My take on the LDS church's new policy on baptism of children of samesex couples.

Last week the LDS church made a change to its policy for baptism of children of same sex couples. Unless given permission from the highest governing body of the church, this policy requires that the child wait to be baptized until they are 18 years of age, have moved out of their home and disavowed the practice of same sex marriage. Almost instantaneously there was an out cry on Facebook and other social media  questioning the church on this new policy. Questions were asked as to whether the church felt that children of same sex marriages were somehow loved less by God than other children. The answer to that question is, of course, no. God is no respecter of persons and loves all men and woman equally and yet there remains the question of 'Why?'.

Elder D. Todd Christofferson later clarified the 'why' in a released statement. He said the new policy restricting children of same-sex couples from baptism until they are 18 originated from "a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years... We don't want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the church are very different". He goes on to explain that the policy changes are meant to protect family relationships, not to limit the opportunities for children in the church.

As I came to understand the reason behind the new policy I came to see it as a ruling of love, not of hate and one that was to unify a family, not divide it. Yet, I wondered did not Christ say,

"Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 19:14)

As I have thought and reflected about this over the last week my mind kept coming back to the story of the woman of Canaan as told in the 15th chapter of Mathew, it reads:

21 Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.

22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.

27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.

28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

Then in marked contrast:

29 Jesus departed from thence, and came nigh unto the sea of Galilee; and went up into a mountain, and sat down there.

30 And great multitudes came unto him, having with them those that were lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others, and cast them down at Jesus’ feet; and he healed them:

31 Insomuch that the multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb to speak, the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and they glorified the God of Israel.

I found the juxtaposition of these two stories informative. The Canaanite woman had plead for, as it were, crumbs from the table and those of the house of Israel where given bread in abundance almost without asking. One could again ask the question did God love the lost sheep of Israel more than those of the Canaanites. Again the answer is a resounding no. But what could lead the Lord to bless one with abundance allowing the cup to over flow with his healing power while the other could hardly wring out as it were a drop? As I reflected on this I came up with five possible reasons. 

The first I have already mentioned. Was it that God loved the children of Israel more than those of the Canaanites? Did not the daughter of this woman suffer? And yet it would seem that the plight of this mother had touched no cord of sympathy, and from His lips which were accustomed to providing  comfort to the downtrodden came words like daggers.  It could not be that God cared for one child more than another otherwise we could not have faith in Him sufficiently to trust His judgements to be fair. 

Could it then be because the Canaanite woman or her daughter were sinners? But this also does not make sense as a reason to withhold His healing power. Did Christ not come to redeem His children from their sins? And are we not all sinners? If He bestowed His blessings on the sinless soul only we would have seen no miracles throughout His mortal ministry. 

Then was it because she had not the faith sufficient to see her daughter healed? The Saviour himself confirmed that she did. For as He said, she was a woman of great faith.

The Saviour could have done this because she was different from Him, a Canaanite. As a Jew He could have justified his action as one of national, religious or personal identity. She was, by definition His enemy, one whose ideological political and theological ideas differed from His own. However, as the creator of us all, Christ knew that all mankind both Jew and gentile were created in the image of God. He saw this woman as she was - a daughter of God. As such I am sure it brought great anguish to His soul to deny her request.  

This leaves me to believe the only rational reason to deny this woman was what He said it was. The gospel was promised to the Jew first and then to the gentile and as such, the timing was not right. When the time was right the full blessings of the gospel would be given to her and her daughter and they both would be invited to sup at the table, but that time was not then. 

I see similar parallels to the policy as stated by the church to Christ's treatment of this Canaanite woman. It is not as some would have you believe. It is not that the church leaders feel that the children of traditional families are more valued then those of a same sex couples. Nor is it because they see these children as sinners or lacking faith to be a part of the household of God. Finally, it is not because they are attempting to punish the parents or the child for their ideological differences. It is simply a matter of timing. When the time is right these children will receive the full blessings of the gospel. I take the leaders at their word that they want to prevent conflict within the home during crucial developmental years. As such they have asked the  child wait but a moment. And unlike when Christ asked man to watch and wait with Him, He will not slumber during our moments of greatest need. In fact I believe he will grant more mercy, more love, more compassion and more help to those who He has asked to wait. For he has promised to give  "power to the faint; and to them that have no might he increaseth strength... [For] they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint." (Isiah 40:31)

Parenthetical note:

I also do not believe that the First Presidency would add a provision to override the policy if they had no intention of allowing it. As the Saviour, I believe the First Presidency will see the righteous desires of  parents who request the healing ordinances for their children and where prompted will grant them their request.