Exclusion or Protection? LDS Baptism Policy is About Protection

Last week one of the most trending topics online was when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints "announced" (because it didn't really announce it) that those individuals in a gay marriage would be classified as apostate and children of gay couples would not be allowed to be blessed as infants or baptized into the LDS church.

My initial reaction was similar to that of many in and outside the church, I'm sure. "That seems awfully harsh," I thought. "Why would the church deny those blessings/ordinances just to children of gay couples? That really does not feel right."

But, as I've learned (thankfully) in my 30 years, it is often best to reserve outrage and look beyond the soundbites; to wait for information on both/all sides to become available (see what a 4-year degree in journalism can get you?). In this blog I'm trying not to repeat what I've read elsewhere, but a list of articles that helped me come to this conclusion is near the end.

During this time of information gathering I noticed a couple things:
1) Most of the people who were the most outraged were no longer members, had never been members, and/or openly disliked religion of any kind already. But as soon as this story became available they felt they had the background and enough knowledge to condemn the policy. It doesn't mean they have can't have opinion, but when I responded calmly with some perspective, they never responded back. Most people aren't interested in both sides...they are interested in their side. They never post about the amazing things the Church does (humanitarian aid, etc)...just what they see as the amazingly offensive ones. Not only that, these are people who wouldn't want anyone to join the church anyway...but now they're personally offended when the church imposes obstacles to be baptized on a certain group of people? The alternative of policies like this is that we let any child or person get baptized no matter their circumstances because we don't care about their well-being or growth, we just want butts in the seats. Which would also outrage these individuals. But I digress...

I counted only a couple active LDS Facebook friends I have who expressed disgust (or any other range of negative emotions) about this story. Do I condemn them for these? Absolutely not. It is a difficult, emotionally charged issue. However, I give more credence to them than people who have no idea what they're talking about and wish them well on their personal journey of grappling with this complicated issue and what it means to them.

2) Most people, even members, had very little experience or knowledge of the policy before this clarification came to light. Including myself. How did I learn of my ignorance? Someone pointed out to me that it's not just children of gay parents who cannot be baptized, children of polygamists cannot be baptized either and that had been the policy for many, many years.

I had no idea and realized I needed to put more thought into this.

So what me brought me around from my initial outrage to unequivocal support of this policy? Understanding of the policy before it's famous clarification, a bit of knowledge about human nature/behavior, lots of reading, and the willingness to be open to hear what others had to say (and allow myself to be persuaded).

Let me start with what it turned out I had it WRONG. I thought this was a new policy. I knew that Israelites (ie citizens of the state of Israel) could not be baptized even as adults. I also knew that children could not be baptized without consent of both parents. I knew adults involved in polygamous relationships were considered apostate. That was the extent of my knowledge. So I thought "It seems extremely odd that any gay couple would want their child baptized, but why not? Why should the church take away that option just from just that demographic? That really DOES seem like discrimination."

Here's where some research and understanding came into play: this is not a NEW policy. This is an expanded policy. This policy has also been in place for many years for polygamists. Polygamist parents are classified as apostate and their children are not allowed to be blessed as infants (thus entering their names into the records of the church...it is NOT a saving ordinance as some outside the church may think) or baptized when they are 8. I did not know that.

The reason for this policy for polygamist families is the same for families with gay parents: it is to protect the child/family from conflict within the home. It is to prevent the child from having the excruciating decision between what the church teaches about what we believe and how their parents have chosen to build their family and live their lives.

With this knowledge I realized this policy is not discriminatory, exclusionary, or inconsistent. You want to know who was inconsistent? All the people who NEVER complained about this policy when it just applied to polygamists but got extremely upset when it applied to children of gay couples. Where was the outrage for them? No one ever worried about their kids being excluded? I wonder why...

Let's talk about exclusion for a minute. I have been a member of the LDS Church my whole life. Raised in one of the most liberal parts of the country; I was literally one of about 5 kids in my grade up through high school who was a member. I went to a non-LDS university. I KNOW what it's like to feel excluded. I know what it's like not to be invited to/go to parties because I don't drink. I KNOW what it's like to be a victim of an overt hate-crime (as in "Go back to Utah" was carved on almost every door on the floor of the dorm of which I was the RA because I busted someone for being stupid and drinking alcohol openly underage).True it wasn't written out by an institution, but I don't think that makes a difference as a child.  But you know what? I survived. I learned to celebrate who I was. It forced me to really make sure this is how I wanted to live my life, it forced my testimony to grow.

One reason some people, mostly from people within the church, are upset is a perceived inconsistency. They point out that children of non-member parents, parents who may smoke, and break any other number of "rules" are still allowed to get baptized. Even after I accepted this policy as the right thing to do for gay couples and their children, I pondered this. That DID seem a bit inconsistent, which bothered me (in all aspects of life, actually).

Then, like a bucket of cold water (because I was in the shower, which is where all my good thinking is done), it hit me as far as what the difference between gay/polygamist couples and other parents "living in the sin" (I really hate that term because we all are, but it's the one I saw the most): those living in the openly gay relationships/marriages wouldn't (probably) ever renounce their lifestyle, which would be required to become a member of the church. This is the gospel according to Vanessa, so I could be wrong, but it makes sense to me. If you are so committed to a lifestyle that you literally marry it and/or bring children into it, it's not just a fad. It's who you are (as the community would support) and acting on it will not change. Being gay (same gender attraction) is not against what the church teaches, but acting on it ie getting married to someone of the same gender, being in a relationship, having children with someone of the same gender is about as "set" as you get.

One person kept saying over and over "What the difference between gay parents and parents who smoke?" I'll tell you what the difference is: you can quit smoking and join the gospel. You can't quit your gayness/gay family. And it is the same polygamy. While there are some (mostly women) who quit polygamy, it literally requires they quit their lifestyle and community and flee. It's true, hypothetically someone who is gay and has acted on their same gender attraction could decide not to anymore, but that'd probably be even more offensive (and less likely) than encouraging them not to act on it in the first place if they wanted to be a member in good standing (as is the case now). The other difference is that smoking/not smoking isn't exactly a central tenant to LDS beliefs. The family (the traditional unit), is central to gospel. Pretty much everything we do and teach is about eternal families. Smoking is actually not that big a part of it.

Let's be clear (for those who do not know): same gender attraction is not a sin in the LDS church. Gay individuals are welcome to come to services, serve in callings, be baptized, etc. However, when those individuals act on those tendencies, that's when it becomes a problem within the gospel. If they get married, which is a very conscious action in conflict with gospel principles, that is what causes the apostasy (like polygamy).

Certainly, there is a lot to ponder and consider with this policy clarification. And if you, as a member or non-member still struggle with it, that's ok. Keep struggling. That's how we grow. I'm not even saying you'll come around to my opinion, but keep on keeping on. But I would ask you to do two things as you continue to mull it over:

1) Put yourself in the shoes of Church leadership. This is a GLOBAL church. Not just in Utah. Not just the United States. In fact, there are more members outside the United States than inside. In many of these countries homosexuality is a punishable crime (something the Church does not condone). In many countries/cultures, converting to Christianity is punishable. This policy also applies to children of Muslim families where converting could realistically result in death. This policy protects them. While we love children, they are not always the best at understanding consequences. This policy releases parents and children of any potential conflict where the child may want to join the Church but it is not in the best interest of the child's physical, emotional, or spiritual well-being until they can be self-sufficient and get themselves in a better position to be a member. It allows local church leaders all over the world to offer consistent leadership on such a complicated issue. Certainly the Church does not want to be the cause of pulling families of young children apart.

2) Put yourself in the shoes of these children/parents. Yes, there may be some extraordinarily understanding gay parents who say they would let their child be baptized in the church. And perhaps they would be supportive. But I'm not just talking about driving them to Church on Sundays. I'm talking about (and what leadership is concerned about) is what it takes to foster the spiritual growth of children. Individuals who are not members of the Church may not realize that the LDS church is not just 1 hour commitment on Sundays. Active members go to at least three hours of meetings on Sundays, weekday meetings/activities, sometimes weekend meetings/activities, family/congregation activities, we encourage families to do Family Home Evening once per week (basically a quick lesson on some gospel principle, a fun activity, etc), individual and family prayer, individual and family scripture study, etc. As a life-long member, it is overwhelming to me. I could not imagine the stress this would put on a child who does not have parents who could support them and help them learn through these things. Not to mention the more sensitive issues that are CENTRAL to LDS doctrine that get talked about in some way or another pretty much all the time: temple marriage (only available to heterosexual couples), the importance of the roles of moms and dads, how the traditional family unit is central to gospel, families being together forever, etc.

You can tell me all you want that that you know a family (or are perhaps that family) that wouldn't have a problem with a child of gay parents joining the Church and it would never cause stress. But by and large it would cause intense emotional stress for the child. They would feel like they needed to choose what they learn in church and what they see their parents exemplifying. What this policy does is it relieves that pressure and stress and makes sure the child is simply old enough to understand what it would mean to them, to their family, etc. when they choose to get baptized. That's something that an eight year old, even raised in the Church, does not completely understand...but they have the support to foster that growth and better understand.

Try to remember what it was like to be a child in your parents home. Try to imagine what it would be like to hear at Church that the way your parents, probably the best people you know, the rock of your life, lived their lives in a way that would not allow them to receive saving ordinances. And then imagine trying to go home and talking to them about it. Try to not telling your child what they're learning in Church is wrong. Try to imagine the push-back if you did. Even if you didn't talk about it or conversations seemed to go fine, children are not dumb. They will see the inconsistency and it will cause serious stress and confusion. I cannot empathize, but I feel the internal conflict just thinking about it. I can imagine the external conflict that is possible. And Church leaders do not what the Church to be responsible for that in families with young children.

Say what you want about the Church discriminating, but as I pondered all these things, I finally BELIEVED that the leadership meant what they said: this is for the benefit of the child and their family. This is to keep the child from feeling like they have to choose between their Church and their family.

There are some absolutely wonderful articles that talk about this and aspects of this better than me and these are some of my favorite:

• This is the official explanation from Church leadership by one of the 12 apostles. Something you should know (if you don't) is that Elder D. Todd Christofferson has a gay brother. Elder Christofferson has talked very publicly about how important it is to treat gay individuals, families, and the community with loves and respect. Remember this fact as you listen to his explanation.
• This one gives specifics stories about how the policy protected a child from a Muslim family and another from a polygamist family and what a blessing it was (and is written by a gay Mormon).
• From a LDS woman who was raised by Lesbians and was affected by the policy before it was clarified in the handbook.
• This one is by a friend who's father refused to let her be baptized, so she had to wait until she was 18 and was grateful for it.
• This one is very straightforward and addresses several myths of the policy. If you have doubts, I'd encourage you to read this one with a very open mind and try to believe what it's explaining.

With all of this, I have arrived at a place where I do believe it makes sense for the Church to clarify its policy in this way. I also believe it is done from a very loving place. These children are not being denied the gospel. They are encouraged to come to church, to learn, to grow in the gospel. But they are being required to wait to make any life/eternity-changing decisions that may put them at odds with family until they are old enough to better understand the consequences. It is for the benefit of the child and their parents. That is not discrimination or exclusion. It is protection.

Snuggle Your Oldest, Warrior Child

Last night my four year old son had nightmares. He usually has episodes where he's inconsolable (for about an hour) once or twice a month. It's not fun for anyone. It's REALLY not fun now that his bed is back in the same room as his six year old sister, so she got a front row seat...at 10:30pm...to all the tears, crying, and screaming.

I laid down with my son in his bed, trying to whisper to him about happy memories from our recent trip to Disneyland hoping that the good thoughts would push out the bad and he could go back to sleep...or at least calm down. We lay there cuddling as I ran my fingers through his ridiculously shaggy hair (he is also afraid of hair cuts).

That's when my daughter, from across the room said, "How come you don't do that to me?"

"Do what?" I responded.

"How come you never get in my bed, snuggle with me, or scratch my head?"

I panicked. It was true. I couldn't remember the last time I snuggled with her at night.

I quickly reminded her of that time she got the flu last year and I spent 2 nights sleeping on the floor in her room to be close to her so I could help her right away.

That appeased her enough to drop it because she did remember (thank goodness).

But that's when I really thought about all the times at bedtime that she asks me to snuggle with her in her bed and my response is "No, you need to go to sleep" right before I give her a hug and kiss and shut the door.

To be fair to me, I don't normally get into my son's bed either, but with baby number three on the way, we are trying to break them of the habit of getting into our bed since we plan on cosleeping with the baby and I can't have my 4 year old kicking the baby in the face all night long.

As I sat there next to my sons bed (because a toddler bed just doesn't work for a toddler and expectant mom) I got honest with myself: I would've never done that for my daughter unless she was seriously sick. Not even for nightmares. I would've...and I have...told her "You're fine, go back to bed" so I can get back to my solitary, hopefully uninterupted grown up time, which as a SAHM the last few years, only happens after kids are in bed. So I can have some moments of sanity.

You see, my daughter is a warrior princess. She is no damsel in distress. She doesn't usually pretend to be Snow White or Cinderella, she likes to be the wicked witch or step sister. She likes to feel powerful (we're working on the idea that she can be powerful and kind...like Elsa). She is the first to throw a punch in a fight with her brother and she doesn't agree with ANYTHING unless she truly believes it. There is no convincing her. These are all qualities that will serve extremely well later in her life, but they sure make her hard to parent now.

She is sassy. She is strong. She is exhausting. And by 7:05pm, nice mommy (if I was nice that day) checks out and mean/impatient mommy checks in. And it's usually because of some of her antics. I just want to be done with her and her argumentative nature at bedtime. And, so, I don't feel like snuggling. Honestly, I just want to be rid of her (of both my kids) for a few hours before I tear myself away from Netflix to go to bed and then wait for the inevitable night-time wakings.

But I've been so, so wrong. In that moment when she asked me, "Why don't you do that for me?" I realized it didn't matter why I didn't snuggle her. This phrase came to mind, "Sometimes the people who need the most love ask for it in the least loving ways." She doesn't know how hard she is on me, all she knows is that she wants...needs...snuggles from her mama. And, in fact, I realized it had been a long time since she asked me, knowing that I'd say no. The few times that I did "snuggle," I literally laid my head on her pillow and said, "I'll stay for one minute." She was so starved for that time she greedily accepted...but I was so obsessed with getting my own time, that I couldn't force myself to do any longer.

Not even if she begged. "I'm making her stronger," I'd tell myself. "She's fine."

Don't get me wrong, I hug her, I kiss her, I tend her owies, I sit her on my lap (or near my lap) and read to her every night, we make up songs together, we dance around, I help her with her homework, and try to let her help me in the kitchen. But I come from family where, to quote Malcolm in the Middle, "Feelings are the F word." We are not particularly tender, we do not say "I love you" when we get off the phone (unless it's to my biological father). I do not hug my siblings; in fact, at a recent family photo shoot, my sister and I were forced to touch. It was weird and awkward...and totally showed in the photo. We love each other, but we do not show or express it unless it's by making fun of each other. We suffer from what we like to call "emotional constipation." My mother loved us, nurtured us, read to us at night, but she also told us to suck it up a lot (she was also a nurse) and left us to cry ourselves to sleep sometimes (as any parent knows is necessary sometimes), and a lot of other things that are probably a result of her being raised by very British/Victorian-ish parents.

I think by the end of the day, this "emotional constipation" comes out and I have nothing left to give my oldest, hardest to parent child. I knew this upbringing and background effected my parenting style and most of it I'm ok with as I've tried to find a good balance of showing my children love with huggies and kissies, but also tried to teach them they can't have everything they want...but refusing bedtime snuggles because I was SO done and wanted to binge watch Vampire Diaries? No. I realized that is something I was doing that I am absolutely NOT ok with. And so, tonight, I will snuggle her. I will snuggle her so hard. I will not let her think there is something more important or somewhere else I'd rather be in those moments. I will not let her think her younger brother is more worthy snuggles during nightmares than she is. I forget, she is only 6 years old!

My daughter will be strong, she will be able to deal with hard things. But she will also know that her mother loved her enough to crawl into her bed and snuggle with her because she needed me.

But probably not every night.

No Bombs for Feminism, Not Even Children's F-Bombs

I have lots of problems with this video clip. In fact, I hate this (and I don't "hate" much). And, yes, I see the irony that I use the word "hate" when this is an anti-hate group. Whatever.

I have very few problems with the premise of the clip: of course, we need to teach our boys that it doesn't matter what a girl is wearing, they have no "rights" to her body, women deserve equal pay for the time they are in the office, etc.

In the press release about the video where little girls drop f-bombs to prove a point, the company who produced it says this, "Asking the question, “What’s more offensive? A little girl saying f*ck or the sexist way society treats girls and women” these adorably articulate little ladies in sparkling tiaras turn the “princess in distress” stereotype on its head and contrast the F-word with words and statistics society should find shocking such as “pay inequality” and “rape.” 

And, in response, I will ask "What's more offensive? Exploiting these "articulate" little girls and asking them to drop f-bombs to prove a point or pretending it's for anything but increasing their revenues?" Because it certainly won't garner support for their cause from anyone who doesn't already support it. I mean, I support it (in theory) and I'm REALLY put off by this.

Don't get me wrong, I live in the world of little girls. I have a 5 year old daughter who WANTED to dress up like a princess for the last 4 years, despite my best efforts and much to my shagrin. 

I also live in a world where little girls are offered sexualized Halloween costumes (yes, as young as 4 and 5 years old). I live in a world where parents seem eager to get their kids to grow up quickly and, as a result, strip away their innocence. An innocence that seems bombarded even by the Disney channel.

I also understand the challenges of being a woman in our society. I was fired for being pregnant (basically). I've experienced obvious and subversive sexism in the workplace...and every place. I think women should be paid equally for the amount of time they are in the office. I think we should have better maternity policies. Etc, etc.

But do the creators of this video actually thing this helps the cause? Because it doesn't. Do they think the future of this cause is teaching our daughters to be crude, coarse, and rude? Because if that's the future of gender equality (which, granted may mean something different to them than it does to me), than I want very little to do with it.

It's embarrassing.

This video made me think of a quote that has seriously shaped that kind of woman I am and want to be: "The world has enough women who are tough; we need women who are tender. There are enough women who are coarse; we need women who are kind. There are enough women who are rude; we need women who are refined."

Call me old fashioned. But I've been that cut-throat, cursing, coarse woman. And I hated it; I didn't realize it, but I did. I was always stressed out. I worried about appearing weak, about appearing to be less than my male peers. And as someone who's identity relied on being strong, I didn't see any other way. Then I realized it just wasn't working. It wasn't working for me. Even before I became a mom, I realized that I am more ME, I am more WOMAN, I am more PERSUASIVE, I have more INFLUENCE when I am tender, kind, refined, and COMPASSIONATE. And it's not because I'm a push over (my parents and husband think I suffer from Oppositional Defiance Disorder; I probably do).

Be firm. Be opinionated. Be respectful. OMG, be civilized!

Would I wash my daughter's mouth out with soap if she used the f-bomb in support of equal pay for women? You betcha. Because all that does is degrade her as a person and certainly does not garner support for an important issue. You want to raise awareness and gain more support for women's issues? Than use Emma Watson's speech to the UN as an example.

Don't drop f-bombs for feminism. In fact, don't drop f-bombs at all! I'm trying to find a way for this blog not to turn into an etiquette and manners issue...but maybe that's what our society needs. Apparently we want our women coarse and hard. But now we want our children to be that way? And it's not just this video; there are thousands (millions?) of clips on the internet of children beating up kids (and adults), swearing, doing adult things, etc...and their a parents laugh. They approve. They encourage.

I hate hearing men or women speaking (and acting) in such a way. Why? Because it devalues them and what they're talking about. How can you take anyone seriously when they're all like "Eff that! Eff you!"? My reaction when I hear children using language like this? I cringe. I literally cringe. They use it because they've heard it. They've been exposed to ugliness. Children should not be exposed to ugliness and they should not be used as tools to spread such ugliness. These children should be taught better. They can BE better.

Other than getting children to do our dirty work in a dirty way, how else can we catalyze the changes that our world needs? I love this quote: “Be a Mother who is committed to loving her children into standing on higher ground than the environment surrounding them,” Marjorie Pay Hinckley.

And this isn't just for mothers. It's for anyone who deals with children. For any kind of mentor of any kind of developing person. Love children in ways that makes them want to be better than the world we live in. Then our boys won't ever say "Well, she asked for it." Husbands won't hit their wives, employers will want to do right by all their employees.

You can't f-bomb your way to that result. You just can't.