Response to Guest post on "A Well-Behaved Mormon Woman"

They may not be the finest arguments, just my initial thoughts when reading this article...

"A guest post by Michael Terrence Worley in response to recent news reports that, according to new LDS Church policy children within a same-sex marriage (or household) may not be baptized (or blessed). I expect to hear more from the Church on the matter as clearly this is being blown out of proportion by those critical of the Church. Note: Church Spokesman, Eric Hawkins, has confirmed that this is the policy of the Church.

"Cue "Bill Nye" voice...
Did you know that, in the LDS Faith, a child cannot get baptized without their parents' approval? A spouse cannot be baptized without their husband's or wife's consent? And, in addition, if the parents practice polygamy, the child cannot get baptized? The church does a TON to protect children and spouses from being taught one thing at home and another thing at church.

Disingenuous argument and false parallels. Polygamy is against the law and “consent” of a spouse is extremely informal and in no way equal to the consent of a legal guardian.

"Sorry, "Bill Nye" voice again...
Did you know that the LDS Faith is very careful in how it proselytizes Muslims? Even in countries that protect the religious freedom of both Christians and Muslims, there are cultural differences that make it dangerous for Muslims to convert to Christianity.

It can be argued that the church simply does not want that kind of negative attention. 

Each of these boundaries provides protections for the church, the prospective member, and the family. For the church, it allows them to clearly teach God's plan of Salvation (centered on Jesus Christ and marriage between a man and a woman) without worrying that those they teach will face conflict at home. For the family members of those involved, it allows family autonomy and reduces conflict and secrecy. For the prospective member, it helps them not have to lose vital family relationships (and, if they are under 18, food and shelter).

Yes, the church “worries” about their doctrines causing “conflict” at home. The family “autonomy” started beforehand, when a couple decides it is okay to allow their 8+ year old to make the decision in the first place. For the member, that argument is circular: they would only lose relationships due to the church forcing them to disavow them. 

"While Christ does ask us to be prepared to give up family to follow him, (Matthew 10:37), he never teaches that one should attempt to be both a good family member and a good church member if those two are at odds. Let me explain one more thing before I address the reason I wrote this post, if you'll bear with me. It is not a small matter to become a member of the LDS Church. As I explained above, if an adult Muslim wants to become a member of the church, the church may still decline to baptize the candidate simply because of cultural conflicts. Those who were raised in polygamous households also have extra requirements asked of them if they wish to be baptized. This policy is not a sign of a lack of love, but rather, in the context of the plan of salvation, a recognition that the doctrines and ordinances of Christ are for all in His time, not ours. See Isaiah 55:8-9, Proverbs 3:5-6; Alma 40:8; Moroni 8; Doctrine and Covenants 88:73.

“It is not a small matter to become a member…” Tell that to the millions of inactive members taught the gospel by young missionaries who didn’t know what they were doing, but were driven by baptism goals set by the church that now touts that baptism is still a “sacred ordinance.” 

In this context, two policies accurately leaked to the media today-- and, in at least one case, reported sensationally-- make more sense. I (and the media) say two policies, but I will split them into three policies. The first policy is that choosing to be married to a same-gender partner is incompatible with church membership ("apostasy"). As I mentioned above, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is centered on the value of Christ's atonement to the bond between a husband and a wife and their children. While individuals may experience and act on same-sex attraction without being apostate, the church considers the step of being a party to a same-gender marriage as a sufficient repudiation of the doctrine of the plan of salvation to constitute apostasy.

My only argument here is against the church and all Christianity: It is clearly ignorant to interpret the Bible as it stands into this form of belief and practice. This is not to mention the fact that the Bible and its history is rife with falsehoods and contradictions, misquoting and false attributions. 

"The second policy, like the ones I began the post with, has the effect of not putting children at the center of a conflict between their household and the teachings of their church. The policy is that any child who is being raised by a same-sex couple may not receive baptism or be blessed as a baby. Like with the policies I mentioned above, it protects not just the child, but the church and the household who is raising the child. Conflicts are inevitable if a child is taught that the child's legal guardians are sinners-- and the only way for them to stop being sinners is by ending their relationship.

Many problems here. Baptizing an 8 year old, even though the claim is it’s the age of accountability, is only chosen because its fun and because all the other kids are doing it. It’s the same with baby blessings. When the kid is sitting in primary (this probably would rarely come up) if they are the only one without a baby blessing, they are possibly more likely to be marginalized. The baby blessing is essentially something for the parents, not the baby. There is a bit of hypocrisy in this argument above. Conflicts are also inevitable (after both parents consent to an ordinance) if one of the child’s parents don’t practice Mormonism. We don’t hear about the church teaching children that their atheistic parent is a sinner and that the other parent needs to separate from that (although that was common a few decades ago). To rid the stain of hypocrisy, the church should change the age of accountability to 18 across the board. 

 The final policy is that those who are adults and were raised by same-sex couples must meet extra standards before becoming baptized. This, like the policies regarding adults who are/were Muslims and adult children of polygamous parents, serves to protect the candidate. In the context of the plan of salvation, this policy will aim to help people come closer to Christ by helping them be baptized in an environment where they can spiritually grow.

“…in an environment where they can spiritually grow.” The above paragraph seems to be carefully dancing and tiptoeing around the bush. What I am gathering from it is pure ignorance and hate. I read it saying same-sex couples are inferior parents. Period. I shouldn’t touch it, but the mentioning of polygamous parents, again, doesn’t equate. History has shown most contemporary polygamous practices are abusive to children in more than one way. 

"I sustain these policies. Some of my friends may well disagree with these policies. However, I plea with them to not lessen their commitment to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Nothing that happens in this church-- however hard it may seem to be-- changes the fact that God spoke to a 14-year-old boy in 1820. As that boy wrote later in his life: Brethren, shall we not go on in so great a cause? Go forward and not backward. Courage, brethren; and on, on to the victory! Let your hearts rejoice, and be exceedingly glad. Even if you disagree wholeheartedly with my church's stance on a few issues, please read the Book of Mormon and pray until the peace and mercy and grace that you need to "go on in so great a cause" comes. "

“Even if you disagree wholeheartedly with my church’s stance on a few issues, please [read this fiction that is full of propaganda and pray to god who has been very poorly defined by Christianity until you feel something positive from either emotion or the Halloween candy you ate because anything positive means the “negative” feelings you had from the disagreement have been proven false….because…you know….prayer and stuff.]