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.

Feminism is THE "F-word" to Mormons

My daughter is of the same value to me as my son. They are equal, although not the same.
I imagine this is how Heavenly Father view us, His children. This makes me an LDS feminist.

I recently wrote an article about my disgust for a group used a bunch of young girls dropping "f-bombs" to bring attention to their feminist organization, ideas, etc. I found the use of language by young people deplorable, but I understood their complaints.

I got few responses on an LDS Facebook page to my blog and they made me scratch my head. It was obvious that several had not even read the blog. They just saw the word "Feminism" and obviously shut down and gave into knee jerk reactions that many conservatives and, especially Mormons, seem to have.

One person wrote: "I don't think equality is as important as liberty..." (and then went on to say he wants more mercy than being treated as an equal sinner, which is fine from a spiritual standpoint, but we are talking about socially here). This person (a man) has obviously never dealt with the social inequalities women face. 

Another comment was: "A truly free people cannot be equal and a truly equal people cannot be free. If you are to look at the pre-mortal realm, what was Lucifer fighting for? On the flip side, what was the plan that we fought for? That should tell where our priorities lie." Basically, comparing women who believe they are worth the same, albeit in different ways, to Satan (because Satan wanted all the glory himself? I don't quite follow that line of thinking...). I was a bit offended.

Another comment stated that the group that created the video is also the kind of group that contributes to "gender confusion."

This led me to be confused. While I disagree with the tactics of the "f-bomb for Feminism" video, I agreed with the general premise and ideas they mentioned: focus on girls' brains, not how they look; teach boys they have no right to any girls body no matter what she's wearing; women deserve to be paid based on their qualifications.

In general, I think most LDS would agree with these ideas, as well. But because the word "feminism" is attached them, we just shut down and find a reason either not to listen or not support.

There are shades of feminism, whether you are LDS or not. But we need to learn to listen to what people are ACTUALLY saying and not cover our ears as soon as we hear "feminism." I know it's hard to agree with SOME things when there are feminists and feminists groups who promote ideas we may not agree with, like certain LGBT issues, pushing for LDS women to have the priesthood, etc. But that doesn't mean we cannot agree on some things that are labeled feminist. (In fact, I think most of things aren't even feminist, they are simply...humanist). It's like claiming you couldn't be a Republican because your favorite Congressman got caught with happy feet in a certain airport bathroom.

But we do it. And no one seems to have a problem with it because "feminism" is an F word to many LDS. If you haven't seen this video of Emma Watson addressing the UN about "feminism," you need to do yourself a favor and watch it. Now.

"Feminism, by definition, is the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities," she said.

That's it. And I think that's something most LDS can get behind. Maybe you want to stay home and raise your children. Fabulous. But, maybe your neighbor does not or cannot. Should she not have the same right and opportunity to equal employment as a man? Should not your daughters be looked at as equal prospects for training and employment in the science and math fields? Shouldn't we judge the sisters we visit teach by their character and not their haircut? Would we, as LDS, have any problem fighting against female genital mutilation that takes place in some cultures? 

This might be small and minor, but something I've noticed: I do not get offered handshakes from male leaders in my congregation nearly as often as my husband (probably about half the time). Oftentimes, when I'm standing RIGHT next to him. Does this scream of social inequity? Not really. But why shouldn't I? Is my husband that much more important that HE warrants an "official" greeting, but I do not?

Or, maybe something closer to home: how about the women who are emotionally, physically, and financially abused by their husbands? Certainly, this happens in homes of every religion, including LDS (I've seen it) and it is worth being vocal against! It is worth an LDS person forgetting the stigma of the word "feminism" and standing up to say "That woman deserves the right to have more than a $100 allowance each month!" And "The mother of your children deserves more trust than you monitoring the mileage on her car and asking permission every time she goes somewhere!" And "Your children are YOUR children, too. Your wife should not have to BEG you to "babysit" them on the rare occasion she wants to go somewhere without them."

Latter-Day Saints, this kind of behavior against women is not what we, as LDS, believe is acceptable treatment of women. We need to stand up and say, "Your wife should have equal access money to get what she needs and the family needs." We need to say, "You CANNOT play video games all night long while your wife struggles to keep her head above water with the kids." We need to say, "You are partners. You are EQUAL."

This should not be unnatural for us. When people accuse the Church of sexism, I have often told them, "Men are held to the same sexual and moral standards as women. There is no different in standards between the sexes." True, women cannot have the priesthood and I am not arguing that they should because that is a doctrinal issue (but I do believe women could and should have more leadership within the Church without the priesthood; different topic for a different day). BUT, we as LDS should be able to vocally say, "I believe my mom, my sister, my wife, my daughter should have equal rights and opportunities as men and boys. They should not be reduced to the parts of their bodies, the way the look, etc." 

That is feminism and, while we don't have to take it as far as many do, I believe we should be able to comfortably say, "I'm Mormon and I'm a feminist because I believe women have EQUAL VALUE as men." We don't have to say that men and women are the same because we are not the same (thank goodness). But we can be feminist in the way that we believe women's intrinsic value, women's contributions, and women's potential has equal VALUE and deserves EQUAL opportunity to be considered and to grow as men's. 

And that's why I'll confidently say I am a feminist because:

• I believe women should be paid as equals of men for the time spent in the office (I understand women leave the workforce to have children and, except for leaves of absence, they should be paid the same).
• I believe women should not be reduced to the size of their booty, type of purse, hair type, waist size, etc.
• I believe women are responsible for their own actions. I also believe men are responsible for their actions towards women and no one should ever say "She was asking for it" when a woman is raped.
• I believe women to be incredibly capable leaders in whatever arena they choose to be in and no one should say "Real women stay home" or "real women go to work" or "real women have curves" or "real women work out" or whatever. Women should be themselves. Their best selves. And we should stop judging them/each other.
• I believe women have the right to question the status quo without being labeled "a radical feminist." 
• I believe women should be respected as human beings.
• I believe women should be honored, protected, and respected...the same as how men should be honored, protected, and respected.
• I will raise my daughter to be strong, opinionated, educated, and that she is NO LESS than her brother.

If you believe things like this (and others), you may be a feminist, too.

The World's Hatred of Women

This post may be a little behind but it's one that I've been rolling over in my mind for a couple months now, since a particular event occurred.

The event to which I refer happened in May when a "virgin" shooter (isn't that a catchy name the media gave him?)  targeted women of sorority house at the University of California Santa Barbara. I was sickened to hear the specifics of how this man specifically targeted women for all the difficulties he perceived he had with the opposite sex during his short life (even shorter if you consider he probably wasn't physically sexually mature for more than 5-6 years). His hatred for these "sluts" (read: all women) was so intense he wanted to "punish them for not being attracted to me."

Sickened.

I was sickened for the lives of those who were directly impacted simply for being a woman. I was sickened to think about raising my children in a world where violence is an all-too-common response to frustration. I was sickened for my daughter who must grow up in a world where men EXPECT women to have sex with them and it is "weird" (or even "wicked") for them not to.

As an LDS woman, I have been reading, hearing, and discussing much on the role of women in the church (see my previous post about women and the priesthood), so my mind naturally tried to find some connection between this emotional story and what had been on my mind so much recently.

And here's what I came up with: as much as feminists (and those who oppose the church on whatever gender issue) try, they can never say the church hates women as much as the rest of the world does. Yes, I've seen people say the church hates women. But, why then, do I feel the best refuge for my daughter is within the fold of the church?

Because the gospel teaches the "why" of women; the divine reason for women. To lead His children back to Him. To serve, to love, to be pillars of the community, to study, to pray, to teach, to be mothers (and have mother hearts for those who are not mothers in this life), to be companions, and more.

The "why" of women in the world is to do whatever they want, to focus on oneself and just make yourself happy, sexual freedom, etc. In fact, there isn't really a "why" for women in the world...which is perhaps why there many problems. You cannot have a purpose without knowing why.

Men have come to think that it's ok to use women's sexual freedom for their own gratifications (of course, who are most women going to practice their freedom with?) and, so, have come to expect it, even when they have no right to. One night stands, children without commitment, etc. Men expect women to have sex with them...even if they don't really want to because that's what modern, Sex in the City, sexually freed women do.

Like this shooter. He expected sex. He expected women to be attracted to him. And when it didn't happen, he took his frustration out on them. Certainly this is not the fault of a woman or women, in general. And certainly almost everyone condemns his actions, but HOW did this happen? How is that we still battle the issue of rape and other domestic violence against women when, apparently, gender issues have made such "progress"?

It is a cultural failure. In a culture where an NFL player gets only two game suspension for beating a woman 1/3 his size into unconsciousness (his then fiance and now wife...don't even get me started) or you can get a longer sentence for playing online poker than sexual assault (at least in my state), what do we expect? Seriously, what do the stories on the news tell us about how the secular world values women?! In our increasingly secular culture, we treat women as something fun for a one-night stand, not a creature of intrinsic, divine value. Never is there a story about a woman giving up her time, talents, and energy to improve the world because, really, the world doesn't care about that. We care about sexy women. Successful women. We care about Kardashians (full disclosure, we have been known to watch an episode or two).

To me, THAT is a culture that hates women. Or at least one that does not regard them highly.

My hope lies in raising my daughter in an LDS culture where, it's true, she may never be bishop, but she will certainly know she's good for more than a good time or even a prestigious corporate career where she can be labeled "a successful woman." Some feminists may say, "But that's the subtle sexism that will keep women in the church down." Perhaps. But being a woman, a mother, a wife in the church is more than position of leadership. It just is more. It is a divine "why." And those who are part of the church can understand the "why" of women in the church is much more profound than the "why" of women that the world offers.

I'm not usually a "The world is evil and we're all doomed!" kind of person, but when I look at the way I feel valued as a woman in the church (even though I can't hold the priesthood) and the way the world values women, I cannot help but be extremely grateful for the opportunity to raise my daughter in the church.