (attempted murder, adultery, physical abuse, etc.), since they're the only ones whose unbaptized children are affected by their "serious-transgression" decisions.  And to back up Elder Christofferson's claim, this addendum also contains the underlying lie of this whole issue: "Our concern with respect to children is their current and future well-being and the harmony of their home environment."  Gay parents are the only ones whose children have that "consideration" given to them.  By singling out the unbaptized children of gay parents, the Church leaders are still insinuating that only children who live with gay parents would experience difficulties, conflict, and disharmony at home if the children were to join the Church while still living at their home (regardless of cultural, religious or sinful differences in other households that don't mesh with Church expectations).  Remember, converts to the Church who join despite their family's objections are praised as being faithful, spiritually strong people who are dedicated to the Lord and His church.

I am glad that those children of gay parents who have already been baptized into the Church don't have to worry about what will happen to them as far as their membership is concerned.  I'm also glad that children who don't primarily live with their gay parent also won't have to worry about Church actions against them.  But I feel for the people who think that the LDS church is the one and only true church on the face of the Earth and who are now excluded from joining it or who will be excommunicated from it for choosing to marry someone of their same sex.  I truly hope they will find peace and happiness outside of a Church that discriminates against them and rejects them.

Homosexual Couples and their Children

Given how infrequently I write in this blog, I didn't think I would be writing here again so soon.  But two days ago the Church made policy changes to how they deal with homosexual couples and their children, and it created quite a firestorm within the LDS and ex-LDS communities on Facebook, and I feel strongly enough about the issue that I want to write down my thoughts and opinions on it.  Rather than saying anything about it on Facebook where everyone could see right away, I'm choosing to write about it here.  This is a public blog but hardly anyone knows about it or reads it, so in that sense it's fairly private and I'm not announcing my views to everyone on my Facebook friends list.

My goal here is to look at the issues factually, point by point, and to be fair to both sides.  I will not be dissecting all of the opinions, some of which are valid, that have been shared on Facebook by people for or against these new policy decisions; rather I will explain my own points of view regarding the official language of the written policy and the official explanation for those policy changes given by the Church.  This will probably make this post sound boring and devoid of emotion, but there are plenty of emotions running high on Facebook about this, and that's not what I want this post to be about.

(Just as a heads-up: this will be a long post because there are many points to talk about and I want to be thorough.)

First off, the policy changes.

Two days ago the leaders of the Church made additions to the Church Handbook of Instruction, Handbook 1 regarding how to deal with homosexual couples and their children.  There are two halves to the Church Handbook of Instruction, and Handbook 1 is for bishops and stake presidents only and isn't available to the general public.  For that reason, I don't think the leaders of the Church intended for these changes to be made public, but the additions got leaked to the media which is how everyone now knows about them.

These are the additions:  (I can't copy and paste them for some reason, so I'll type them out here as they appeared in the media article)

Policies on Ordinances for Children of a Parent Living in a Same-Gender Relationship

     The following additions to Handbook 1 have been approved by the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for immediate implementation.

•      A new section in Handbook 1, 16.13 will be added as follows: 

Children of a Parent Living in a Same-Gender Relationship

     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.

• Handbook 1, number 6.7.2 is to be updated immediately as follows (addition is highlighted):

When a Disciplinary Council May Be Necessary

Serious Transgression

     . . . It includes (but is not limited to) attempted murder, forcible rape, sexual abuse, spouse abuse, intentional serious physical injury of others, adultery, fornication, homosexual relations (especially sexual cohabitation), deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities,. . .

• Handbook 1, number 6.7.3 is to be updated immediately as follows (addition is highlighted):

When a Disciplinary Council is Mandatory

Apostasy

As used here, apostasy refers to members who:

1.  Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

2.  Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

3.  Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

4.  Are in a same-gender marriage.

5. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

Priesthood leaders must take disciplinary action against apostates to protect Church members.  The Savior taught the Nephites that they should continue to administer to a transgressor, "but if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people" (3 Nephi 18:31; see also Mosiah 26:36).

That last paragraph wasn't in the news release but it was included on a scanned copy of the new handbook page that I saw, so I'm guessing it's been at the end of that Apostasy section for a while.  I included it here because it helps to explain why the disciplinary process is mandatory for apostasy.  I'm really big on knowing the "why" behind decisions, and this explains that one.

The leaders responded to the social media explosion yesterday through a video interview with Elder D. Todd Christofferson, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, explaining the policy changes.  I'll link that video here; it's just over 10 minutes long:  http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/handbook-changes-same-sex-marriages-elder-christofferson

So there we have the changes to Handbook 1, as well as a Church leader's official explanation for the changes.  I am going to talk about those changes as well as address what Elder Christofferson said.  But before I get into that, I want to explain my stance on the issue of homosexuality so it's clear where I'm coming from.

I am currently an agnostic: there is not enough evidence to support the idea of a supreme being.  I no longer believe that the Book of Mormon or the Bible—or any religious text for that matterùare the word of a god, and thus I do not believe homosexuality is a sin.  I also personally have no problem with homosexuality; I'm perfectly fine with that sexual orientation and with the people who identify as such.  However, I also understand that many religions do believe that practicing homosexuality is a sin—the LDS church being one of them—and because of that, I understand why the Church feels it must take a strong stance on homosexual relations.

Alright, on to talking about these policy changes.

I'll start off with the decision to add same-gender cohabitation and marriage to the lists of serious transgressions and of things that may require a disciplinary council, because in this instance the Church is justified.

The scriptures repeatedly speak out against homosexuality.  The Church believes that both the Book of Mormon and the Bible are the word of God.  In the New Testament, Jesus and his apostles repeatedly denounced homosexuality.  Mormons believe that the Lord of the Old Testament was Jesus Christ, and Jesus in the Old Testament denounced homosexuality and even burned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of it (by the way, that's where the word sodomy comes from).

I read an article from the Mormon Newsroom website a few years ago (I want to say it was back in 2006) that discusses the Church's current view on homosexuality.  It's an interview with Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman; it's long but it's also very thorough, and if you want the LDS church's official current views on homosexuality, that's the article to read.  Here's the link:
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction

So in recent years the Church has come to be more accepting toward homosexuals.  That wasn't always the case.  In 1969 in his book The Miracle of Forgiveness, Spencer W. Kimball claimed,

"Many have been misinformed that they are powerless in the matter [of homosexuality], not responsible for the tendency, and that 'God made them that way.'  This is as untrue as any other of the diabolical lies Satan has concocted.  It is blasphemy.  Man is made in the image of God.  Does the pervert think God to be 'that way'?" (p.85).

Presidents of the Church have become wiser since then, and they now recognize that some people for whatever reason really are born being attracted to the same sex, it's something they really didn't choose for themselves.  Leaders now teach members that homosexuals are to be treated with kindness and respect just like anyone else.  The Church also supports equal treatment for homosexuals when it comes to employment and housing.  Homosexuals are allowed to be baptized into the Church, receive callings, and even go through the temple for their endowments, without the need to be "cured" and "rehabilitated" as President Kimball advocated (those words applied to homosexuality make me cringe).  Officially it is not a sin to have homosexual feelings and desires; until a few months ago, the requirements for a homosexual member of the Church to be in good standing with the Church and the Lord were the same as for any heterosexual member who is unmarried: you are to be sexually celibate until marriage.

Historically, gay people couldn't legally get married to each other, which meant that gay members were expected to be celibate for their entire lives if they wanted to be in good standing with the Church and the Lord, and having sex with someone of your own sex meant you were fornicating.  But because of the US Supreme Court's decision in June of this year regarding gay marriage, all 50 states are now required to allow and recognize gay marriage within their state (it wasn't a unanimous decision, by the way; the ruling was 5-4.  If you're interested in reading really long legal documents, I applaud you  :)  and the Court's decision and the opinions of the judges are in the middle of this NPR article:  http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/26/417717613/supreme-court-rules-all-states-must-allow-same-sex-marriages ).

This ruling changed things.  Now gay members of the Church who had been celibate up to this point could legally get married and have their union recognized as a marriage.  This means that having sex with their spouse of the same sex wasn't considered fornication.  So the Church had to clarify its policies and differentiate gay members' requirements from those of unmarried heterosexuals.

In the Bible, the Lord never approved of homosexual relations.  And in the Church's announcement "The Family: a Proclamation to the World" from 1995, the leaders wrote down their firm stance on what constitutes an acceptable marriage in the Church (here's the link: https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng ).  While gay members of the Church can now legally be married to someone of the same sex, the Church sought to clarify that religiously, according to their doctrine, homosexual relations are still a serious sin, and that in their religion the only marriages that are acceptable to God are between one man and one woman.  If gay members are to be in good standing with the Church and with the Lord, they are still expected to either be celibate for their entire lives or to marry and have sex only with someone of the opposite sex.  Anything outside of this is considered living in sin.  While I strongly disagree with these requirements on a personal level, it is nevertheless what the Church expects of its gay members.

Gay members of the Church know this requirement.  Or if they didn't know it before, the leaders in the disciplinary council will explain it to them thoroughly.  Then, if the member still chooses to move forward with a homosexual marriage or with living with someone of the same sex, then they are choosing to go against the teachings of the Church and thus they will be excommunicated if they persist in their intended course of action.  By extension, these additions also clarify that nonmember gay couples will not be allowed to join the Church as long as they are married to or sexually cohabiting with each other.  Whether or not they'd want to join is irrelevant—the policy says they cannot even if they wanted to.

Something I feel is incorrect and needs to be mentioned here is when Elder Christofferson said "We're not going to yield on our efforts to help people find what brings happiness, but we know that sin does not."  This is a commonly held belief in the Church that comes from the scripture Alma 41:10 which says "wickedness never was happiness", but it is actually incorrect.  Elder Christofferson failed to acknowledge that a gay member marrying and having sex with someone of the same sex who they love and are sexually attracted to could bring them genuine happiness.  It would be more accurate to say: "sinning does not bring the Lord happiness," because that better describes the reality of this situation.  The Church will disregard the happiness of the individual making "sinful" decisions, and instead it says that what makes the Lord happy is all that matters and is all that should bring happiness.  "We're not going to yield in our efforts to help people find happiness in doing only what the scriptures and modern-day prophets say the Lord wants them to do."  THAT is what Elder Christofferson's statement actually means.

Well, in the end, regardless of the General Authorities' and local leaders' feelings on the matter, they are abiding by and enforcing their religious views and rules regarding homosexuality, which are based on what Jesus and his apostles said in the Bible.

Elder Christofferson was correct when he said that in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling, the Church needed to add those parts to the transgression and apostasy sections to provide clarity to doctrines and policies that already existed within the Church.  In that sense, the Church is justified in that course of action.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Now I'll move on to the part regarding the children of parents living in same-gender relationships.  Part of that section I feel is justified, and part of it I don't believe is justified at all.

The policy that says "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," is justified.  Babies in the LDS church are given a name and blessing only if their parents are believing members of the Church.  The people in a homosexual relationship either never were members of the Church, they unofficially left the Church, they officially left, or they were excommunicated.  Either way, they're not believing members of the Church in good standing and thus their child won't be given a name and a blessing in the Mormon church.  That's reasonable.

What I don't think is reasonable and what I don't agree with are the requirements that need to be met for a child of a gay couple to be baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for a mission:

"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."

What this says is that no minor child of a gay couple can join the church at all, regardless of their parents' consent.  Once that child is an adult, they must specifically disavow the practice of same-sex cohabitation and marriage and they have to have moved out of their parents' house first before they can get baptized into the Church, be ordained, or be recommended for a mission.

Many opponents to these changes are saying that children of gay couples are now being punished for their parents' choices.  I think "punished" isn't the right word to use here.  Rather, I feel that "discriminated against" is a much more fitting phrase to use.  And I believe that regardless of what the leaders intended these policy changes to do, what has actually happened is that gay couples and their children are now being discriminated against, and this is my evidence for that claim: of all the cultural, religious, or transgression-filled households that a child can come from, only children from homosexual parents (and those of polygamous families) are expected to meet these requirements.  I'll cover those few types of households to explain my point.

First of all, this is what Elder Christofferson said in his interview regarding these policy requirements for the children of gay parents when they are minors, and I will refer back to this in my arguments below:

"This policy originates out of that compassion [that husbands, fathers, and grandfathers have for their children and grandchildren].  It originates 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.  And so with the other ordinances on through baptism and so on, there's time for that if, when a child reaches majority, he or she feels like that's what they want, and they can make an informed and conscious decision about that.  Nothing is lost to them in the end if that's the direction they want to go, and in the meantime they're not placed in a position where there will be difficulties, challenges, conflicts that can injure their development in very tender years."

This statement is true for any family where the parents, for whatever reason, will not give their consent for their minor child to be baptized into the Church, and the Church has to respect that.  However, Elder Christofferson's statement is NOT true for households where the parents do give their consent and yet there are cultural, religious, or transgression differences.  I'll explain the differences.

Transgressions

Of all the serious transgressions specifically listed in Handbook 1 that a parent could be involved in—attempted murder, forcible rape, sexual abuse, spouse abuse, intentional serious physical injury of others, adultery, fornication, homosexual relations (especially sexual cohabitation), deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities—homosexual relations is the only one where the child of those parents or that household has to meet those listed requirements for joining the Church.  That says to a child, "If your parents were sexual abusers, if they were physically abusive to their spouse, if they were cohabiting but not married, if they neglected you and your siblings, if they tried to kill someone, you could still join the church as a minor with their permission, and you could still join the church as a legal adult with no need to disavow your parents' life choices or move out of their house.  But because your parents are gay, you must meet these very specific requirements to join our church, to be ordained, or to be recommended for a mission."

Members participating in any of those serious transgressions will be treated the same by the Church: their bishop will have a talk with them in his office; if they don't change their ways, then they will be brought into a disciplinary council and talked to there; and if the person still will not repent and change their ways, then they will be excommunicated.  In that sense, homosexual relations aren't treated any differently by leaders of the Church than are the other serious transgressions.  However, they are now viewed differently.  This new policy regarding the children sets apart homosexual relations/cohabiting as the most serious of those transgressions, as the worst of those transgressions, because it's the only serious transgression on that list that affects their child's ability to be baptized into the Church, ordained, or recommended for a mission.

Religion

Islamic cultures are the most-often cited example by Church members of where the Church is very careful about how they proselyte, because in the Islamic religion a Muslim can be imprisoned or even killed for converting to another religion.  However, that is the extreme example.  Anywhere else in the world as far as I know, if the parent or parents believe in a non-LDS religion or aren't religious at all, their child can join the LDS church as a minor with their permission or freely as an adult on their own.  The children of non-LDS religious parents don't need to meet the same requirements as do those children of gay couples.  The Church does not require a child of, say, a Catholic mother and a Protestant father to specifically disavow Catholicism or Protestantism, nor does it require the child to move out of their parents' mixed-faith house as an adult in order to be baptized.  There might still be religious conflicts and difficulties that arise at home when a child joins the Mormon church—even with their parents' permission—but the Church does not take that into consideration.

Culture/Nationality

There are some countries where the teachings of the Church are incompatible with their culture.  In Japan and China, for example, women are not equal with men.  Women do not have the same social status as men, they are not respected the way men are, and they are not equals in their marriages.  That's a cultural reality.  And yet the Church will not ask a Japanese or a Chinese child about their home life or require them to disavow their culture of gender inequality and move out of their parents' house before getting baptized into the Church.  It just doesn't happen.

Another example: New Zealand.  For a few years my husband and I were seriously considering moving to New Zealand.  However, about a year ago I was looking online for an idea of what life would be like for us there, and I came across a website where probably a hundred people commented on an article about the discrimination by native New Zealanders (Kiwis) toward Americans specifically.  New Zealand television shows poke fun at America and its citizens all the time; Americans who move there are instantly viewed with suspicion and they are constantly and severely antagonized and discriminated against; it's really bad.  Any American tourists who travel there are merely tolerated.  The label "xenophobic" absolutely applies to Kiwis on a national level (not all Kiwis feel this way, but the majority do).
If you want to read that article and the hundreds of comments, here's the link; it's pretty enlightening:  http://e2nz.org/migrant-stories/chapter-4/its-true-kiwis-dont-really-like-americans/
So after reading that, we changed our minds about moving there.  ;)  But the LDS church—which is an American religion—will not refuse to allow Kiwi minors to join the Church who have their parents' permission, nor are the children required to disavow the practice of discriminating against Americans or to move out of their parents' house if their parents are xenophobic toward Americans.  They're free to join the Church as minors if their parents give their permission and as adults on their own.  Their current or previous xenophobic home-life isn't asked about or taken into consideration.

So if any other set of parents, regardless of their religion or culture or LDS-defined transgressions, were to give their minor child consent to join the Church, the Church would allow it without considering if this would create difficulties or challenges or conflicts at home.  The exception is gay parents, whose minor children will not be allowed to join the Church even with their consent.  In addition to that, once the child of any other couple is a legal adult, the Church won't care if the person is still living at home where cultural or religious conflicts might occur, nor will it require the person to move out of their parents' house before joining the Church, being ordained, or recommended for a mission.  Those requirements must only be met by children with gay parents (and polygamous parents, but that's a separate issue).

When Elder Christofferson says that the leaders of the Church "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," that sounds nice but it's actually not true.  The Church must respect a parent's wishes if that parent will not give consent for their minor child to join the Church.  The members can pressure and try to persuade, but they cannot perform the baptism without the parent's consent.  However, members of the Church and their leaders actually praise converts who join the Church despite strong opposition from their families.  Those converts are seen as faithful, courageous, and dedicated to the Lord and His church.  Familial approval and harmony are in no way taken into consideration when seeking to convert someone over the age of 18.  Elder Christofferson's statement suggests that once the child is 18 and a legal adult, they're now able to handle any negativity or difficulties or conflicts their families can throw at them.  This, of course, is also not true.

I wish I could give the leaders of the Church the benefit of the doubt and say okay, maybe you did intend for this policy to be done out of love and compassion, to help preserve unity and harmony within the family.  But I can't give that to them.  My feeling is that they're trying to convince themselves as much as everyone else of this, but I feel that theirs is an empty claim, because these supposed concerns for the well-being of a minor child only apply to the children of gay parents.  If these new policies were to apply to all children whose parents are participating in any of those serious transgressions listed in the handbook, and to all children of parents whose culture or religion are at odds with the teachings of the Church, then their claim of love and compassion could be valid and there probably wouldn't be as many people getting upset about this.  However, the Church only singled out children of gay parents, which is what makes it discrimination against them and why so many people are upset and confused by these changes (that, and because the Church meant for this to be done quietly in the Handbook, not announced to the general public).  The Church is claiming that only the children of gay parents—and inevitably all children of gay parents—would experience conflict and difficulties at home if they were to join the Church as minors and if they were to continue living with their gay parents after they have turned 18 years old.  That is a ridiculously broad generalization and simply untrue, but that is the Church leaders' story and they're sticking to it.

So in conclusion, my opinion is that because of the Church's doctrine—because they adhere to the teachings of Christ and his apostles in the Bible regarding homosexuality—the leaders of the Church were justified in clarifying their stance on what is acceptable within the Church regarding marriage and what may or will require a disciplinary council.  I also feel they were justified in saying that only children whose parents are members of the Church in good standing (which homosexual couples are not considered) may get a name and a blessing.  But I feel the Church is discriminating against gay couples and their children, since the new baptism/ordination/mission recommendation policy change does not apply to children of any other parents, regardless of their parents' religion, culture, or LDS-defined serious transgressions; it applies only to children of homosexual couples.  That is blatant discrimination, not love and compassion, and that is what makes this specific policy decision wrong.

Church's Modesty Standards Still Affect Me

This past August marked my second year of being out of the Church.  For the most part I'm doing well.  The only current goings-on I know about the Church are what my LDS family members and friends post on Facebook.  Most of the time they're inspirational quotes from Church leaders, and I usually scroll past those posts.  Occasionally something will catch my attention that I just roll my eyes at, like this past General Conference when some guy made up the word "ponderize" to try to make a point, and six or seven of my Facebook friends started using that word.  Stuff like that is really gimicky, and I just move on.  But every once in a while something catches my attention and it affects me strongly; that happened this past Thursday, and that's what I want to talk about here today.

In one of my first posts of this blog I listed the social reasons why I left the Church, and the first thing on the list was that the dress code and modesty standards skew members' views of sex and their understanding of sexuality.  What led me to that conclusion was an article I read online entitled "Men, Sex, and Modesty."  Well, this past Thursday I saw an article written by a woman named Tracy entitled "Perverting Modesty" that one of my Facebook friends "liked", and it was from the same website where the "Men, Sex, and Modesty" article was found, only written two years earlier.  It talks about how the Church's standards of modest dress affected Tracy, who was a convert to the Church.

Here is the article:  http://bycommonconsent.com/2011/07/09/perverting-modesty/

When I read that article, bad memories and feelings came flooding back to me.  It broke my heart to read about Tracy's experience.  To read about the embarrassment she felt when some "well-meaning" woman told her that the dress she was wearing—which made her feel pretty and was nice enough to feel specialùwas inappropriate, hurt my heart.

Reading this article on Thursday reminded me of an unexpected experience I'd had the day before.

I wear this shirt around the house sometimes:  https://www.pyramidcollection.com/itemdy00.aspx?T1=PB5103+BL+2X3X  because it's one of the styles I like, and now that I'm not a member of the Church I can wear whatever I want.  Wednesday I wore this top with a recently-purchased floor-length red skirt.  I'm overweight and so I often don't feel very attractive; but I was surprised to find that as I wore that outfit around the house that day, I felt tall, I felt poised, and I felt pretty.  When my husband came home from work, he saw me and said I looked voluptuous, and that added to how good I felt.  But earlier that afternoon I'd had a strange experience.  I had walked out the front door and around the side of the house to bring a bag of trash to the trash bin, and I realized that I was hyper-aware of what I was wearing.  The only people outside were a woman my age with her young child, and I don't think the woman even saw me, but in my mind I felt like all the neighbors could see me from their houses and that I was being judged for what I was wearing, both because it's not something people usually wear, but also because of the amount of skin I was showing (midriff and shoulders).  It was then that I realized that the Church's standard of modest clothing still affects how I think others see and judge me.

I talked a little bit in my "Control" post last year about my problems with the Church's attempts to control its members' sexuality.  I'm going to elaborate on the topic specifically regarding clothing by using my own personal experiences, because since writing that post, I've come to better understand the issue of the Church's dress standards.

The Church has very strict dress standards for its members.  I was regularly taught that our body is a temple where the spirit of the Lord can reside if we're clean and virtuous, and we're supposed to keep our body covered to please the Lord.  Any time members start reading the Book of Mormon over again, they usually make it to at least Jacob, and in Jacob 2:28 we read, "For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women.  And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts."  There are other scriptures from the Bible that also talk about the virtue of women: Proverbs 12:4 says, "A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones," and Proverbs 31:10 says, "Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies."  The way a girl or a woman dresses is a superficial and utterly wrong way to judge her virtue, but that's the reality of LDS culture.

As a teenager I was taught that it's up to us girls to keep boys' thoughts pure by keeping ourselves modestly clothed, which included wearing shirts that had sleeves that at least covered the shoulders, and shorts and skirts that were no higher than the knees.  This caused me to believe that boys were so easily aroused that shoulders and knees were enough to put immoral thoughts in their heads.  I also was instantly resentful of any Mormon girls who showed up to church or school wearing shirts that showed their shoulders (or more) and skirts that came up to the mid-thighs.  In my mind, they were taught the same standards that I was, and now they were going to get the attention from boys and I wasn't, because of how they were dressed.  It seemed to me that they were trying to get the boys interested in them by dressing that way.  I got that idea from the "For the Strength of Youth" pamphlet, which says in its Dress and Appearance section: "Never lower your dress standards for any occasion. Doing so sends the message that you are using your body to get attention and approval and that modesty is important only when it is convenient."  Whether or not that was the case with each girl, I don't know, but I believed it; I believed that's what those girls were doing, and I thought it was unfair.  I'm just glad I never said anything to them about what they were wearing; if I had, I would regret it now.

As a woman I see that the problem is just as bad for adult women.  Matthew 5:28 (and 3 Nephi 12:28) says, "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."  As we women remember from our Young Women lessons, men are overly-sexual and the sight of shoulders and kneecaps are enough to get them sexually aroused and lustful.  Thus, any woman who knowingly dresses immodestly at church is causing other women's husbands to commit adultery in their hearts.  Not all women consciously realize that's what's going on, but subconsciously that fear is absolutely there.

The Church leaders don't have to constantly remind adult women of the need to dress modestly.  The temple garment ensures that hem lengths will be a certain length, because having garment sleeves and legs sticking out from underneath clothing looks stupid.  But not only that, the judgmentalness (is that a word?) of other women will be enough to keep women in check.  As Tracy showed in the "Perverting Modesty" article, there are plenty of women in the Church who are more than willing to point out clothing of ours that's "inappropriate" and "immodest".  Shaming can go a long way in regulating behavior.

Once I left the Church, almost like magic I was no longer judgmental of women wearing spaghetti straps or skirts that came above the knees.  I distinctly remember one day shortly after leaving the Church, I saw a woman walk past me in a store wearing a tank top and I thought, "Her shoulders are showing... and it's fine! ... She looks fine."

That was a turning point for me.  Over the next few weeks I discarded my old Church-dictated modesty standards and I examined my wardrobe and played around with hem lengths, determined to discover what was flattering on my body and what helped me look my best.  And guess what?  The styles that make me look my best and that make my body look the most proportional are considered "immodest" by Church standards.  And I found myself not caring, because I actually looked good now!  I had been looking disproportional all these years and I never noticed because up until then I had only been concerned with "modest" hem lengths and good colors on me.  And it turns out that my husband doesn't care, either.  I asked him on Thursday night how he would feel if I wore yesterday's outfit in public, and he said quite honestly that he'd be fine with it; it wouldn't bother him at all.  I asked him why not, and he said he didn't know.  I suspect it's because he knows I'm not out there trying to seduce people with showing some skin.  He knows this is my style (I wear it often at home) and that I'm comfortable in it, and I'm guessing he likes that I'm comfortable enough with my body to express myself in the way I dress, and that I would have no ulterior motives if I wore outfits like that in public.

I admire the people who aren't afraid to express themselves in public through the way they dress, even if they're what American society considers "unconventional" styles.  It takes courage to go against the norm, and I'm working up to it myself.  Unfortunately, members of the Church aren't as free to do so.  If you go against the Church's approved dress standards, you risk getting ostracized by the members (mostly the women; it's different for the guys), and because the social aspect of church is such a big part of the LDS experience, you will very quickly find yourself on the outside of all social circles.  You'll probably get called into the bishop's office for a little chat, too, which is embarrassing.  Your options are to conform, to not conform and get ostracized, or to leave.

I truly hope the leaders of the Church will reevaluate this fixation and obsession with dress standards, because these standards are very superficial and they are what causes such judgmentalness among the girls and women of the Church.  And yes, there is causation there.  But I know it will never change.  The Church likes to pride itself on standing out from the rest of society, of staying firm to "God's" dress standards while the rest of the world changes their fashions, and of "being in the world but not of the world."  Not only that, but the Church also has scriptures like this: "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same." (D&C 1:38).  So as long as the Church leaders feel that these dress standards should stay the way they are, then they're supposedly speaking for the Lord, and so nothing will change.  And millions of girls and women will continue to be taught that they are directly responsible for keeping the minds of boys and men pure, and they will continue to judge one another's virtue and interpersonal intentions based on the length of their clothing.

The author of the article spoke the words of my heart when she said: "I wish I could erase this twisted idea of modesty from my experience."  I've shed a lot of the Church's view of modest dress from my mind, but part of me is still affected by it as I found out last week, and I still have a way to go before it truly doesn't affect my life anymore.  I want to feel free to express myself through my clothing without worrying about who's judging me for showing more shoulder or more leg than is Church-appropriate.

Religion Needs to Be About Peace

I've been thinking a lot about religion for the past week or so.  Mormonism specifically because this weekend is General Conference and I hear my husband listening to the talks on his computer, but also Buddhism because this past Friday my husband and I went to see the performance art program called Shen Yun, which is a celebration of thousands of years of Chinese music and dance, and Buddhist principles are thrown in there.

I came to the conclusion long ago that no one knows what happens when we die, no one knows the true nature of the heavens, the dimensions, or the purpose of life.  And therefore all religions are putting forth their best guess as to what's going on and what will happen.

Today I was frustrated with my husband because he continues to believe a religion which I've found to be false and invented by a conman.  I vented to him about the Mormon church this afternoon, a topic I usually avoid with him because it only leads to contention.  But then I realized that he hasn't thought to question the validity of the Church because it works for him; it gives him purpose and it makes him happy.  I haven't had the same experience with the Mormon church and that's why the Church doesn't work for me.  Christianity in general will not work for me because it teaches that we're constantly sinning, whether because of misdeeds or because of not doing something that we're supposed to be doing, and that we need to rely on the Grace of God to have any hope of being redeemed and saved.  I'm still angry about all the years I spent feeling guilt and self-loathing just for being human and having human faults and desires.

The conclusion I reached today is that people need a religion that works for them, one that gives them purpose, makes them happy, and helps them feel peace in this life.  For some people, that's Christianity.  For some, that's Buddhism.  For some, that's Islam.  And I need to work on respecting others' beliefs even if they're not ones I share.  I'm fairly good at showing respect for other religions, but Mormonism is still a sore spot for me and it's hard to respect a religion that gave me so much unhappiness for the majority of my life.  I'm working on it though, and today's realization is helping.

Hopefully one of the religions of the world has it right (the "it" being the right answers to life's questions).  But since there's no way to know for sure until we die, then I need to find something that will give me peace and happiness.  I am starting to come to grips with the possibility that evolutionary science has it right—that humans are part of an evolutionary process that's been going on for millions or billions of years—and the thought is a lonely one and it makes me feel isolated and utterly pointless.  Because if you look at life through a strictly physical, biological, evolutionary lens, then I'm only here to help continue the survival of the human species by raising my children as part of the next generation.  I don't have a great mind that can comprehend the cosmos; I have no special skills that can help the human race thrive and not kill itself off or destroy the Earth.  I'm just an average person taking up space and oxygen and resources.  Like I said, that's a lonely way of thinking and it makes me feel completely pointless but I have to accept that this, too, is a possibility and that maybe there is no "happily ever after" that religions preach.

Well, I'm going to investigate other religions to see if there's one whose principles will help me live the rest of my life with peace in my heart and in my mind since this life, as far as I'm concerned, is all that matters.

I Miss It

     Having the house to myself for three hours on Sunday is nice, but there are times like today where I miss going to church.

     I miss going to church expecting to be edified and spiritually strengthened.  Sunday School was my favorite hour of church because for me it was the most intellectually stimulating.  I used to read the next week's lesson during the week and gain my own insights into the scriptures so that I could actively participate in the lessons and actually get something out of church.  I always liked being in class with people who had insightful things to say and who I could tell also read the lesson or the scripture passages for that lesson.

     I miss the security of believing that what I was being taught was true, that my church really did have all the answers even if I didn't fully understand them yet.  Even if I struggled with pieces of doctrine here and there, the core parts of the gospel were something I could hold onto and they would give me strength and a certain amount of peace.

     I miss believing the same things that my husband does.  We are still respectful of each others' beliefs and we still have a good marriage, but it's different now.  We've gone from believing that our marriage will last for time and all eternity, to knowing that it's for this life only—for him because I'm no longer sealed to him, and for me because I realize that this life might be the extent of my existence.

     There's a quote I read in the Cosmos book that has stayed with me for the past few months.  "Part of the resistance to Darwin and Wallace [evolution theorists] derives from our difficulty in imagining the passage of the millennia, much less the aeons. What does seventy million years mean to beings who live only one-millionth as long? We are like butterflies who flutter for a day and think it is forever." (p. 27)   I've already come to grips with the idea that there's a very good chance that there is nothing after this life, that once I die this really might be the end of my existence.  Believe me, it hasn't been easy.  I'm not afraid of death though, I'm mostly just curious to find out the truth—to find out which religion got it right, if any.  That's assuming that I still exist after I die.  If I cease to exist, well, that's that I guess.

     Right now I suffer from thoughts and feelings of pointlessness, and I will probably have those in varying degrees for the rest of my life.  I'm able to look past them if I get enough sleep at night and if I have other things to take my mind off of them, and it's actually helping me appreciate this life more.

     Sometimes I wonder if I could ever go back to church, if the nice feelings of security and community I had felt there could make up for the doctrines that I no longer believe in.  But I know I can't.  People go to church because the Church teaches things they believe in.  I don't believe in what they teach, and so even if I were to attend church again, I would feel out of place; I don't belong there anymore.  So for now I'll just be glad for people who have something to believe in, and I'll keep trying to make my life worthwhile.