He recently spoke on our stake. I was impressed with what he had to say. I may have to find a copy of the book. :)

The title of your post seems to capture the situation correctly. It is a policy. The exclusion policy seems to be based on an understanding of doctrine but applied at the level of policy. Because of our understanding of the doctrine of marriage and chastity we must do something… what shall we do? Let’s create a policy.

Marriage is very central to LDS theology and I am not surprised when the response to families practicing FLDS style plural marriage is the justification for a current response for children of parents involved in same sex marriages. The church has a huge interest in defining what marriage is and what it is not. I have no ideas regarding the timing of the policy though.

The former priesthood exclusion exclusion seemed to be a policy based on something we weren’t quite sure about which turned out not to be doctrine at all. If this new policy is revelation it seems to be a small r revelation rather that a big R Revelation. Perhaps we can say it is not canonical.

If you get a chance to read Tom Christofferson’s book That We May Be One this exclusion policy still seems to be a sore point with Tom despite his recent reconciliation with the LDS church. Just like the priesthood exclusion policy this recent exclusion policy based on a parents marriage arrangement may also be something we will regret when judged by our future understanding.

After making a plug for Christofferson’s book the overwhelming feeling I had reading it is that despite out differences we can all be nicer to those who disagree with us or are different than us. It makes such a difference.