When I converted to Christianity about 15 years ago, my dear, late mother was not impressed. She was an avowed agnostic — if perennial fence sitters can be said to be “avowed” in anything. And her very first words when I told her were: “Really? I thought you were more intelligent than that.” Can you hear the dismissive sniff at the beginning of that sentence? I could.
That sentence stung me, and has stayed with me ever since. It’s a reminder that doubt, uncertainty and questioning of faith are to be welcomed and not feared. I found myself a church that encouraged me to think rather than just emote, and I have stayed there ever since.
As an aside, I suspect it is easier to be secular, agnostic, atheist, and/or anti-theist in a country that is now predominantly a combination of all of those things, if religious affiliation figures from the 2013 Census are anything to go by.
Church-going, it seems, is often seen these days as quaint and irrelevant. And I also think it is easier not to be Christian and Māori (outside of Māori faith communities), when many Māori now see that rejecting the Christian message goes along with rediscovering mātauranga Māori. Christianity has become symbolic of the oppression of Māori culture and ways of doing things. A 19 percent drop in Māori identifying as Christian since 2001 supports this observation.
Nevertheless, there is one religion where Māori figure very prominently. It’s the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS, or “Mormons”). Although I can find no figures on the 2013 census, 50 percent of self-identified Mormons in the 2006 census were Māori.
Indeed the Māori identity of the church is sometimes seen as a hindrance to expansion. In an analysis of LDS church growth, a researcher, Matt Martinich, says the church continues to have a problem converting white New Zealanders because of secularism, materialism, and disinterest in organised religion. He also points to public perception of the church as a predominantly Māori and Pacific Islander institution.
I had direct experience of the church’s appeal in my own life. As an eight-year-old growing up in an irreligious household, I looked for other people outside my own home who seemed to sense a God presence in the way I did.
I got to know a family whose house I used to pass every day on the way to school. I just started talking to their whāngai son, a boy of my own age, and then I started talking to the rest of the family — and one day I ended up in their station-wagon on the way to their church, the Church of Latter-Day Saints.
I kept going to church with them for the next eight years. As a result, the missionaries became a regular feature at our house. Mum would let them meet with me and teach me, and they would double me on their 10-speeds up and down the drive, and play basketball with me. They introduced me to Air Supply (the ‘80s, okay?). And they listened to me. And I loved them.
But I knew they had a mission to get me baptised. My mother was resolute: No baptism until I was 16. That was the age she believed I would know my own mind well enough to make that kind of decision.
I knew better, of course, and so did the elders. You see, eight has always been the age of accountability in Mormonism. That is when children are deemed to know right from wrong, and when they are able to choose the right or wrong path in life.
I went to many baptisms, many Testimony Sundays, and, while I was always accepted and tolerated, I knew I was only ever what the church calls “an investigator.” That’s someone checking out the wares, someone not willing or not able to commit.
Until I was baptised I was only partly there, partly integrated. Eventually, I drifted away and, by the time I attained the magical age of 16, I no longer cared for the church, although the cadences of LDS prayer, the hymns, some of the theology, and my sense of deference to male authority figures stayed with me a long, long time.
I remain comfortable in Mormon environments, and I married a returned missionary (now excommunicated). Every so often we have knocks on the door and we invite the elders or sisters in for kai. It’s not hard.
So, Māori Mormonism is a force to be reckoned with. Thousands of Māori turned to LDS teachings in the 19th century, partly because of its focus on Old Testament teaching and on a claim that Māori were descendants of the lost tribe of Israel, or the descendants of the Mormon prophet Lehi.
Another influence was the effort of missionaries such as Matthew Crowley in the 1880s. And, sometimes, Māori were just hacked off at how they had been treated by Anglicans and Catholics, and they turned to Mormonism instead. (See here for an explanation of those particular connections. Or if you would prefer something a little more scholarly, try here.)
My residual fondness for Mormons and the LDS church has meant I’ve found an item I read in the newspaper all the more appalling. The church has issued new rules on how to deal with LGBT members, and their children. Given Māori membership of the church, these new rules are likely to affect Māori disproportionately.
Here is a taste:
The new rules stipulate that children of parents in gay or lesbian relationships, be it marriage or just living together, can no longer receive blessings as infants. Or be baptised when they are about eight years old. Or serve on a mission as young adults unless they:
- Disavow the practice of same-sex relationships.
- Turn 18 and no longer live with gay parents.
- Get approval from their local leader and the highest leaders at church headquarters in Salt Lake City.
The church views these key milestones as acts that bind a person to the faith and as promises to follow its doctrine.
Just to be clear, now being LGTB is also grounds for excommunication.
Now, lest I be accused of being a pot calling a kettle inky, I belong to the Anglican Church which does not (yet) endorse same-sex marriage. And, in view of the enormous schism such support would cause between the African Church and the rest of Anglicanism, that situation will likely remain for a while.
I’m open to that charge of hypocrisy. But there has never been such an edict against children that I am aware of in my church. And I’m not sure there ever would be.
I cannot emphasise how much of a cultural death sentence this is for Mormon children of LGBT parents. They are being effectively excluded from the rituals of belonging that punctuate every young Mormon person’s life.
Without baptism, Mormon children can’t take sacrament (communion). The young boys cannot receive the Aaronic priesthood at the age of 12 that would allow them to be deacons in the church.
These kids cannot participate fully in the life of the church and they cannot work towards the high goal of so many young Mormons: serving a mission. Well, they can, provided they disown their LGBT parents. Now, there’s a choice.
One of the most successful aspects of the church is its ability to create a culture that is attractive and that its people, particularly Māori in this country, seem to want to be part of. Like Catholics, Mormons understand the importance and unifying power of being culturally, as well as religiously, Mormon.
So this edict is no mere technicality. It is cultural and spiritual exclusion of the highest order for people who are the least equipped to fight it — because they are children.
I well remember singing this song at church…
I am a Child of God
and He has sent me here
has given me an Earthly home with parents kind and dear.
When I was kid in the church I always knew I was a Child of God. Because I could get baptised some day. Maybe even soon. Even me, an investigator with a recalcitrant mother. I was worth baptising. Now some kids, likely Māori, will know they are not.
Auē.
Thank you for reading E-Tangata. If you like our focus on Māori and Pasifika stories, interviews, and commentary, we need your help. Our content takes skill, long hours and hard work. But we're a small team and not-for-profit, so we need the support of our readers to keep going.
If you support our kaupapa and want to see us continue, please consider making a one-off donation or contributing $5 or $10 a month.
Respectfully, I find it
Respectfully, I find it highly contentious that a self-identified LGBT person, you would even participate in a Church that has done so much to under-hand the LGBTQI* movement in both society and within our families. Ko whakawahine ahau – I am a transgender woman – and a baptized Mormon(in my previous identity). Grandchild of a devout Bishop so I speak from a similar view point – maybe from a better perspective in that sense. I loved the Church as a child – it was a place that I loved to be. I was always there with my aunts or grand parents because my parents weren’t active. But as soon as I caught wind of the reasons why my gay uncle didn’t attend, I relented on my membership because I was always taught to value the relationships forged by blood – by the will, and love of the thousands of(non-Christian) tūpuna that lay before me – over anything else. Ko aroha. I thought that if this is something that was truly good, then it would never trample on a persons mana – or on the attributes of a person of which they have no control over. And so I turned and never looked back. “How can the Mormon church justify this”, you ask? The question should actually be, “how can they not”? It seems you forget who you share a table with.
Church to allow baptisms, blessings for children of LGBT parents, updates handbook regarding ‘apostasy’
By
Tad Walch
@tad_walch
Published: April 4, 2019 8:59 am
Updated: yesterday
SALT LAKE CITY — Children of parents who identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender may now be blessed as infants and later baptized as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, according to updates announced Thursday to November 2015 church policies intended at the time to maintain family harmony but perceived as painful by some supporters of the LGBT community.
The church also will update its handbook of instructions for leaders to remove the label of apostasy for homosexual behavior that was applied beginning in November 2015, said President Dallin H. Oaks, first counselor in the First Presidency, who announced the changes on behalf of the First Presidency on Thursday morning during the leadership session of the church’s 189th Annual General Conference.
Thursday’s news marked the first time the church had released information from a leadership session for general authorities and area seventies leading into a general conference, underscoring the importance of the changes that brought swift reaction locally and across the nation and world.
“The very positive policies announced this morning should help affected families,” President Oaks said. “In addition, our members’ efforts to show more understanding, compassion and love should increase respect and understanding among all people of good will. We want to reduce the hate and contention so common today. We are optimistic that a majority of people — whatever their beliefs and orientations — long for better understanding and less contentious communications. That is surely our desire, and we seek the help of our members and others to attain it.”
In a news release, the First Presidency said the changes were the result of extended counseling with the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and “fervent, united prayer to understand the will of the Lord on these matters.”
Positive step
Reaction Thursday included surprise, gratitude and joy and was followed in the nation’s major news outlets as a significant moment in relations between the church and the LGBTQ community.
“I see this as an encouraging, positive step forward,” said Troy Williams, executive director of Equality Utah, who pulled off the freeway in Price, Utah to respond to a call. “We’ve seen such great compassion and warmth and love from members of the church, who have become allies. So, this to me is a realignment of the very best of Mormon people.”
Tom Christofferson, who describes himself as a gay, single, active member of the church in good standing, was preparing to board a plane to Utah, where he will deliver a devotional at the Utah Valley Latter-day Saint Institute in Orem on Friday. He said he was thrilled the announcement would lift a worry for gay parents who want to support their children in the church.
“The big message to me is that this continues to be something that the brethren are seeking further light and knowledge on, and I’m really grateful for that,” added Christofferson, author of “That We May Be One: A Gay Mormon’s Perspective On Faith and Family.”
He said his mind was on friends and others who stopped associating with the church after November 2015.
“I’m thinking of them today and hoping that they will feel that this removed the impediment that they had seen to their continued engagement,” he said. “I hope many will want to come back and worship with us again.”
NFL Hall of Fame quarterback Steve Young woke up in Hawaii to a phone choked with messages about the policy changes. Last week he joined his wife, Barb, and other members of the board of Encircle as they made a presentation to the church’s Public Affairs Committee. Encircle operates programs in Salt Lake and Utah counties that seek to deepen and enrich conversations in families and between faith communities and LGBTQ+ people.
“We’ve all been looking for things to get better for our LGBT brothers and sisters, and the policy rescission is a tremendous step forward,” Young said. “To have that go away allows for some really productive conversations to take place inside of families, and to try and keep families together and create space for people.”
Developing policy
In November 2015, the church’s previous First Presidency led by the late President Thomas S. Monson issued new policies and handbook instructions that children living with a same-gender couple could not receive baby blessings or baptism and that entering a same-sex marriage was apostasy requiring a church disciplinary council. Disciplinary councils can lead to excommunication.
At the time, church leaders said the policies were intended to avoid confusion and conflict in families headed by same-sex couples.
Throughout 2015, LGBT church members and supporters had expressed public gratitude for developments in the church, including the launch of its mormonandgay.lds.org website and its fairness-for-all approach, which undergirded the Utah Compromise. That compromise became national news when it became a law in Utah that provided legal protection for LGBT people in housing and employment while strengthening religious freedom protections.
In March 2015, Equality Utah’s Williams stood together with Latter-day Saint apostles while Utah’s governor signed the Utah Compromise into law.
“We were making progress together,” Williams said, “but sometimes progress doesn’t go in a straight line. Sometimes it swerves a little bit. … I see (Thursday’s announcement) as really realigning the best values of the faith, which is compassion and kindness and bearing one another’s burdens.”
At the time they announced the November 2015 policies, church leaders reaffirmed their longstanding position that church members should not exclude or be disrespectful to those who choose a different lifestyle. They also said church members could express political support for same-sex marriage without consequence to their church membership.
Still, some said the policies were painful for them and critics launched petitions calling on guest performers to cancel appearances with the Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square and to boycott games against Brigham Young University, the church’s flagship school.
“When the November policy was announced, I was in Chicago and I just walked outside into the rain just cried because I knew the harmful impact it would have on Latter-day Saint families like mine,” said Equality Utah’s Williams, a gay man who grew up in the church and said LGBT issues had been a wedge between him and his parents.
Revelation’s role
As church leaders shared the changes Thursday, they said they were focused on treating all people with love, kindness and civility. They make clear distinctions between church doctrine and church policies and said Thursday’s changes are limited to policies.
“These changes do not represent a shift in church doctrine related to marriage or the commandments of God in regard to chastity and morality,” the release said. “The doctrine of the Plan of Salvation and the importance of chastity will not change.”
President Russell M. Nelson, who succeeded President Monson as church president, was president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in 2015. He said in early 2016 that the November 2015 policies were the result of revelation. Latter-day Saints believe their church is the restored church of Jesus Christ and that God directs the church through ongoing revelation through a living prophet, the church president.
President Nelson, who became the church president in January 2018, reiterated in his talk to general and area authorities from around the world during Thursday morning’s meeting that a flurry of policy changes over the past year were inspired by revelation.
President Henry B. Eyring, second counselor in the First Presidency, said the church needs God’s direction to meet changing circumstances and he has guided changes in the church’s practices and policies throughout its history.
Christofferson, a brother of Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, welcomed church leaders’ statements that the updated policies are the result of inspiration.
“One, I think this is a recognition of the prayers of so many people that there could be a way to have a more welcoming place in the church for LGBTQ people,” he said. “And simultaneously it is, in my mind, an indication of that continued wrestle that prophets have to know what God would have them do in this time, today, and with the increased understanding we have about the nature of what it means to be gay, that we don’t have all the answers that we would want. But what this clearly says to me is that there’s an opportunity to continue to be more welcoming to people wherever they are in their lives.”
Three changes
President Oaks said the faith’s leaders cannot change God’s doctrine, but he made it clear they want church members and church policies to be considerate.
Richard Ostler, who became an LGBT ally within the church while serving as bishop of a Young Single Adult ward said the updated policies accomplish that.
“Our LGBTQ members have a difficult road,” Ostler said, “and I feel these adjustments help us better mourn, comfort and bear their burdens as they make their way forward.”
News of the three policy updates announced Thursday are being sent to priesthood leaders around the world and will be included in online updates to “Handbook 1: Stake Presidents and Bishops,” according to the news release.
• All parents, including those outside the church or LGBT, now may request a blessing for a baby by a worthy, authorized priesthood holder, President Oaks said. Local church leaders should instruct the parent or parents that the blessing, an ordinance that places the child’s name on formal church records and triggers a lifelong series of church contact, would mean congregation members will contact them periodically and propose baptism when the child turns eight years old.
• Beginning immediately, children eight and older whose parents identify themselves as LGBT may be baptized without First Presidency approval, President Oaks said. Latter-day Saints baptize by immersion, and baptism and confirmation give a person membership in the church.
President Oaks said local church leaders should obtain permission from custodial parents for a child’s baptism and ensure that they understand the doctrine church members will teach a baptized child and that he or she is making a covenant to live the principles of the gospel as taught by the church.
• President Oaks said same-gender marriage by a church member still is considered a serious transgression. However, it no longer will be treated as apostasy for purposes of church discipline. The church now will respond to violations to its doctrine of the law of chastity the same way whether they occur in heterosexual or homosexual relationships. The doctrine teaches that sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman when they are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
The First Presidency also issued a joint message with the release on Thursday.
“We pray these teachings will be received in the same spirit we received them from the Lord and have shared them with our leaders — as positive and inspiring instruction that will bless many lives,” The First Presidency said. “With gratitude we acknowledge God’s continuing guidance and love for all his children and invite our members to renew their commitment to follow the teachings of the Savior, Jesus Christ to love God and to love one another.”
The church does not consider it a sin to feel attraction to another person of the same sex. Faithful members with those attractions serve Latter-day Saint missions, hold church positions and worship in Latter-day Saint temples.
History of change
Throughout the church’s history, Latter-day Saint leaders have instructed church members that current revelation overtakes past teachings. For example, after the 1978 revelation that extended the priesthood to members of African descent, the late apostle Elder Bruce R. McConkie said faithful people would get in line with a modern, living prophet and forget everything Elder McConkie and other leaders had said about blacks and the priesthood “with limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.”
“It is a new day and a new arrangement,” he said.
In fact, President Oaks said last June that he was among white American church members “who felt the pain of black brothers and sisters and longed for their relief” before the priesthood restriction was lifted after 126 years.
Some church policies have changed quickly. For example, the church dropped Jesus Christ from its name in 1834, then restored it in 1838. Church leaders also changed the length of missions for men from 24 months to 18 months in April 1982. The First Presidency reinstituted 24-month missions in November 1984.
Additional reaction
Taylor and Adam Cash served Latter-day Saint missions but were excommunicated, as they expected, by a local church disciplinary council in January, two months after the two men were married. But a photo of a Latter-day Saint temple hangs in their Lehi, Utah, home and they say they and their foster children are welcomed in their Latter-day Saint congregation.
“Hearing today that our church and our ward are on the same page is a relief,” Taylor said.
Thursday’s news came a day after they learned that a birth mother had selected them to adopt her child this summer.
“The first thing I thought this morning was that someone can give our baby a blessing,” Taylor said. “Our baby can grow up in the church. We both grew up in the church and that’s what we want for our kids.”
Adam said the couple believe children are blessed by the values and morals taught by the church and he wants his children to have the same experiences he did growing up.
“I feel like I still have a testimony the church is true,” Taylor said. “I think things have happened for a reason. We think we can have a happy life together and have the church be a part of it.”
Many others also reacted to the news on Thursday.
“In this reversal, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has taken an important step forward,” Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement. “There’s still work to do but this policy reversal is a very welcome change that moves the church closer to a day where LGBTQ Mormons can see themselves affirmed and included within their faith community.”
Affirmation, a support group for Latter-day Saint LGBTQ people, applauded the end to restrictions on children of same-sex couples but said “there is still much work to be done to make the chapels of the church and homes of families within the church safe and welcoming spaces for LGBTQ persons.”
The statement said the fact legally married same-sex couples are still considered in serious transgression within the church leaves painful choices for lesbian and gay members and that unresolved issues remain for transgender members.
An official at the Trevor Project, which supports suicide prevention efforts for LGBTQ youth, also embraced the news.
The Trevor Project welcomes any faith group’s public commitment to treat the LGBTQ community fairly and equally, and this statement by the LDS Church to change course is a move in the right direction that will make a real difference in the lives of LGBTQ Mormons,” said Sam Brinton, head of advocacy and governmental affairs. “We hear from LGBTQ young people in crisis every day who struggle to reconcile being part of both the LGBTQ and faith communities, and decisions to end policies of exclusion can help LGBTQ youth feel seen, loved and less alone.”
KSL-TV’s Sam Penrod contributed to this story.
I know that you are volunteers, and need donations, which unfortunately I am unable to provide at this time, but surely someone can stay up to date with LDS Church News. Someone from your organisation can subscribe to Deseret News.
In 2015, the main body of the Church would not have been ready for this change in policy. Now, President Russell M. Nelson is inspired to know that they are.
I love the Maori people, but get with the NEW program people, and forget about what was the policy in 2015.
As a Bishop in the LDS Church
As a Bishop in the LDS Church(Mormons) I would like to say that comments by Dan Scott and Raiha Howard are accurate, well explained and inline with the spirit of this announcement and I applaud they way they answered your questions and concerns Mamari. The doors of the Church are open for everyone, we will never turn anyone away because we are all sinners. However the standards and values we Mormons live by are high and not easy BUT we make the choice to live by them. I was not raised in the church and like you was introduced by a nearby family. I thoroughly enjoyed investigating the church and joined at 17. Best decision of my life.
thank you for a very good
thank you for a very good story,i believe as a Christian,that churches don’t matter,as long as I believe that JESUS CHRIST is THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD and HE DIED on the CROSS IN GALVERY for my sins,that’s all it matters to me,you don’t need to belong to a congregation to go to HEAVEN. I SAY MY BRAYER almost everyday and thank HIM for all I have and ask for HIS BLESSINGS.This is my understanding and I want to share it with you.may GOD BLESS YOU.
This is such a conundrum. Are
This is such a conundrum. Are we talking about children or about young adults? Children of LGBT homes can still attend lds meetings. They can actually partake the sacrament but the commitments attached to the ritual are not binding for them. Boys won’t hold the priesthood but can still participate in all activities just not the duties. These children of LGBT homes are growing up in a home where love and respect abound because the line has been drawn and a decision does not have to be made till 18. And so a decision can be made by a young adult who, if activity in the lds church has continued uninterrupted, is mature enough to understand the repercussions. Are parents and child/young adult prepared for the separation due when child has attained 18 years of age? If LGBT parents have allowed their children to stay active in the lds church then they have been preparing for such a moment. Is it any different for when a child goes off to uni or moves into a flat with friends? Does it mean parent and child cannot meet together often for family gatherings? Of course not. Let me say that again. Heck no! Children will always need their parents. Sometimes circumstances are such that they cannot live under the same roof but if love and respect has been part of their upbringing, moving out at 18 will not change that love. It will not change that respect. If anything, it will increase the love of child for parent because that parent has given their child an opportunity they obviously have been denied themselves but want so much for their child/young adult. So, to all the LGBT parents who want their children to continue in activity in the LDS church, I applaud and honor you. I applaud your sacrifice and strength. Your children will love and honor you, as will your grandchildren. Just an aside- the lds church is not for the faint of heart. Kia kaha children of LGBT.
Check out the following
Check out the following article that answers the issues raised by the writer: http://lemmonythings.com/2015/11/06/this-much-i-know-my-take-on-the-lgbt-mormon-controversy/
Thank you. It doesn’t answer
Thank you. It doesn’t answer my questions, though. In my case the elders were also respectful of my Mum, and would never have sought to pit me against her. I understand that. But we are also talking here about LGBT parents who want their children baptised, who want their children within the church. They will not be able to have that inclusion extended to their child. Not even a blessing. I just can’t see how that is ‘protective’ of the child. But thank you for the article.
This is probably one of the
This is probably one of the better written articles online that are critical of this policy clarification but there are a few inaccuracies that should be corrected.
Here are a couple.
There is no disowning of parents required to serve a mission.
The official wording: A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship may be baptized, confirmed, ordained or recommended for missionary service only once the child reaches 18, no longer lives with a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship and “the child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.” http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865640934/Elder-Christofferson-explains-updated-LDS-Church-policies-on-same-sex-marriage-and-children.html
It is the disavowing of the practice, not the disowning of parents.
‘Being’ LGBT is not grounds for ecommunication, same-sex marriage is the line in the sand. There are many LGBT Mormons in the world who continue to to be Mormons in full fellowship. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6rHhc4Uhbw
In a specific proselyting situation like you have described, I can’t see too many openly committed LGBT parents having much desire to have their children make commitments and covenants in an church that openly teaches against their lifestyle. It would seem that this policy would be in line with their wishes.
Thank you for being respectful in your criticisms though.
Thanks for your comment, Dan.
Thanks for your comment, Dan. I guess I do see disavowing your parents’ relationships and their lifestyle before your own acceptance into the fold as a form of disowning. As stated in the Washington Post article: “It does mean, however, a shift for children of same-sex couples since they must disavow their parents’ practice and stop living within their household. Repeatedly acting against the church and opposing its leaders can make someone an apostate and would likely affect temple privileges and membership status.’ That just sounds like disowning to me.
I take your point about sexuality as grounds for apostasy though. That was inaccurate, so thank you. Mind you, the high threshold of ‘same sex marriage’, is not the only ground for apostasy. There is also the ground of ‘Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.’ As homosexual relations including sexual cohabitation are considered a ‘serious transgression’ and liable for Church discipline, refusal to ‘correct’ could be seen as such ‘clear open and deliberate’ public opposition. But that is not new, but how that may be interpreted could well be harsher from here on in. So thank you for the correction.
All I can see is these people
All I can see is these people stealing from Maori and trying claim whakapapa to us and taking our whakapa and storing it in voults. This to me is disturbing as it only takes one racist leader to say I’m not giving your whakapapa back unless you do (whatever) its taking power from people controling..Communal things for Maori and other indigenous Peoples is normal and these churches play on it
Hi Marc,
Hi Marc,
I’m sorry about your concerns. Please help me understand in what way do you fear the LDS Church may be stealing from Maori? The reason the LDS Church places such great importance on establishing family relationships is because it believes the family is central to Heavenly Father’s eternal plan of happiness. The Church doesn’t “take” anybody’s whakapapa, it simply stores *copies* of the genealogical information it obtains in vaults to ensure the information is never lost, even if the original documentation is lost. All this information is freely available without charge to anybody, regardless of whether or not they are members of the LDS Church. Let me asure you that simply having a copy of Maori whakapapa, does not give the LDS Church (or anybody else) any legal claim to Maori property. Only Maori have legal claim to Maori property.
Thank you for taking the time
Thank you for taking the time to read my comment and reply thoughtfully.
I feel like I see where you’re coming from on the disowning side of things, but I also feel like that takes it further than is written and further than I believe it was intended.
Another side to it is that disavowing the practice of same sex marriage seems the same to me as other requirements for baptism like disavowing the practice of other sexual relationships outside of male/female marriage, drinking alcohol, smoking or taking drugs as outlined in the word of wisdom and so on.
There are members of my own family that do all these things, but my disavowal of those practices doesn’t mean I don’t love them and much less that I disown them. They all respect my beliefs when they come to visit and I respect their freedom to choose how they live and our children still play together as loving families should.
Though we obviously differ in lifestyle choices, disavowal of their choices on my behalf does not equal disowning, but as you have described it, disowning might mean something different to you. I would ask you this though, in that context do you feel that your conversion to Christianity and the disavowal of your own mother’s Agnostic beliefs was in any way disowning her? I wouldn’t think so.
Though the requirement to move out of the home of the same-sex couple is more than is asked of the other lifestyle choices I’ve mentioned above, it is also in line with the children of polygamous families. This might not be something we experience very often here in Aotearoa, but I have seen polygamist groups overseas first hand and it makes sense in this context.
Moving out of home for the express purposes of baptism and/or other ordinances would be a hard thing for any close knit family. I hope anybody going through this themselves finds all the love and support from their LGBT parents that they could and should expect from them, just as the LGBT couple would and should expect in return as parents/caregivers.
It should be noted that in many ways your own experience, in my eyes at least, confirms the sensibility of this policy clarification. Had you been baptised at an earlier age than your mother dictated and still made all the rest of the same choices you have, you would have broken a commitment. At least by honouring your mother’s wishes, the missionaries and others did not force you to make this commitment contrary to your mother’s Agnostic beliefs.
Though you probably knew her position on the matter, her words still stung at an age beyond the 16 years she had prescribed. How much more would they have stung if you were only 8 years old?
I mean no disrespect here for yourself or for your mother.
Though you have converted to Christianity, I’m sure you can appreciate that with those stinging words your mother was doing the best she knew how. Indeed it seems in the long run, her words have served you well, as I believe this policy will serve the children of LGBT couples when understood in context.
How can the Mormons justify this? The same way your mother did, and the same way the any non-consenting parents of minors seeking membership do, by acting in what they believe are the child’s best interests and doing the best they know how.
I believe this clarification has come from a place of love and respect, that it is about inclusion of families much more than the exclusion of children.
I really did appreciate your full disclosure in the article of the different ties you have to the Mormons and your own personal story. I’m sure there are many fond memories there.
From my heart to yours.
Dan and Raiha, good on you
Dan and Raiha, good on you for defending the official wording of the statement issued by the general authorities, your faith and your beliefs. I just wanted to point out issues about the child under 18, not an adult contemplating a mission. Excluding children of LGBT’s from baptism, holding the Aaronic priesthood, serving the sacrament and leadership opportunities until 18 reminds me of the way that blacks (or descendants of Cain) were treated prior to the declaration by President Spencer W Kimball in 1978…. and before you start splitting hairs again over the “yes they could be baptised but not hold the priesthood buzz” the point I am trying to make is about “THE CHILD” . What kind of construct is the church allowing that would make a child (who loves going to church and has all of their friends/ relatives there) feel about themselves? different? unworthy? unclean? simply because of the so called “sins of their fathers (or mothers)”? this reminds me of the exclusions that blacks endured prior to the enlightening revelation. And splitting hairs about the differences between disavowing or disowning is kind of pathetic. I thought the church had come a long way to improve inequalities, equities and make over. Obviously I am mistaken.
Good article by the way Maamari, I really enjoyed it