Come Now, and Let Us Reason Together

This morning my Facebook feed was filled with news, posts, comments, and rants about the new Church policy regarding children of same-sex couples, as well as broadening the definition of apostasy to include participation in (meaning being a spouse in, as I understand it) a same-sex marriage. Children of same-sex couples cannot receive ordinances (name and blessing as a baby, baptism, or ordination to the priesthood for males) until they are adults, no longer living with the same-sex parents, disavow same-sex marriage, and are cleared by the first presidency.

Most seem a bit blindsided by this new policy. Recently, it seems the Church has done much to be more inclusive, while still maintaining it's doctrine on marriage. Working with state and community leaders in Utah and supporting legislation that would protect LGBT citizens. Giving a substantial donation to a shelter that serves homeless LGBT youth. Elder Oaks's recent presentation on religious liberty, in which he argued for the necessity of government officials sustaining the law of the land in regard to same-sex marriage (issuing marriage licenses, etc). He called for accommodation and civility, not culture wars. Then this policy from the handbook get published in several newspapers. Cue the culture wars.

Most of the discussion I have seen has been from those in some way associated with the Church, either current, inactive, or former member. The responses have ranged from confusion to outrage. To this point, I haven't seen anyone who is really excited about the change. Everyone, regardless of their activity level in the Church, seems to be saddened by this news. I doubt there is anyone in the Church who is untouched by this issue in general. We all know someone, have a friend, a sibling, a cousin. We hurt for them, for one more time they seemingly hear, "this is not for you." The comments have been ranged from the mournful, to the subdued "wait and see," to the smug "I always knew they were just mean," to the accusative "this is hateful and vindictive." Some have wondered why these children and not the children of other "sinners," such as unmarried heterosexual couples. Others have picked up this thread to argue what the differences are in the various situations proposed and why this makes perfect logical sense. Some talk about the legal ramifications for the Church, on both sides of the issue. Some say it's to prevent families from being torn apart, while others argue it does exactly that. Many are having a hard time reconciling this with the scriptures we are taught in Sunday School ("suffer the little children . . ."), while others are seeing this as the nail in the coffin of their testimony and affiliation with the Church. (A blog post of interest: this one is written by a historian and gives some interesting context as to how the very similar policy regarding polygamy, which seems like a normal policy to us now, would have been received in its own day--really good read.)

 As I looked at all the arguments before me, I almost commented on a few of them. I thought I had some pretty good responses that would just really clear some things up for some people. Then I read a bit more, and thought of some better ideas. Then I kept reading and found some other reasons and some other rationales. Then I realized I had no idea why this policy was really put forth the way it was right now. I saw all the arguments, the reasoning, the rationales, and a familiar, uncomfortable scene came to my mind. Nephi, having just ended his great vision, the same vision his father saw, comes across his brothers. "And they were disputing with one another concerning the things which my father [or the Church Handbook] had spoken unto them. For he truly spake many great things unto them, which were hard to be understood" (1 Nephi 15:2-3). To these brothers' credit, they were trying to figure things out, and even Nephi says this was tough stuff. The problem with this situation is the "disputing with one another." When they ask Nephi, he doesn't just tell them what Lehi's words mean, which he could have (He did just have the vision, after all). Instead, he answers with his own question: "Have ye inquired of the Lord?"(8). That question gets me every time. And every time I imagine that punched-in-the-gut feeling Nephi must have had from his brothers' response: "we have not; for the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us" (9).

 Now, I am not dismissing the importance of public discourse, of reason, or intellect. I think we are rational beings, and we were created that way. We should use our intellect and reason to engage in great discussion and search for answers. Didn't God say that we are in essence intelligence (Abr. 3:22)? Doesn't He say He would answer our prayers in our heart and in our mind (D&C 8:2)? Certainly this reasoning step is not unimportant. But when it turns to disputing with each other, when it turns to making leaps and forcing doctrine to fit (or not fit at times) our own political dogma, I think we've maybe left out part of the equation. Reason, yes, but have you ever met a human being? We are not purely rational. Sometimes we need more. Sometimes we need help in this process. Sometimes it is better to not just reason with Facebook. As it says in Isaiah, "Come now, and let us reason together." For me, for now, I think the best One for me to reason with and wrestle with over this issue is the Lord.

 Ultimately, I do not have answers. I am saddened for those who this personally hurts. I don't want to wound anyone. I don't want to think of my religion as exclusionary. I do find it interesting that this is part of the handbook that is for ward and stake leaders, instructing them in their lay ministry. This was not a Church announcement to the world, but something leaked to the press (not that it was a secret, but it was intended for Church leaders). To some this might make it seem even more hateful and mean. I see this being in the same handbook as the instructions for Church disciplinary councils, which many also might see as mean or hateful. I have a different perspective on that, which would be a whole other long post. But I see how those are ultimately a form of love and compassion, removing the responsibility of covenants from those who would stand condemned by them if they still carried them. To those who don't believe in such covenants or condemnation, or God, for that matter, it seems like somebody getting kicked out of the club. This new policy is in the same handbook that instructs these leaders on conducting temple recommend interviews with the accompanying questions. Again, many see this as an exclusionary practice, the Church trying to keep the riff-raff out of their fancy temples. But here I have come to see love, questions that ensure people are not taking on covenants that we truly believe are binding before they are ready. So I don't have answers yet on this issue; I have questions. If these other things in the handbook are actually loving, can this actually be loving too? And how so? So many are accusing the Church leadership of being hateful. My question is, what if that isn't their motive? What if the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, who I have seen and felt such love from before, are being loving now? What if someday we all understand why this was actually an important thing to do, but right now, just hours after the news, it makes no sense? What if this is from God? What if He is heading this Church and directing it and inspiring its leaders? The best answer I can come up with for now, and the best I have felt about it all day is when the Lord says, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways . . . For as the heavens are higher that the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:8-9).It's been less than a day. I trust more answers will come, as they have before.