Clarity in the Mormon Church's position on gay marriage

I admit I was surprised this week when I read about the change in the church manual regarding same-sex marriages: from now on, marrying a partner of the same sex (which for convenience I will refer to as gay marriage, regardless of gender) is seen as apostasy. This means that anyone who participates in such a marriage is obliged to appear before a disciplinary council. That does not immediately mean exclusion; the council decides on this. However, I can imagine that anyone who does not conform to the church's doctrine regarding marriage and marriage The Family: A Proclamation to the World, can expect to be excommunicated.

Clarity: Eternal marriage is between a man and a woman

I like that clarity. I do not hide the fact that I believe in the doctrine that marriage is between a man and a woman according to the commandments of our Heavenly Father. The fact that the public authorities have allowed an administrative commitment to people of the same sex is their right and everyone must decide for themselves. As Mormons we respect legal authority and democratic laws, but that does not mean that within our faith we suddenly think differently about marriage between a man and a woman.

I choked when I read that ordinances such as baptism and confirmation will no longer be given to children from a same-sex marriage. My first idea was that children are punished for their parents' choices. It seemed unfair to me.

But I was confident that our prophet would not declare this without clear revelation from the Lord. As much as it was difficult for me to understand at first and ask sincere questions, I knew that if I prayed I would understand.

Because I also see how much effort our church makes to find a balance between love for all and respect for the rights of people with same-sex attraction, while also requiring respect for the tenets that Mormons believe in.

Respect for the laws and the choices of others

Just look at what our Apostle Elder Oaks said about the refusal of official Kim Davis to marry gay couples. That is different from simply saying that she had the right to decide based on her faith to no longer respect the rights of others. Elder Oaks has made it clear that the law is clear and everyone must respect the law.

The Mormon Church got it too worldwide respect when she took initiatives earlier this year to protect the rights of gays, lesbians and transgender people in the housing and job market. Apostle Elder Holland then said: “We must find ways to show respect for people whose beliefs, values ​​and behavior differ from ours while at the same time never being forced to deny or abandon our beliefs and values.”

Clarification from the church

There have been many reactions worldwide to the change in the church manual. It now appears that this change was leaked by a pro-gay activist and the church has therefore been caught in haste. Yesterday an interview with Apostle Elder Christofferson was published, who provides a lot of insight into the event:

For those who don't take the time to watch the entire interview, a short summary.

First, nothing has been done other than the church's response to it same-sex marriage with the response to polygamous or plural marriages. Anyone who participates in this can expect the same consequences as those who enter into a same-sex marriage. There is actually no comment on this, on the contrary, the church is usually still viewed as a church that supports polygamy, but the opposite is true.

So it should be clear that the church is clear about its definition of marriage: an everlasting (yes, even after death) covenant between man, woman and God. That is a cornerstone of our faith. Anyone who opposes that is opposing the Mormon Church. If you don't believe in that, you probably don't believe in the rest of our story either. That is your right, but surely you can hardly expect the core of a belief to suddenly change because the world is changing?

Secondly, there will also be a clarification as to why children are “excluded”. As harsh as it sounds, it's clearly about that the protection of children. Children are fiercely loyal to their parents. That's nature. Even children who are abused often still crave love from parents.

So I can't imagine that a child would be torn at a young age between the love for his gay parents and what he learns in church. It would also be considered terrible if children were required to declare at the age of eight – the age at which children are baptized in the Mormon Church – that they disapprove of their parents' marriage.

So it seems only normal to me that you wait with that question until they are eighteen years old and are wise enough to make that choice themselves with all the nuances. Whatever that should be clear: the manual never says that they should lose weight or turn their backs on their parents. The handbook does say that children of a same-sex marriage should be clear that they fully support the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regarding marriage between a man and a woman and thus distance themselves from that specific behavior of their parents.

I also don't agree with a lot of things my parents do, but does that diminish my love? Who doesn't have problems with certain things about his or her parents? Let us not be hypocritical about this and accept that it is perfectly possible for a child to disagree with his parents, but this does not reduce mutual love. Mutual respect for one's own opinion is what they call that, I think.

Protection out of love

In retrospect, I think it is only normal that the church draws up the rules in such a way that... no heartbreaking choices are imposed at an age when a child is still developing their own life and opinions.

I can recommend it to everyone Brandi Walton's blog to read. She is the daughter of a lesbian marriage and she is a Mormon and wrote last night from her own experience about what she thinks about the change to the manual. She says, among other things, “I can't imagine what it must feel like for a child to sit in the bishop's office and have to disapprove of his parents' marriage or relationship.”

So instead of seeing all this as a punishment for children, it is much more an act of love and protection. But at the same time, the church cannot and will not distance itself from the teaching on marriage. There is also no love in deceiving people about their eternal happiness. How wrong would it be to know that you are depriving someone of eternal happiness by showing them the wrong path? Usually a rebuke in church is also an act of love and protection. Can we then accept that this is now also the case and that every difficult situation - and there will certainly be one; just think, for example, of children from broken homes where one parent suddenly realizes that they would be happy in a gay marriage - will be viewed from the perspective of love and protection by our leaders? I believe it is already there.