A Message to My LDS Friends Who Love the Church

This week, a policy change in the Church’s handbook stated that children of same-sex couples cannot be blessed or baptized until they are 18. The announcement sparked waves of pain and outrage in some, and a flurry of attempts by others to offer context and soften the impact.

Some praised the Church for taking what they saw as a principled stand, while others immediately declared their intent to resign.

I’ve never seen my Facebook feed so divided over a single issue. It’s been hard to watch my friends pulled in opposite directions as the ideological divide grew wider than I’ve ever seen it.

At first, I didn’t plan to say anything. I felt alone in my perspective and didn’t quite have the words to express it. As more voices emerged echoing parts of what I felt, I stayed quiet, thinking it was already being said. But there are a few thoughts I haven’t seen articulated, so I’ve decided to share my two cents.

I have many friends who are part of or deeply care about the LGBT community, and because of that, I initially chose to stay neutral in public forums. Emotions are raw, and it’s easy to offend unintentionally. Since my books and programs have nothing to do with this topic, I hadn’t planned to comment here either.

But one thought has lingered: I think there are still people feeling confused—people who love the Church and want to see this policy through a faithful lens but haven’t yet found peace. People who want to “stay in the boat,” even through storms like this one.

If that’s you, this post is for you.

(To keep this on topic, I’ll only be allowing comments from those who identify with that experience.)

When I first heard the news, I was stunned. It sounded like a snub to gay parents, punishing their children for their parents’ relationship. I had a pit in my stomach. I knew this would hit a nerve and stir anger. When I checked the official Church newsroom, there was nothing—no explanation. And the fact that the policy was leaked by an excommunicated member and presented without context only made it worse.

In those early hours, many of us were exposed to what felt like anti-Mormon messaging—not because the facts weren’t technically accurate, but because the framing was harsh, with no official word to offer another perspective. Even small doses of that kind of negativity can be spiritually disorienting, especially when they come from trusted news outlets.

So my second reaction was: “What about this do I not yet understand?"

I asked that question sincerely, because I want to believe that the change was inspired by Jesus Christ, the living head of our Church. I try to be His disciple. And on the surface, this didn’t feel Christlike. But I also know that I can’t receive a witness from God about anything unless I’m willing to consider its possibility.

I imagine people on both sides of this issue responded based on how it aligned with their understanding of God. If it fit, they felt peace. If it didn’t, they felt pain. That’s normal. We all do it.

I tend to lean conservative, so you might think the policy would sit well with me. But it didn’t. It seemed to go against principles I hold dear—like “men will be punished for their own sins” and Jesus’ call to “suffer the little children to come unto me.”

I didn’t want to wrestle with this. I had a birthday party to plan, errands to run, laundry to fold, customer emails to answer. But this issue demanded my attention until I could find peace about it.

So I asked a second question: “What could have motivated this policy?”

Two possible explanations came to mind:

1. Since same-sex marriage is still considered a serious sin within the church (one which is now considered apostate), I wondered if perhaps the leadership felt it wise to prevent same-sex marriage from seeming normal to other impressionable Primary children. Seeing it as normal in the world is a much different thing than seeing it as normal in a church which forbids it.

Regardless of membership status, all children are welcome in Primary. But maybe the leaders thought that if a child from a same-sex marriage is seen as a visitor and not as a member, perhaps any comments shared could be received by the other children with something of a filter. Maybe they would be able to understand that the visiting child comes from a different kind of environment than what is acceptable for members of the church, and so, we teach them to welcome and include the visiting child for as long as he or she wants to take part in the children's organization, but to also be prepared that what is said by the child (through no fault of his or her own) may not always agree with the principles we follow as members in the Proclamation to the Family. I realize this explanation is weak and may seem harsh or exclusive... but remember, I'm just sharing my thought process as I scrambled to understand possible motives for the policy change myself.

2) My second thought was a realization of how merciful the policy was. At face value, it didn't seem merciful at all. It seemed hateful and cruel. But I know my church to be anything but hateful and cruel, having been an active member for nearly forty years. So I thought I must not have the whole story. That's when a second scenario came to mind:

We sometimes misunderstand ordinances like baptism if we think of them as symbols of acceptance or inclusion. They are much more than that. Baptism is a sacred covenant with serious responsibilities. This policy could be a way to honor the gravity of that covenant—by ensuring that when a child does choose baptism at age 18, they are truly ready and free to commit to it, without being caught in the middle of a family situation that could create conflict or confusion.

It’s not a denial of love. It’s a delay of official membership until the individual is legally and emotionally prepared to stand on their own.

It’s merciful because it postpones covenant-making until someone is in a better position to understand and live it—so they aren’t held accountable for promises made in impossible circumstances.

This explanation has since been echoed by others, and the Church’s official statement eventually touched on it.

The truth is, Church membership isn’t convenient. It requires real commitment. We serve without pay. We minister. We stretch. But we do it because we’ve made covenants, and the blessings are worth it. I still believe this is Christ’s restored Church—the instrument through which God is gathering Israel and preparing the world for His return.

As for those resigning over this: yes, it’s historic—and, I believe, prophesied. If this is truly Christ’s Church, then moments like this act as a sifting. Policy may shift to meet modern challenges, but doctrine stays rooted. The “what” remains; the “how” adjusts.

We’ve long been warned that a day would come when we couldn’t rely on borrowed light. That day is here. The Church either is what it claims to be—or it’s not. Joseph Smith either saw God, or he didn’t. President Monson is either a prophet, or he’s not. Christ is either leading this Church today, or He isn’t.

Ask yourself: Have I read the Book of Mormon? Have I tested Moroni’s promise? Have I sincerely sought a witness about Joseph Smith, or about living prophets?

If we do believe the prophet speaks for the Lord, we should be careful not to casually reject what is taught. But we are not asked to accept blindly. We are commanded to seek our own witness from God.

Without that witness, we won’t have what we need to withstand the last days. We won’t see clearly. And we won’t remain anchored in Christ as the world shifts around us.

No one’s asking you to trust someone else’s answer. We’ve all been invited to seek our own—and the Lord promises He’ll answer.

Ideally—no matter how we feel about this—we should all be turning to God for clarity, not just social media. Our eternal welfare hangs in the balance.

I’ve tested Moroni’s promise, and I’ve come to know that this is Christ’s restored Church on the earth today. And I believe we’re seeing a live unfolding of Lehi’s dream. Many feel so ashamed or unsettled by this policy that they’ve chosen to resign. “...And after they had tasted of the fruit they were ashamed, ...and they fell away into forbidden paths and were lost.”

To my friends reading this: if your sincere desire is to stay in the boat, you are not alone. Be careful what you say until you’ve received the clarity you need. Often, the loudest voices are the ones speaking from a place of anger, disgust, and pain. But once words are spoken in that heat, they can’t be taken back. Take the time to sit with your emotions, bring them to the Lord, and allow Him to work through them with you. You don’t want to look back and say, “I didn’t understand—and because of my angry words toward the Church, look how many were lost.” Let your processing be sacred, private, and grounded in peace. Then, when you do speak, let it be with understanding and compassion.

And please—don’t take my word for what’s right and wrong. You already know how to get answers. Sometimes, when answers feel slow, we begin by choosing to believe. I choose to believe, every day. Often the witness doesn’t come before the decision, but after it—after we start aligning our life more closely with what we already know to be true.

Yes, it might seem easier to leave. But I still believe this is God’s program for gathering Israel in preparation for Christ’s return—and there’s still work to be done. Find out what God would have you do, and then do it.

There’s so much ministering that needs to happen. So much love and service to be given. And yes, that happens both within and outside the Church. Christians and non-Christians alike do remarkable work. But the responsibility of the tribe of Ephraim is not just to serve—it’s to gather the pure in heart and provide the saving ordinances and covenants that prepare God’s children to receive Him. This isn’t only about who feels loved or unloved within the Church walls. Arguing that this policy is unloving or cruel misses the broader purpose. It's a surface-level interpretation of something deeply rooted in doctrine, responsibility, and divine timing.

This is about gathering the humble and the teachable. As Zion rises, those who aren’t ready—who aren’t aligned with its spirit—may feel offended or out of place. Some claim they’re being more loving by opposing a policy that denies baptism to children raised in same-sex households. But are we also being humble? Are we teachable? Can we pause and consider that maybe, just maybe, this policy reflects wisdom and mercy? That it honors the agency and legal rights of gay parents, even while the Church disagrees with their lifestyle?

For some, this policy was the final straw. Membership already felt burdensome, and this gave them a reason to step away, believing it justified. That’s heartbreaking. One friend expressed concern for members who’ve fought hard to embrace their gay children—especially grandparents who had dreamed of helping their grandkids come into the Church. Now they grieve what feels like a loss of that hope.

But maybe there’s another way to see it. This policy can protect families. It prevents doctrinal conflicts from driving wedges between children and their legal guardians. It respects the family structure, gay parents included, and it respects the law. In a sense, maybe these children are like those under eight—unaccountable in some spiritual ways until they can make covenants with full understanding. I hope that brings some comfort.

Let me share an additional perspective from Delisa Bushman Hargrove, who wrote:

"...I used to believe that acceptance of baptism had to be immediate. It took me some time to process that, while absolutely necessary for salvation, there is a time and season for all things.

I first encountered proselyting restrictions as a BYU foreign exchange student in Jerusalem. As a Mormon, I signed an agreement that I would not discuss/proselyte my religious beliefs to residents of Israel.The agreement was reached by the Israeli government & the Church. We respected the law of the land.

The second time--and more particularly emotionally potent for me because I'd become a student of Arabic & Near Eastern Studies--was when, as a missionary in Scotland & while living in Germany, I couldn't share the Gospel with Muslims. That was hard for me when sincerely approached. I recognized that their lives were in jeopardy if they returned to their country and came to understand the Lord's respect for life.

A missionary served in our ward in Texas who was a child of polygamous parents and from a polygamous community. He told us about the process it took for him to join the Church. He had to wait until he was 18 and then had to receive special permission from the First Presidency to be baptized. He did not have to "divorce" his family, but did have to recognize the difference in lifestyle and understand covenant expectations.

I've fasted and prayed with teenagers who sought parents' approval for baptism. Sometimes approval was granted. Sometimes it wasn't, and the child waited the several years to be baptized at/after 18. During those times of prayer, I realized how much the Savior respects parents and their agency. I really appreciated that, as a leader, I shouldn't/wouldn't pursue any course of action to underhandedly somehow subvert a parent's desire for his/her child so that the child could be baptized.

And, today. The Church has been such a voice in the same-sex arena, that I feel that the new policy shows respect to LGBT parents. (no driving any doctrinal wedge between parents and a young child or in any way implying that it will take their children to "save them" from their parents.)

I read the policy in the handbook and did not see anything that indicated the child has to publicly denounce their family. I keep thinking of Elder Christopherson whose brother is openly gay, and who still attends an LDS ward, and the love that is evident within their family.

I do believe that God loves all of His children and acts lovingly and respectfully to each of us."

So have courage. Ask God for the answers that bring peace. You’re promised that if you lack wisdom and ask in faith (James 1:5), you’ll receive. Then, stay the course.

Here are a few posts that may offer additional perspective:

• The 9 Facebook Myths About the Church’s New LGBT Policy

• Waiting on the Lord (from a Gay Mormon Guy)

• Insight into New LDS Church Policies

• Why the New LDS Policy Change Is Actually Pro-Gay Family

• New Additions to the LDS Handbook: Do the Brethren Need to Check with Social Media?

• Official statement: Church Provides Context on Handbook Changes Affecting Same-Sex Marriages

I truly believe that as you seek and receive your answers, you’ll not only find peace of mind—you’ll feel God’s love for everyone involved. Most of all, you’ll feel it for you. Because when you’re sincerely trying to stay on the right path, He will fill you with assurance and love.

Updated 11/10/15:
Some believe this is only an issue for those whose faith “isn’t strong enough to trust Church leaders.” I want to speak to that. There are many with deep faith in Christ who still struggle to fully trust that Church leaders are inspired by Him. That’s a real and heavy hurdle. Some clear it quickly, others never see it as necessary, and some try but stumble. We need patience and compassion for all stages of that journey. I believe we’ll be judged based on our understanding and what we did with it. So let’s walk gently, humbly, and always remember: we’re all just walking each other home.

_________________

• To discover how to start choosing more effectively now, read The Jackrabbit Factor (FREE!)
• If you want more step-by-step guidance on creating the life you really want, join me in the Mindset Mastery program.
• If you want my help overcoming that giant obstacle right in front of you, learn more and sign up for Genius Bootcamp.