I first read about the change on Facebook. I thought it was a hoax at first. I checked google. It wasn't a joke. The Church was really keeping children from being baptized and ordained. I immediately thought of the scripture that so many have quoted regarding this 'change': "suffer little children to come unto me"... (Matthew 19:14)
But then I looked into the reason behind the policy. I thought about the implications it would have...on both the children and the parents. I felt like it was a good idea to attempt to get a perspective from every side (as I do not believe there are just 'two' sides to this...there are the children, the same-sex parents, the leaders of the LDS church who made the policy addition to the handbook, the active members of the LDS church, the members of the LDS church who have not stepped inside a church house in awhile, and those who have never been to a LDS church but feel just as inclined to make judgement calls). There are alot of players to this roulette. And be especially weary of that black and white print you read that uses false words like "shun", "hate", "bigotry" and "for humanity's sake".....that shows a lack of full and complete understanding regarding the whole topic.
The arguments against this new policy change are varied and many times heated. A few I've heard are this:
*I feel like this change is trying to make me feel bad enough as a parent to end my [same-gender] relationship [because I am now responsible for keeping them from being baptized or receiving ordination to the priesthood].
*Oh look, it's an old, gray monotonous-tone man interviewing another old, gray monotonous tone man." [Does this mean the church isn't 'hip' or trending right along with the world and so it must not be relevant? Or do they think that only those their relative same age have anything to offer them?]
*But Jesus said, "Forbid them not" and suffer the little children to come unto Him. Why is the church keeping children away from baptism and ordination when Christ told his disciples to let the children come to him?
*"It's 2015, man"
*Doesn't God love ALL His children? This change affects people personally, and will cause alot of harm, damage, pain and heartache.
*The scariest one is this: "God is not in this decision"
But, truthfully, if we sat down and addressed all these concerns, and any others, to the point of potential clear understanding, would any of those proponents for the above concerns all of a sudden change their minds? Would they flip their view point and claim adherence to the new policy that just previously they were vehemently against? There may be a few exceptions, but the majority will probably hold steady to what they brought to the table.
So, if we are honest with ourselves, does this new policy change more accurately show what "side" we are already on rather than 'helping us choose' which side to align ourselves with.
Most of the arguments have focused on ONE single item. Either the relationship between child and parent(s) or the relationship between the family and the Church.
Can we step back and focus on the BLESSING, COVENANT and ORDINATION this policy is dealing with. This may help. Not many arguments address these specific events in the child's life for which the policy change was dedicated.
Baby Blessing, Baptism (between ages 8-17) and Priesthood Ordination (prior to 18 years of age).
Side thought: For those who argue "for humanity's sake" and say that this policy change is targeting people that have done no wrong and are being ill-treated....we need to address something serious.
And that is: absolutes.
It seems as though the world would wish that 'whatever and whoever and however' people wish to live should be left alone. Of course we know that the full extent of that argument cannot hold true---the terrorist event in Paris and events in Egypt show that allowing people to do 'whatever' they want according to their beliefs is dangerous--fatally so.
But those same proponents of this strain of thought say, "those living in same-sex relationships are doing no one harm". There is no argument there. You are absolutely right. "But shouldn't they be allowed happiness and love, too?" Of course, no one wishes to condemn them, or anyone, to a life sub-par to that which would provide the greatest chance of happiness. But, using that same strain of thought, and not to diminish something so large and serious, I could say, "food makes me really happy and I should be able to eat as much and whatever I want. It just makes me happy." There are too many studies and real life examples to show that the effect of that free exercise of thought does not end up bringing happiness. It does for awhile. That hamburger, french fry, Marie Callender chocolate satin pie, all taste REAL good going down....but I CANNOT escape the equally real consequences. I will have to buy bigger clothes to support my 'happiness'. Some food is good, necessary even. But too much? Not a good idea. I know, people are not on the same level as food. But, hold on. Let me explain. First, read the scripture below:
2 Nephi 2:13 "And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away."
Now, back to absolutes. There are absolutes in this life. We cannot escape them. Gravity, cooking food to healthy temperatures...there are things that are true no matter how much people could scream the opposite. The arguments against absolutes do not hold up. How about bringing children into this world? Is that an absolute? Is there ANY other way other than bringing a man and a woman together, using their respective creative powers? So far, and I'm pretty sure it won't change, there has not been found another way to bring a child into this world. We need one man and one woman. This is the beginning of existence. Let me be bold and say that the purpose of existence, is to learn God's law, obey it and try to assist as many people along the way as possible before we pass onto the next life for judgment on those tenets.
We begin life with a man and woman, they have a child. That child is their responsibility until he/she reaches the age of maturity (though the law says 18, it can be argued that some reach that age much later on in life...some never do?). That child is best helped when taught right from wrong. The child is incapable of this lesson, cognitively speaking, until age 8. Now how does this relate to the LDS Church and its policy? The LDS Church baptizes children age 8 and above. But will no longer do so for children who live with parents who are in a same-sex gender relationship. Why? Let's first look at why the LDS Church does not baptize infants and little children :
Moroni 8:8, 10, 13, "Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.
Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children.
Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell."
adf
Abraham 2:12 "Now, after the Lord had withdrawn from speaking to me, and withdrawn his face from me, I said in my heart: Thy servant has sought thee earnestly; now I have found thee"
