That’s why I see a written revelation as so important, because it is going against so many other written revelations, from the Doctrine and Covenants, which is supposed to be our guide to run the modern church.

As for polygamists, the policy concerning their children has been around for so long, it is impossible to know how much it was opposed when first instituted. Now that I know about it, I do oppose it, too, even though I can understand the very understandable reasons it was implemented. Historically, most polygamist groups look for their converts from among mainstream Latter-day Saints, and many will attend mainstream Latter-day Saint meetings and go to Latter-day Saint temples. I disagree with the solution, for the same reasons I disagree with the new policy, but at least there is a legitimate concern being met. But to make sure I am clear, I believe polygamists are the one group Latter-day Saints persecute as much, or more than, gay people, and I feel that persecution is atrocious, and has helped foster the secrecy that has spawned so many problems for polygamist groups. I hate secrets in all their forms, and persecution is a huge cultivator of secrecy.

But with the new policy, such a concern as is legitimately present with polygamists is entirely absent. Gay marriages are monogamous, in every instance I have heard of. I do not believe there are a significant portion of gay women, men, or children who are attending Latter-day Saint meetings in order to convert people to a homosexual lifestyle. I have never heard of large groups of missionaries being converted to practice a homosexual lifestyle. There is just no threat, at all.

As others have kindly and not-so-kindly hinted, people like me, who are are active members, who do not live a homosexual lifestyle, but who encourage tolerance and acceptance of people who do, are a much greater threat. Excommunicate me before some innocent eight-year-old child. As much as such action might make certain people happy, no church leaders are calling for it. It just doesn’t make any sense.

If you’re going to make some members disavow gay marriages, why not make all members do it?

Because that would be brave, and would result in a real loss of membership, unlike this, which is cowardly, and targets only a small percentage of members and potential members.

It does seem this is an issue Pres. Monson is driving. Admittedly that’s just a guess but the Prop-8 actions were under him as were more recent actions. Of course a lot of the liberalization on other elements (such as the civil rights compromise in Utah on discrimination) were also under him.

As to what warrants a written revelation, I’m much more skeptical on that. Very little outside of the D&C is written revelation of that sort. Seriously, almost nothing in the New Testament is. Even much of the OT arguably are texts written in response to revelation. In the Book of Mormon while we presuppose inspiration little of the text is written revelation. That seems a very rare event. I’m not sure why you see it as so important.

This seems a much broader issue than the current issue. It would seem to me that the change of 70’s and making members of the quorum of 70’s High Priests actually is more significant in terms of change than either the children issue (which seems in keeping with a lot of past practice – such as the polygamy restrictions) or the priesthood issue.

As it is, our prophet hasn’t mentioned the topic once in General Conference. Not once. And his physical health is clearly not good, as we saw last Conference. So we as members are left to wonder what actual policy is, who it comes from, and how they decided on it. Remember, the only reason non-bishops even know about this change is because of a leak by a recently-excommunicated member. The whole thing is shrouded in secrecy.

Truthfully, a change that prohibits children from being baptized warrants a written revelation, in my opinion, since it seems to fly in the face of so many other ones. Official Declaration 2 was getting rid of something that never had a firm scriptural basis to begin with.

“I have heard a few parents state that they don’t want to impose the gospel on their children but want them to make up their own minds about what they will believe and follow. They think that in this way they are allowing children to exercise their agency. What they forget is that the intelligent use of agency requires knowledge of the truth, of things as they really are (see D&C 93:24). Without that, young people can hardly be expected to understand and evaluate the alternatives that come before them.”

Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, “Moral Discipline,” Liahona and Ensign, Nov. 2009, 107.”

How does that fit with the policy changes? They seems incongruous with his earlier statement.

And honestly, I can see some of the more liberal members of the Quorum of Twelve and First Presidency being swayed by that rationale and keeping silent over the changes.

However, I can see at least one hole in that rationale. It doesn’t explain the part where you have to disavow your parents’ marriage and stop living with them after your turn 18. On my mission, I was one of a very small percentage of missionaries who hadn’t lived at home right before going on their missions. Even those who had been away to college usually moved back home right before leaving as missionaries. Realistically, this policy makes it nearly impossible for most women or men with gay parents to serve missions until at least their mid-twenties, which is just one more way it seems to contradict already-established doctrine. First it says it is bad for you to be baptized between the ages 8 and 17 if your parents are gay. Then it says it is bad for you to serve a mission unless you are financially independent and have moved away from your childhood home if your parents are gay. It also probably adds at least a year for men who wanted to go at the age of 18, since they will have to wait a year after being baptized before they can go to the temple. It will also potentially delay temple marriages for women who are 18.

Jill, I am also grateful for your story. It gives me hope that at least some children of gay families will still find their way into the church, even if they have to wait a decade. And I am glad for the reminder that even if my church pushes children away, God does not, and there will be absolutely no impact on His ability to call them unto Him (I know that’s not exactly what you said, but that’s how I took it; I hope you’re not offended by my difference of opinion).

Rosalynde, I was very worried when I heard Brother Todd’s comment you mentioned about it probably not being appropriate for the children to attend Primary. Even when talking about children after they turn 18, and them being baptized if they wish, it didn’t really sound like he was particularly invested in that happening. But I didn’t exactly have the most positive filter on when I listened to it, so I really hope I was just misconstruing things.

Unfortunately, I think there is enough there for a particularly ambitious bishop to take both of those mindsets, and to actively prohibit children who cannot be baptized from attending Primary, and to not seek to help 18-year-olds with gay parents prepare for baptism and to serve missions. I still know of bishops who make sure the closing speaker is always a male priesthood holder, even though that hasn’t been policy for decades, so I’m sure a lot of bishops and stake presidents, for both good and bad, will make of this policy what they want to, based on their own ideas and preconceptions.

I can very easily see certain mission presidents telling their missionaries not to teach married gay couples or their families, just as many mission presidents and even apostles before 1978 didn’t want their missionaries teaching people of African descent, because they would not be eligible for all the blessing of the gospel.

And it worries me that, even before this change, there were already so many wards and members that were actively prejudicial against gay people. I only see this making things worse, no matter what its original rationale was.

I have found peace with my decision. I find meaning in your example up above, Nate W. I’ve seen those deserts. They are formidable. There are no guarantees, but you get to write your own story and have your own experiences. When you leave into the desert it can seem as though you are losing everything, and it can seem as though you’re left for dead, but there are miracles that comfort. New friends. Fiercely loyal family.

I like your metaphor above, Nate W. Thank you for your thoughts on this.

If one believes that there are those that are called and prepared to join the Church, then one must take seriously the possibility that some may be called and prepared to leave the Church. If God’s place for me is to minister to Hagar and Ishmael, I will go where he wants me to go.

What’s your opinion on going with Hagar and Ishmael?

(Assume this is a hypothetical question, though maybe it’s not.)

But Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, playing with her son Isaac.So she said to Abraham, “Cast out this slave woman with her son; for the son of this slave woman shall not inherit along with my son Isaac.” The matter was very distressing to Abraham on account of his son. But God said to Abraham, “Do not be distressed because of the boy and because of your slave woman; whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you, for it is through Isaac that offspring shall be named for you. As for the son of the slave woman, I will make a nation of him also, because he is your offspring.” So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water, and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, along with the child, and sent her away. And she departed, and wandered about in the wilderness of Beer-sheba.

When the water in the skin was gone, she cast the child under one of the bushes. Then she went and sat down opposite him a good way off, about the distance of a bowshot; for she said, “Do not let me look on the death of the child.” And as she sat opposite him, she lifted up her voice and wept. And God heard the voice of the boy; and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven, and said to her, “What troubles you, Hagar? Do not be afraid; for God has heard the voice of the boy where he is. Come, lift up the boy and hold him fast with your hand, for I will make a great nation of him.” Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water. She went, and filled the skin with water, and gave the boy a drink.

God was with the boy, and he grew up; he lived in the wilderness, and became an expert with the bow.

Genesis 21:9–20 (NRSV).

Was Sarah right to insist that Hagar and Ishmael be cast out? I don’t know—my personal opinion was that it wasn’t, and that God’s direction to Moses was making the best of a bad situation, but you may disagree. At any rate, even though Hagar and Ishmael were cast out of Abraham’s household, they were not forsaken by God. Whether this policy was God’s will or not, we can be assured that God is still with those who are cast out as a result. God will send his angels to attend to them, and make a great nation out of them, for they are also the seed of Abraham.