Church Policy - Some Questions to Consider...
5:28 PM
When we first moved into our current neighborhood our boys
immediately took to the alleyway on their bikes. Because cars use the alley to
reach main streets, I warned the boys about playing in the alley. Of course
they were so wrapped up in the novelty and fun of the moment that they ignored
me and kept biking around. As I looked down the street I saw a car approaching
and called out, this time with a bit more force, for them to get out of the
alley. Again, they didn’t hear. As the car got closer I ran at the boys, yelled
for them to get out of the street, and then finally grabbed them by the arms
and yanked them onto the grass. I didn’t yell because I was angry, and of
course I didn’t grab them because I hate them. I acted with sternness and
severity out of a love and deep concern for their wellbeing. The situation they
were in could have had serious consequences.
We should not be so quick to view dramatic acts of God nor
stern directions from His prophets and apostles as anger or hatred. The
announcement of the newly-specified policies in the Church handbook deal with a
topic that is serious and can have severe consequences, but given how much time
Church leaders spend talking about and exemplifying love, charity, kindness,
concern, and a deep resolve to follow Jesus I find it very difficult to believe
that they are ever motivated by hatred.
What happened?
Firstly, as happens with almost everything else these days,
today’s news has been exaggerated and escalated until, if you hadn’t read the
revised statements, you would have thought the Church declared war on children!
To be clear, the church added specific instructions to two already-existing
policies. 1) Actions defined as “serious transgression”, including homesexual
relations and cohabitation, will be dealt with using the Church system of disciplinary
councils. This is not a new policy but simply further clarification of an existing
policy put in place to protect individuals from violating covenants. 2)
Worthiness and readiness for baptism will be determined by Church authorities
who hold keys. Although the Church now specifies that baptisms for children
from environments where homosexuality is advocated or practiced must be given
extra consideration, this is not a new policy but simply further clarification
of an existing policy put in place to protect individuals form violating
covenants. We should not mistake the spelling out of specifics as
earth-shattering, Church-crumbling news.
Who did it?
It’s interesting to me that so many who criticize the Church
as being anti-child and un-Christian in the wake of this announcement ignore
the fact that this Church also contains one of the largest children’s primary
organizations in the world. Anyone who has sat in a primary class, a sharing
time, or listened to general primary leaders speak about children and the
Church’s unified effort to teach about and bring children to Christ has a long
way to go if they want to assert that this Church doesn’t want children to come
to Christ. I read one brief tweet that poignantly put it, “Oh look, people with
preexisting negative opinions of the Church have more negative opinions about
the Church.”
Further, if this announcement came from a Church intent on
winning members and their tithing dollars to support selfish interests, why
make such a politically damaging statement in the first place? Any public
relations advisor in the world would have counseled any organization against this,
which suggests that this decision was motivated by principles that come from
One who has never cared about public image and political correctness.
Why is it an issue?
I will not, nor should others, feign to comment on the “why”
behind this policy. While we can guess and speculate, there is safety in simply
reassuring our belief in core gospel principles and trusting God when our own
understanding gives out. We must remember that, while this is only an
announcement of a policy change, the underlying topic is one of great
seriousness to God and his prophets. Sexual relationships are intended to
invoke the most powerful ability God has given man—the create life. Anything that abuses, lessens,
casualizes, or contorts that ability offends God. Thus his prophets and
apostles have always protected the family, covenants, and children.
What would Jesus do?
I’m not in a position to speak for Christ and what He would
or wouldn’t do. I follow Christ as preached to me by ancient and modern
apostles whose job is it to bear witness of him and forgo inventing my own
Christ with the phrase, “well, that’s not the God I believe in.” Certainly, Elder Holland said this best,
What has the Lord done?
While it’s not my responsibility to say what Jesus would do, we can look at what the Lord has done. How many times in the Old
Testament alone did the Lord “cut off” individuals (and their families) from
the society of His followers because of transgression? To name a few:
- Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden which would affect them and their future children (Gen 3:23-24).
- God flooded the earth, children included, to prevent future children from birth into wicked families (Gen 6:7).
- Everyone in Babel (even children) had their language confounded and were scattered because of wickedness (Gen 11:9).
- Those unwilling to symbolize their commitment to the covenant through circumcision were removed from society with the seed of Abraham (Gen 17:14).
- Families who did not participate in the feast of unleavened bread were “cut off from Israel” (Ex 12:15, 19).
- Those who wanted to “make their own offering” and refused to recognize Aaron and his sons as priests removed their families Israel. (Ex 30:38, Lev 17:19).
- Those who didn’t observe the Sabbath were likewise “cut off” from Israel (Ex 31:14).
…just to name a few. In each of these examples the
transgression came from adults, however the results were certainly felt by
their children. As God explained in multiple places, “I the LORD thy God am a jealous
God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and
fourth generation of them that hate me” (Ex 20:5, 34:7, Num 14:18, Deut 5:9). The
point is clear: although man is responsible for his own transgressions, we are
influenced all the time by the choices of our environment and especially our
families. The Lord explained in D&C 93:39 that Satan “taketh away
light through disobedience and
traditions of fathers.”
Further, in each case, God’s actions protected individuals, especially children, from the spiritual
danger of trying to live a covenant life in an anti-covenant world. This
question about this policy is similar to a question often asked about the great
flood: why would a loving God kill millions of children just because their
parents are wicked? The answer comes in understanding how God prioritizes our
physical and our spiritual lives. For Him, losing a physical body pales in
severity to losing a soul through disobedience and covenant breaking. So too
with Church policies that ensure that anyone who undertakes to make a covenant
with God does so with full knowledge, full agency, and with the best chances to
keep that covenant. The Church is not forbidding anyone, children included, from
the gospel teachings and many of its blessings. Church policy, this case
included, is simply designed to preserve covenants and ensure that men, women,
and children have the most secure connection to God as possible.
My testimony is that this Church is, at every point, geared towards furthuring the cause of Christ in an increasingly Christ-less world. I have felt, and continue to feel, noting but love, encouragement, instruction, and enlightenment from scriptures, prophets, and gospel discussions. I trust that the leaders of the Church are inspired to help us all, children included, "come unto Christ and be perfected in him."
My testimony is that this Church is, at every point, geared towards furthuring the cause of Christ in an increasingly Christ-less world. I have felt, and continue to feel, noting but love, encouragement, instruction, and enlightenment from scriptures, prophets, and gospel discussions. I trust that the leaders of the Church are inspired to help us all, children included, "come unto Christ and be perfected in him."
2 comments
Hi Zach. I love that you offer your opinion that backs up the church policy but do so without speculation. Awesome. I haven't seen that anywhere else. I understand those speculating about defenses are just people upset and trying to make sense of it, but speculation as to why, such as "keeping people safe from breaking covenants" or "protecting the church legally" feel weird when we can only guess whether these are the reasons. One thing about your article that seems non sequitur is your example that Jesus has exacted punishments on adults that have hurt children in the past, and this policy is just more of that. You list many examples, but these are all old testament examples. The God of the Old Testament, Jehovah, bears little resemblance to Jesus of the New Testament, and though they are one and the same, the pre-atonement examples you cite bear little resemblance to post-atonement Jesus Christ, or New Testament Jesus who came to fulfill the law. The examples I can think of within the New Testament or Book of Mormon include times wear Lamanites were marked with a black skin (as were their children) as punishment, or maybe even the fact that Jesus kept the gospel only within the Jews. Modern day "punishments" on children include the ban on the blacks from temple covenants...Hmmm that is about it. You can probably think of more than I can. I just feel like citing the old testament exclusively and jumping to modern day weakens your argument. It was the atonement that changed the course of the world, and what our religion really focuses on, so old testament examples to justify policies that alienate or keep kids from baptism or are hurtful for children don't work for me. I do like and appreciate E. Holland's talk, and I think I am as guilty as any for imagining God in my image...by best imaginable image. But I don't think people who are concerned about this policy are doing so because they are inconvenienced from their marigold picking. I think it is both fundamentally Mormon and Fundamentally Christian to raise our voice when we are concerned for children. The prophets do after all have a history of acting as men, versus acting as prophets. Is this one of those times? Only time will tell. But my conscience is telling this is a man-made decision. And I respect if you feel it is prophetic.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the response Natalee--woohoo, first one! And thanks for the compliment. One reason I used so many Old Testament examples is because that's our current book of study and so those happened to be the most ready examples to come to mind. On your point of the God of the Old Testament bearing little resemblance to the Jesus of the New Testament I have to wholly and completely disagree. If there is one thing I have come to see as I've studied the Old Testament in depth it is the love and mercy of the Lord in his dealings with His children. Old Testament writers, in an effort to address struggling and or apostate Israel, often used stories where the Lord's children were living wickedly or in rebellion, hence the severity of the Lord can also be seen. But it was a merciful Lord who provided Adam and Eve a Savior to recover them from their fall, a merciful Lord who lifted Enoch and his people into heaven, a merciful God who cleansed the earth so that His children would not be forced into unspeakable wickedness, a merciful Lord who sent messenger after messenger after messenger to Lot and his family in Sodom in an effort to save them, a merciful Lord who covenanted with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to give them the blessings and riches of eternity, a merciful Lord who stayed with Joseph in all his trials and raised him to prince of Egypt, and a merciful Lord who lifted his children out of Egypt and sustained them for 40 years in the wilderness (just to name a few stories in the first two books). Truly, as Paul explained, "Jesus Christ [is] the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" (Hebrews 13:8).
DeleteOf course, as with any parent/child relationship, there exists between the Lord and us structure, discipline, and consequences. Of course we love to point to the God of the Old Testament to show this, but consider for a moment a few examples from the life of Jesus that show his propensity to be likewise strict with his disciples. For example, it was a strict yet loving Jesus who cleansed the temple of wickedness, a strict yet loving Jesus who demanded that his disciples leave all (even family) to follow him, a strict yet loving Jesus who taught bold doctrine from which many turned away, a strict yet loving Jesus who accepted nothing less than complete commitment from the rich young ruler who turned away, a strict yet loving Jesus who proclaimed repentance and consequence to the Jewish nation, and a strict yet loving Jesus who looked so sadly at Judas upon his betrayal. Indeed, Jesus said of himself, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household... And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me." (Matt 10:34-36, 38).
To your claim that this is a man-made policy, you're right, I do not choose to believe that. I'm not claiming that God spoke from the heavens and mandated a new policy, but I do have confidence that Church leaders spend time, prayers, fasting, counseling, and a great deal of listening for inspiration and revelation when it comes to making changes to Church policy. The problem in my mind with calling this a man-made decision is that, if it is man-made, it really makes no sense. Why would Church leaders enact a policy that would allow fewer people to be baptized? Had they announced that everyone can get baptized now, even babies, and start paying tithing and everyone can get married because we know that policy makes us unpopular and everyone can have the priesthood because we've felt such pressure ...then a claim of mortal origin might hold up. I find it a great hallmark of both Jesus and his disciples that, despite the laws, pressures, calls, and outcries from the world they act with boldness and bravery in defense of righteousness and right-ness.