A response to the A Well-Behaved Mormon Woman blog post.

I appreciate that the blog post

employs more than reactionary rhetoric in the response to this policy change. If you have not read the
policy change please do so. If you have not read the aforementioned blog post, please do so prior to
reading my response. I will try to cover the information in same order it is presented in the post.
1. We are assuming that parents will not approve of a childs decision to pursue baptism. A young
man with two dads was recently baptized in Herriman, Utah of all places.
a. The argument that this policy is ok because we discriminate against other marginalized
populations too is not an argument that holds water. It is ok for me to take money from
a widow because I did it before and no one noticed. You cannot justify this policy in this
way.
b. Children are taught myriad things in the home that do not correlate with church
doctrine. Children are baptized from non-member homes, I have baptized them. A child
from a divorced family where the custody is dominated by a parent, who left the church
and is vehemently opposed to the church, can still be baptized. You cannot justify this
policy in this way.
c. A desire to control the message is what this post argues. Why would we desire to take
away the agency of these youth and deny saving ordinances in an effort to control the
messages that they are receiving? Why can God not work on their heart?
2. We are comparing adult Muslims to children.
a. Are we regularly denying baptism to Muslims? In the US? This comparison is not apples
to oranges, it is applesauce to wheelchairs. It is comparing a situation where a culture
may prove harmful to an adult convert with a scenario where a child and the church
must obtain permission from the childs parents to perform the baptism. The fact that
they give approval shows support. If they dont approve, at least they still have agency
and opportunity.
3. It is myopic to believe that the church can control the message any child receives at home or
that a child can not disagree with the message. My 4 year old tells me Im wrong every day of
my life.
4. If we are truly concerned with the family relationships of these children, why are we drawing
lines in the sand regarding the sexual orientation of those that the child loves? This may
prevent children from seeking baptism and coming to Christ when they may have chosen
otherwise.
a. If we are truly concerned with the food and shelter of these children, Great! Lets speak
boldly! Over 40% of the homeless youth in Utah identify as LGBT, while the LGBT
community makes up roughly 2% of the total population. Lets open doors, lets show
them love. Lets not institute policies that will increase the number of LGBT youth
kicked out of the home because we have othered them as a community.
5. The author uses Matt 10:37 as an argument: 37 He that loveth father or mother more than
me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not
worthy of me.

How is this scripture an argument FOR the policy? The child would be choosing

Christ and the church over their family. This scripture would support the child.
Matt 19:29 goes further on this premise: 29 And every one that
hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children,
or lands, for my names sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall
inherit everlasting life.
This scripture can and has been used on both sides of this argument, but it supports my
current position so I am using it. (Can we admit that we are all hypocrites?)
May I also present Matt 18:6: 6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which
believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck,
and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Lets pause and think about this one.
6. The doctrines of Christ are for all in His time. Why are we determining the time and
removing agency? This is a policy change, not a revelation.
Policies
1. I expected, but do not agree with Gay couples being labeled as apostates.
2. This policy is not about protecting children. If it were, we would have a proven track
record of protecting LGBT youth and others in difficult situations with which we
disagree. If we are going to start showing concern for children in these difficult
situations, I am all for it. Let us collectively shout it from the rooftops. Let us boldly
pursue this message over the pulpit and in the media until everyone inside and outside
of the church gets it.
a. This policy is not about gay marriage, the document describes cohabitation as a
problem as well. If it were just about gay marriage I would still have a problem.
3. Protecting the candidate is not how I view this policy. Protecting the church? Yes, but
not the child seeking baptism. Why are we choosing who God accepts and makes
worthy?
My biased view doesnt allow for any of the arguments presented in this piece to justify this
policy. The policy doesnt agree with the 2nd article of faith, the New Testament, The Book
of Mormon or the biblical definition of loving our neighbor. The only argument that holds
water is; I choose to follow the leaders of the church and this is what they have decided. If
that is your chosen position, that is fine, but please dont attempt to justify this policy in an
effort to deal with your cognitive dissonance. Speak truth, speak love, be authentic!
Collin McDonald