(So this is the part where I talk about some reasons why I think the new policy doesn’t make sense.)
I’m a mathematician by trade; I’m thus really good at figuring out when things are internally consistent. That’s what mathematicians do: we posit some axioms that are to be taken as true, and then we figure out what other facts we can deduce from those axioms.
So, I tried to do this with the new policy. I mentally accepted as true all the other scriptures and doctrines of the church, and then tried to see if the new policy “fit” with everything else. It didn’t. There are many examples of scriptures and doctrines of the church with which the new policy does not fit, but I will focus on three.
I’ll start with the second article of faith: “We believe that man must be punished for his own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.” This is a nice, neat encapsulation of one of the fundamental differences between Mormonism and other Protestant sects (and Mormonism is most definitely a Protestant sect): Mormonism repudiates the doctrine of original sin. The new policy is inconsistent with the second article of faith, because it punishes children for the sins of their parents.
Moroni 8:8-10 elaborates on this point:
“Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me. 9 And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children. 10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children.”
Again, the new policy is inconsistent with this scripture. If anything, to be consistent with this scripture, the policy should be that it is especially important to allow the children of gay parents to be full members of the church, so that they can exert a positive influence toward repentance on their parents.
Moving on to a different point, Doctrine and Covenants 68 is a section of almost constitutional importance to the church. I’ll focus on verses 25-27 (emphasis mine):
“25 And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents. 26 For this shall be a law unto the inhabitants of Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized. 27 And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands.”
Again, the new policy is inconsistent with this scripture.
I’ll end this discussion, and this letter, with one last scripture, whose import I believe is self-explanatory:
Mark 10:13-16: And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. 14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.16 And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.