I’m being asked — and, by a few, pestered or badgered — to comment on the Church’s newly announced policy regarding the naming, blessing, baptism, and so forth, of children of same-sex couples.

I may have something substantial to say on the subject at some point, but not before I’ve read more and thought more about the topic than I currently have. (I find that reading and thinking are good things to do before opining, and I commend them to some of those who’ve been sending me inflammatory and insulting notes.)

In the meantime, I offer two pieces that might be helpful. The first, by Ardis Parshall, is directly relevant. I appreciate its calm and reasonable tone:

http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2015/11/05/the-children-of-marriedcohabiting-gay-parents/

The second, by my friend Kevin Barney, isn’t directly apropos. It appeared nearly a month ago, well before the announcement of the new policy. But it deals with a case that, as Ardis Parshall shows, bears some relevant similarities:

http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/10/11/polygamy-and-baptism-policy/

I’m not sure that I quite agree with absolutely everything Kevin says. But I believe it’s good to think about the matter.

Permit me to add five hasty preliminary notes occasioned by the current controversy and these two pieces:

1.

During my service as a bishop, I was directly involved in the baptism of a daughter of polygamist parents. (A remarkable young woman, by the way.) She was of age. She wasn’t required to publicly denounce her parents or their beliefs. (Nor was she required to “denounce” them privately, either.) But her baptism required more comprehensive approvals and somewhat more searching interviews than ordinary baptisms, and was treated as a distinctly special case.

2.

Reasonable people, if they’re thinking clearly, surely recognize that the Brethren aren’t motivated in such decisions as those behind this new policy by “hatred” of homosexuals, let alone by “hatred” of children raised by homosexuals. There’s simply no basis for such assertions, and lots and lots of evidence to the contrary. These are good men, trying to do the right thing by both the Lord and his children. It serves no purpose and does no good — and it’s flatly dishonest — to rant about mythical diseases such as “homophobia,” nor to denounce them as old and out of touch, and so forth. Some out there in the fever swamps are demanding that the Church lose its tax-exempt status and that it be placed on lists of “hate groups” along with the American Nazi Party and the Ku Klux Klan. (These demands are being issued, as I understand it, in the name of “tolerance.”) If any such comments appear here, there’s a good chance that I’ll delete them. They contribute nothing to calm and civil discussion.

3.

I don’t know that the Brethren are claiming direct revelation for this new policy, but I’m confident that they’ve thought long and hard about it and that they’ve prayerfully sought (and believe themselves to have received) divine approval for it. Those who reject their status as prophets, seers, and revelators will, of course, also reject any involvement by God in this. That’s their prerogative. But those who believe the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to be what Latter-day Saints have always believed them to be should calm down, if they’re not calm already, and ponder a few passages of scripture, such as Nephi’s “I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things” (1 Nephi 11:17) and King Benjamin’s “Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend” (Mosiah 4:9). Consider, too, the fact that, if God always agreed with your views and ratified your inclinations on everything, he would be largely redundant, and a very good argument could be made that you had merely created him in your own image.

4.

I’m quite confident that the current social dynamic — including rapidly increasing acceptance of homosexual acts and same-sex marriage, even inside the Church membership — played a role in the formulation of the new policy. The Brethren feel an enormous responsibility to keep the doctrines of the Church pure and plain.

5.

Nothing in any of this works against Christ’s admonition to “Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:14). We’re not being told to hate or despise or mistreat the children of homosexual couples. They’re not being denied salvation.

**

As I say, these are preliminary notes. They don’t represent my final thoughts. I may or may not have something further to say, today or tomorrow or next week or next month. However, nobody out there should be expecting me to denounce the Brethren on this. I support them. They hold the keys; I don’t. I regard them as very good, kind, thoughtful, sincere men, tasked with responsibilities that I’m happy not to bear — and with assignments that constantly draw fire from the disaffected and the unbelieving, and, sometimes, even from believers. I won’t join in any such assaults.