Chapter 2- How can we listen? What words help and hurt?

• Am I a qualified voice for my son, other LGBTQ people, or other parents?

• Shouldn’t LGBTQ voices dictate what is best for their own well-being in the church?

• What words are hurtful vs. helpful to LGBTQ people and their families?

Chapter synopsis: I cannot speak for LGBTQ church members. All I can do is share my voice to try to support theirs. Their voices need to be heard more than any others. The church could do better at listening to them and making changes to address their “wants” (Mosiah 4:26). Specific ways that the voices of church members and leaders can hurt or help LGBTQ people and their families are listed.

Before I go any further, I want to acknowledge that I am an inadequate voice for LGBTQ people, primarily because I am not LGBTQ. Because of my gay son, I may be more familiar than the average church member with the challenges that LGBTQ individuals face in the church – but that does not qualify me to speak on behalf of LGBTQ people in general. Without question, the best voices to listen to on these matters are those expressed by LGBTQ individuals themselves. I hope to simply be an ally to them – someone who uses privilege to help create more awareness. I do not want to supplant their voices. I also acknowledge that, even among the voices of fellow LGBTQ advocates in the Latter-day Saint community, there are many people who are smarter, more eloquent, and more experienced in these matters than I am (several of whom I cite in this book). I encourage readers to check out the LGBTQ voices and ally resources I have listed at the end of this book. 

I also know I’m not an authorized voice for all parents of LGBTQ children in the church. I know there are other parents in similar situations who feel differently than I do. That being said, I do know my feelings are shared by many people in the church. Cheryl and I had dozens of church members, from both nearby and far away, privately contact us after her Facebook post saying they were grateful to her for sharing feelings that they felt too. Many (more than we ever would have thought) were closeted gay church members or parents of closeted gay kids in the church. Others were LGBTQ allies who had gay friends or family members, etc. So I feel compelled to at least try to share a bit more about our family’s story and my thoughts in case they similarly resonate with them or anyone else. 

When it comes to what’s best for LGBTQ well-being, we need to do a better job in the church of listening to the opinions of LGBTQ people themselves. The scriptures teach that we should minister to people “according to their wants” (Mosiah 4:26), not church leader’s assessment of their wants or needs. Straight church leaders declare what is best for all church members universally, even though what they decree causes direct psychological trauma for the vast majority of LGBTQ church members. That is the opposite of ministering to LGBTQ church members “according to their wants.” I often wonder why I have never heard of a broadcast meeting between leading LGBTQ church members and our prophets and apostles, where the questions, desires, emotions, beliefs, and responses of both sides are aired publicly. We have similar face-to-face meetings with youth, young adults, and with the women’s organizational leaders in the church, where questions are invited ahead of time for church leaders’ responses. Why not have such meetings with LGBTQ church members too? 

My favorite way to hear others’ voices is in person. I have greatly enjoyed meeting LGBTQ church members at support group meetings (like those put on by Affirmation.org). I also enjoy hearing their voices on a daily basis through podcasts and in Facebook groups. Some favorite publicly accessible podcasts and groups where LGBTQ Latter-day Saint voices can be heard directly are: 

• https://affirmation.org/

• https://beyondtheblockpodcast.com/  

• https://lattergaystories.org/

• https://www.listenlearnandlove.org/

• http://mormonsbuildingbridges.org/

• https://www.thepeculiar.org/

• https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/human-stories-with-jill-hazard-rowe/id1468623842

• https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/love-is-spoken-queer/id1491809605

From a doctrinal perspective, the Beyond the Block podcast (linked above) has taught me the most about how a proper interpretation of scripture calls for full LGBTQ equality, and how church culture, policies, and dogma can deviate from what God teaches in the scriptures about loving and caring for the marginalized people in our communities. I recently had the following conversation with James Jones and Derek Knox, co-hosts of Beyond the Block podcast, in an “ask-me-anything” live session on Facebook. (See the Preface for a little more about Derek and James.)

Evan: “How do you respond to people who say the “needs” of the marginalized in the church (LGBTQ people) are best defined by the Brethren because they speak for the Lord (and the Lord knows what we all truly need best)? 

James: I would start with the fact that that's not what King Benjamin taught. In Mosiah 4:26 he explicitly counsels us to administer to people's relief both spiritually and temporally, according to *their* wants. You also gotta ask them whose needs were being filled when we spiritually dispossessed Black folks for 126 years. That answer will let you know if you should even continue the conversation. 

Derek:

(1) First, it's not true that they "speak for the Lord" in any simplistic or robotic sense. On the contrary, the Lord can speak THROUGH them, but not everything they do or say is from the Lord. There are plenty of examples among prophets both ancient and modern. And usually in the Bible, when prophets make mistakes, OTHER people die. We should always have a mature perspective on prophets, knowing that they have biases, limitations, weaknesses, etc. We should hold them accountable and insist on transparency in their method. Part of that involves seeing the Church as one body with many members, and we ALL have a role to play to ensure that the body continues to live and grow. The Brethren are our servants, not our masters. 

(2) Even taking a simplistic view of prophetic authority, it's quite obvious that they don't know anything (and don't even CLAIM to know anything) about LGBTQ needs. Beyond two claims, which are (a) no gay marriage, and (2) no gay sex, they don't currently claim to have any solid foundational knowledge about LGBTQs. They never claim to know anything about what we SHOULD do, only what we SHOULDN'T do. So, even on their own terms, it is obvious that they don't have ANY comprehensive knowledge or insight from the Lord. They are completely at a loss and admit they have no idea what to do with LGBTQs. This doesn't sound at all like a connection with the Lord. They have no answers. There is no way anyone can honestly claim that they "know best." They hardly claim to know anything, and what they HAVE claimed about LGBTQs has changed dramatically over the last 40 years. LGBTQs have every right to point that out and supply the answers. And I think the most important tactic in responding to the idea that the Brethren know better than LGBTQs is to have ALLIES speak up often and everywhere. If we LGBTQs are the only ones saying what needs to be said, then some could say that we are biased and trying to justify the "sin" that we have a desire to commit. But when allies take on that burden, it changes the landscape. 

(3) I would probably also point out, as in the Second Passover video I did, the numerous times in the scriptures where God's people have pushed back and achieved change. In every case, it was because someone CLOSER to the problem decided to speak up. 

(4) There's also the Cornelius narrative, where Cornelius the Gentile outsider received a vision that he was included and accepted BEFORE Peter did. And when Peter did, he had to hear the message three times before he got it, because he, even though he was the senior priesthood authority, was so stubbornly clinging to what was comfortable to him and so limited by his biases and prejudices that he didn't believe that kind of change was even POSSIBLE. I'm sure I could multiply examples like this as well. We've covered things like this in nearly every one of our 50 podcast episodes. 

(5) There is also this text, which serves as a great slogan: "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?" (1 Corinthians 2:11)  

Above all, the most important thing is NOT to be afraid of the Brethren. 

(6) One important analytical tool is to ask the question "who bears the cost of getting this wrong?" or "do the Brethren face any personal consequences if they get this wrong?" Those who bear the cost or risk of the decision should ultimately be the ones to make that decision. To put it plainly, if THEY get it wrong, LGBTQs bear all the cost. Alternatively, if WE LGBTQs get it wrong, WE still bear all the cost. It's completely rigged and completely unfair, but that's the way it is right now. 

So, because WE shoulder the consequences, WE should be the ones making the decision and taking responsibility for it. I know nothing about the business world, but I DO know that one of the WORST ways of making a decision is to outsource it to decision-makers who have no stake in whether they get it right or wrong. 

For example, in the evangelical world, if I marry a dude, and that was wrong and I go to hell -- well, the evangelical pastors were right, but I am the one that goes to hell! The pastors don't go to hell if I get it wrong. I do. (In the LDS world, it will be a lower kingdom or something of the sort.) 

However, if the Brethren get this wrong, they can still live their life the same way. They can still get married, find love, have sex, enjoy companionship, etc. Their life doesn't change either way, whether they get the LGBTQ question right or wrong. That is not on the line for them as it is for us, so it is so easy for them to get it wrong. Because I bear all the cost, I should be the one to make these decisions about my life. 

To use this analytical tool on the dispossession of Black folks until 1978 that James mentioned above -- well, the white church leaders bore no personal cost to getting it wrong. THEY could exercise the priesthood, they still had everything. It was Black folks who bore the cost of that decision, so they should have been FIRST at the table making that decision. 

(7) Also, one of the most important persuasive tools we have is the narrative of LGBTQs themselves. We have the voices to speak to our own needs and circumstances, and once people get to know us and our stories, they find it hard to believe all those awful things they have been told about us. That's one of the best ways to counter the idea that the Brethren know us better than we know ourselves. Just listen to us speak! People will be blown away by the truth that they recognize in what we are saying. 

(8) Another thing, like the experiment of Alma 32, is to look at the fruits of affirming theology vs. the fruits of non-affirming theology. Affirming theology leads to life, to flourishing, to functioning, to righteousness, etc. Non-affirming theology leads to despair, sinfulness, hiding things, hate, contention, etc. The difference is clear. LGBTQ needs are not being met by non-affirming theology.” 

I love the voice that Derek provides in the church as an astute theologian and a gay man. He is a faithful church member who loves our prophets and apostles and sustains them, even though he recognizes (and publicly discusses) the crucial need for change in the church on LGBTQ matters. 

A possible factor in explaining why our church leaders are failing to adequately minister to LGBTQ people according to their wants is because of a phenomenon called “survivorship bias.” That bias is aptly described as “the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that made it past some selection process and overlooking those that did not, typically because of their lack of visibility” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias ). An example of successfully avoiding survivorship bias happened in World War II, when statistician Abraham Wald recommended that planes be fortified against gunfire in the places where returning planes were unscathed, NOT in places where returning planes had bullet holes. His rationale was that the planes that were shot down must have been shot in the spots where surviving planes had no damage. In the church context, survivorship bias might be General Authorities most frequently preaching doctrines and establishing policies based on what has worked in their own lives, as people who have thrived in the church, rather than exploring with sincere and real intent whether the aspects of the church that have worked for them could be the very things that might unintentionally end up “shooting down” the faith of most of our LGBTQ siblings. Without LGBTQ individuals being heard in the highest levels of church leadership, any revelations the Lord may give to the church are likely to reflect elements of survivorship bias to one degree or another. 

Elder Bruce R. McConkie echoed the sentiment that decisions by General Authorities, even by prophets on doctrinal matters, may not be consistent with God’s will: 

“Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine. This is one of the reasons the Lord has given us the Standard Works. They become the standards and rules that govern where doctrine and philosophy are concerned. If this were not so, we would believe one thing when one man was president of the Church and another thing in the days of his successors. Truth is eternal and does not vary. Sometimes even wise and good men fall short in the accurate presentation of what is truth. Sometimes a prophet gives personal views which are not endorsed and approved by the Lord. (Personal letter to Eugene England, http://www.eugeneengland.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/BRM-to-EE-Feb-80-Combined.pdf, 1981)

“Though General Authorities are authorities in the sense of having power to administer church affairs, they may or may not be authorities in the sense of doctrinal knowledge, the intricacies of church procedures or the receipt of the promptings of the Spirit. A call to an administrative position of itself adds little knowledge or power of discernment to an individual, although every person called to a position in the Church does grow in grace, knowledge, and power by magnifying the calling given him.” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 284, https://archive.org/stream/MormonDoctrine1966/MormonDoctrine1966_djvu.txt , 1966) 

Derek offers a helpful analogy that might aid more church members in feeling comfortable about recognizing bias and imperfection in the revelations pronounced by our church leaders. (This is a summarized version Derek sent me of a concept he explored more fully on a podcast episode released on February 22, 2020 titled “And He Inviteth Them ALL” at beyondtheblockpodcast.com.) 

“Our insight into the mind and will of God can be characterized as one of three windows: fundamentalism, skepticism, and critical realism. 

Imagine three windows.  

The first is like a pane of perfectly clear glass: we can see into God’s mind without any distortion. As long as it’s sunny, we have a perfect view of what’s outside, and our perspective is exactly the same as reality. That’s fundamentalism. 

The second window is like a mirror. There is no revelation of the outside, only our own reflections. Everything is a subconscious projection of ourselves. This is skepticism. 

The third window, critical realism, is like a pane of glass that can be a little warped, and a little dirty, and we do see some of our own reflection in it. However, we do see some of the reality beyond it as well, and we do have access to some objective truth beyond the window, unlike in the skeptics’ window. I think this third window provides the BEST model of prophetic authority, because it explains how ALL of us receive revelation and insight for our own lives or for others. We are all staring at the middle window where we can see some of our own biases and prejudices reflected back, but we can also see the reality that is beyond those. Of the three windows, this is the only realistic approach to revelation. 

This very much coheres with what Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 13 about knowing and prophesying in part, and seeing through a glass darkly. It coheres with what most members experience in their own reception of personal revelation. It coheres with the record of prophets/apostles in the scriptures and in modern times. Basically, it provides MORE faith, durability, and explanatory power than the naive approach to prophetic authority [that our prophets are perfect and they never make mistakes].” 

I hope our prophets and apostles sit down at some point publicly with people like Derek: faithful LGBTQ church members who can explain, and back up with scriptures, the need for change in the church. Meetings with leading LGBTQ church members need to happen beyond the local church leadership level – because bishops and stake presidents often do not relay the messages of LGBTQ church members up the chain of command. To help facilitate that sort of public meeting with the Brethren that could benefit all of us, I encourage everyone to listen to, and amplify as allies, the voices of any LGBTQ people we know in the church.

As Cheryl and I have tried to become better LGBTQ allies by being more vocal about our desire for change in the church, a lot of people have interacted with us about our situation. Most of those interactions have been wonderful, while others have come from a well-intentioned but still insensitive place (which I understand – I was in that same place for many years). 

So in an attempt to create more awareness and sensitivity, I would like to describe some hurtful and helpful things Cheryl and I have heard from fellow church members we know from all over the various places we’ve lived. I share the hurtful messages here with no sense of anger. But they did cause my heart to ache because I knew people just didn’t understand. 

[Side note: For a more complete set of ideas about what is harmful vs. helpful to say to LGBTQ church members and their loved ones, please see this amazing list compiled by Emily Nelson: https://www.facebook.com/emily.e.nelson.92/posts/10219726331658849 . Emily is the mother of a gay son and a moderator of the Facebook group called “I’ll Walk With You (Supporting Latter-day Saint Parents with LGBTQ+ Children).”]

Based on personal and observed experience, here are some suggestions of things people might want to avoid: 

1. Don’t send “scientific” articles about how people “choose” to have gay sexual desires. As I’ll discuss further in Chapter 3 : (i) the current scientific consensus is that having a gay sexual orientation is not a choice; and (ii) the church no longer teaches that having such attractions has to be a choice, or that it comes about because of the acts or omissions of anyone else. Please assume that folks have done a lot of research on the “causes” of sexual orientation. If you still decide to share something, please fact-check and bias- check your source before sending it. There is a bunch of pseudo-science being published by outlets with anti-LGBTQ agendas. 

2. Don’t send resources that paint mixed-orientation marriages (i.e., marriages where a gay person marries a straight person) as a solution. Those might work for some bisexuals or for a tiny percentage of gay people, but, as I will discuss further in Chapter 3, the church no longer recommends that gay people marry straight people. Please assume that folks have done the necessary research to discover that mixed-orientation marriages are 2 to 3 times more likely to end in divorce than uniform-orientation marriages (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gay-mormon-men-marriage_n_6464848 ). This may be due to a correlation with higher rates of depression and a lower quality of life in mixed- orientation marriages (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19359705.2014.912970 ). 

3. Don’t compare sexual orientation to anything else. As I’ll describe further in Chapter 7, comparisons to addictions, disabilities, or even language acquisition are harmful and inaccurate. As I’ll mention in Chapter 3, sexual orientation develops in a similar way to handedness (i.e., being right or left-handed). That may be an appropriate analogy but only for purposes of discussing similarities in developmental processes of different physical characteristics. Beyond that, it too is an inappropriate analogy because handedness is not as central to human intimacy, life purpose, companionship, mating, belonging, and identity as sexuality is. Being straight is the only appropriate analogy for being gay. 

4. Don’t compare the church’s expectation that gay people be lifelong celibates to straight singles remaining chaste. The causes, effects and resolution for straight celibacy and gay celibacy are completely different. Straight singles always have hope, whether in this life or the next, of a loving and attraction-filled marriage. But gay singles in the church are expected to actively avoid marriage in this life. All they have to look forward to in the next life is marriage to someone to whom they are not attracted. If you’re straight, put yourself in their shoes: would you look forward to marrying someone of the same sex in the next life or would that cause you dread? Think about that hopelessness for both mortality and eternity. While I recognize that straight singles do have a tough road to walk, their road is not church-prescribed despair that almost always results in poor mental health, which is the road gay people in the church are expected to walk (see Preface). 

5. Don’t belittle the psychological harm that gay people in the church feel by comparing their suffering to other marginalized groups in the church. I’ll discuss this at length in Chapter 5. Various people have told me they expect LGBTQ people to stay in the church like some Black people did before they were formally granted full church privileges in 1978. Black people have indeed suffered (and continue to suffer) much from the church and society. But just because one marginalized group has suffered greatly doesn’t mean that another marginalized group should also suffer greatly. Nor does the suffering of one marginalized group benefit the other. 

While no one can rank suffering except God himself (Doctrine & Covenants 121:10), here are some interesting similarities and differences between gay and Black suffering in the church. 

• In both cases, scriptural passages have been interpreted in discriminatory and harmful ways. 

• Both gay sexual attraction and skin color are unchosen biological traits, whereas gay and lesbian people are discriminated against based on that plus a choice to engage in gay sexual behavior. 

• Gay people can choose to stay celibate or marry an opposite sex person and thereby remain in the church with full privileges, which is something Black people never had the option of doing before 1978 – i.e., they could not ignore their skin color to receive the priesthood (for men) or temple blessings (for men and women). In other words, many gay people have been able to “hide” being queer, yet no Black person can “hide” being Black. 

• Black church members could get married, have families and still be in the church before 1978. Gay church members cannot without denying their innate, God- created sexuality. 

• Black people were told the priesthood/temple ban here on earth would not affect their ultimate status in heaven. So they could look forward to their mortal families being together forever. However, gays and lesbians can’t enjoy uniform- orientation marriage and still be in the church, or hope for their mortal families to be together forever. 

• Even before 1978, church doctrine gave Black church members hope for equality with non-Black people after this life. Some quotes can be found where church leaders taught that such equality would only come through a mandatory post- mortal change to their race, but it was not settled doctrine (for now anyway) that Black people would have to become white to be equal to whites after this life. However, it is current, settled doctrine that for LGBTQ church members to experience the same joy as cisgender straight people in heaven, they will need to be in a heterosexual marriage after this life (i.e., they will need to repress or have altered for eternity the way they were born to love). 

• Black people throughout history have been more widely subject to violence, murder and enslavement. While violence and murder are also risks for LGBTQ people (think about Harvey Milk [1978], Matthew Shepard [1998], Nazis killing gays along with Jews in the Holocaust [1941-45], and many other atrocities against LGBTQ people in the past or even committed today, including in many foreign countries that have anti-LGBTQ laws), suicide appears to be a greater mortal risk than murder presently for LGBTQ church members in the U.S. Statistics show LGBTQ people are more likely to die by suicide than people in other demographic groups in the U.S. In fact, as to LGBTQ church members specifically, studies have shown that church teachings on gender, marriage, sexuality, and family cause suicidal ideation or at least one PTSD symptom in nearly 90% of LGBTQ church members (http://mormonsbuildingbridges.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/20190928-U-of-U-MBB-Presentation-SIMMONS-FINAL.pptx ; https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/simmons_brian_w_201712_phd.pdf ; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_Mormon_suicides ; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13811118.2020.1806159 ; https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zNs8K5nNPw4SQxPch0uc_PFH0f0Q3kIq/view ). This is often because of lack of hope (it has been clinically proven that a simple lack of hope can cause depression (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3721024/ ). 

• More gay people are born into the church than Black people were born into the church before 1978. That is, more gay people are born into a traumatic situation in the church. 

• Black children are usually born to at least one Black parent, who can help them learn to navigate Black culture and being Black in the world. Gay people are born into all kinds of families, often to straight parents. That means that many gay people are born to parents that are not like them and may struggle to accept them, or not know how to support their gay children to navigate their lives. 

• The racial priesthood/temple ban did not normally create tension within Black families, whereas families with LGBTQ individuals are often torn apart as family members choose different ways to try to reconcile LGBTQ realities with church teachings. 

By making the above comparisons, I do not intend to comment on the degree of suffering that different marginalized groups have experienced at large. I just find the differences potentially instructive and empathy-building. I try to remember that if not done with a focus on empathy, comparison can be the thief of compassion. 

6. Don’t compare a straight person who decides to leave the church to a gay person who chooses to leave. The straight person might be choosing to leave the church for reasons they can revisit or repent of later. But a gay person leaving the church often does so as a desperate and difficult way to maintain their mental health. And their sexual orientation will not change, so that conflict (church vs. mental health) will always exist for them. They often do not desire to sin when they leave – rather they just want to avoid trauma from constant exposure to church teachings that the way they were born is inconsistent with the plan of salvation and will need to be fixed in the next life. 

7. Don’t suggest that a hope for change in church doctrine is a bad thing. Few church messages have been more consistent than that “the Restoration of the Lord’s gospel [is] an unfolding Restoration that continues today.” (Russell M. Nelson, Prophet, https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/president-nelson-invites-sharing-gospel-restoration , 2020). Never try to take away the hope for change in the church, because that hope is what allows them to both truly love themselves or their LGBTQ loved one and still believe in the church. As the parent of an LGBTQ child, as I’ll describe further in Chapter 5, I think it is impossible for me to be both a loving parent and a believer in the church without hoping for change. 

8. Don’t suggest that a parent of a gay child should always wish their child was still in the church. Parents of a gay kid need to be allowed to be happy that their child isn’t in the church while still being seen as “righteous” church members. That’s because if parents are expected to remain sad about their kid leaving the church (again, leaving is often necessary for their kid’s mental health), then they end up loving their gay kid in a discriminatory way as compared to how they love their straight kids. All of my children desire to have stable, fulfilling family lives. But one was born with a biological trait that makes it impossible to do so without violating church rules. Parents in the church need to be allowed to publicly say they’re proud of their gay children who are pursuing or are in healthy marriages with same-gender partners without being judged. They shouldn’t be made to feel bad just for unconditionally loving their child. They shouldn’t be made to feel like they need to communicate to church members that they love their LGBTQ child “even though” they are no longer in the church. 

9. Don’t say that they should just trust in God to work everything out after this life. That line of thought has been shown to contribute greatly to suicidal ideation among LGBTQ church members (see Chapter 8). And, as I describe in Chapter 4, a trust-in-the-Lord approach doesn’t work for gay church members under current doctrinal constructs anyway. There is no room in our present doctrine for the Lord to work things out for gay church members without heaven seeming like a special kind of hell to most of them. 

10. Don’t judge someone just because they publicly disagree with the church’s political positions on LGBTQ issues such as conversion therapy and religious liberty. I’ll discuss my views on those matters in Chapter 8. Please remember that the church allows us all to disagree when it comes to politics without losing any church privileges. And many folks view outside pressures as the only thing that might make most church members ready (or make church leaders pray as sincerely as is needed) for change in the church to come about. When you get upset over others’ political support for full LGBTQ rights and protections, they may feel that you are indirectly criticizing them or their love for their child. 

Here are some positive suggestions that, based on our experience, might be helpful: 

1. Acknowledge that the relevant doctrine causes harm. You don’t have to start disbelieving in the church to simply acknowledge and openly state a proven fact: that core church teachings on gender, marriage, sexuality, and family cause psychological damage to the vast majority of LGBTQ church members. (See the links to studies about PTSD, suicide and depression in point #5 of the above list of things to avoid.) 

2. Tell the families of gay kids in the church that you admire their unconditional love. Tell them you are happy to see how they are keeping their family circle intact. 

3. Say you wish things were different in the church for LGBTQ people. Again, you don’t have to start disbelieving in the church to make such a statement. The Savior asked if the cup could pass from Him when he was praying in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:39), so suffering could be avoided – if it was His Father’s will. So I think it’s okay for us to similarly ask God if a change in the church can happen, so suffering can be avoided if possible. 

4. Support others' choices, even if they involve leaving (or supporting someone else in leaving) the church. You are not best suited to know what is best for another’s mental health and well-being. Please be supportive of their choices and of the decisions of their loved ones to support those choices. Failing to be supportive of others’ choices is especially damaging when you try to counteract parents of gay children when the parents are not around and you have time with the child. Doing that will only cause friction between you and the child’s parents and confusion for the child. So just support them in what they say is the best way for them to parent. And for anyone who has the sacred honor of being a person to whom an LGBTQ individual comes out, remember this counsel:

“When a person comes out as LGBTQ, especially a young person to a parent, they are not looking for you to agree. They are asking if they are still loved. Assure them that they are.” (Debra Oaks Coe, member of the executive committee of the Utah Commission for LGBT Suicide Awareness and Prevention, https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=5117754&itype=CMSID, 2017)

5. Acknowledge that someone’s choice to leave the church could be one that God actually wants for them. There are many examples in the scriptures of God making exceptions to commandments given the uniqueness of certain circumstances. None of us, not even our highest church leaders, can know for sure that someone’s personal revelation is false. It doesn’t hurt church members to acknowledge that an LGBTQ person walking “alongside” the church’s prescribed covenant path (as opposed to walking on top of that path, if doing so is hurtful for them) might be what God actually wants for that person. It also doesn’t hurt to acknowledge that an LGBTQ person might be walking on their own covenant path. Actually, we all are, given the personal nature of our covenants with God. Remember, God doesn’t require anyone to run faster than they have strength (Mosiah 4:27). 

6. Say you’ll be there as a friend no matter what – even if they leave the church and get angry at it. Tell LGBTQ people and their loved ones that there is nothing they could do to make you not be their friend. They need that kind of unconditional love to be expressed. Some people they love in the church might feel like they need to distance themselves from them, out of a misplaced sense of needing to avoid condoning sinful behavior. You can be an unconditional friend. 

7. Put that expression of friendship into action by continuing to socialize with them as normal. LGBTQ people and their families can feel isolated because of their choices. Don’t make that worse by not socializing with them anymore. 

8. Let them vent to you about their frustrations with church doctrine and the harshness in attitude of many church members. You don’t need to agree with everything they say, but it will help them feel less alone if you are committed to listening and truly trying to understand how they feel. 

9. Call people out in church meetings when they make any statements that are hurtful to LGBTQ people or their families. I know that finding productive ways to help people understand how their statements cause harm can be tricky. And I know from personal experience that doing so is especially difficult while serving in a leadership position in the church, because there’s a desire to avoid looking like you endorse something that is not authorized by the church. But finding ways to publicly honor the pain that LGBTQ church members and their families are feeling – and asking people to accordingly be more loving – is extremely comforting. That is a crucial way that you can “comfort those who stand in need of comfort” (Mosiah 18:8-9). And don’t wait for parents or outspoken allies of LGBTQ people to speak up first. They can sometimes feel tired or fragile from their efforts and might need the added boost of seeing someone unexpected step in to defend their loved ones with them. If you’re not sure of what to say, here are some statements you might store in your memory that could work in almost any situation:

• “Let’s try to remember that Jesus spent most of His time ministering to and loving the marginalized and outcast in His society. We should follow His example.”

• “Our LGBTQ sisters and brothers in the church walk a road more difficult than most of us can comprehend. Let’s keep our comments about them and their lives loving and respectful.”

• “There are people in this room who are LGBTQ or have LGBTQ family members. Let’s not speak as though they aren’t among us.”

• “Let’s remember the warning in Alma 5:30-31 that says repentance is necessary for anyone who makes ‘a mock of his brother, or that heapeth upon him persecutions’.”

• “Let’s try to be the Good Samaritan when we see people who are beaten down by others, not a robber that helped do the damage.”

10. Become an LGBTQ advocate. Nothing will help an LGBTQ person or their loved ones feel more loved and supported than if you commit to being an LGBTQ advocate and speak with LGBTQ people about how you can be an ally for them. That means being willing to use whatever privilege you have in your life to further the betterment of LGBTQ lives and well-being. It means you are willing to stick your neck out to help LGBTQ people have full equality in all areas of their lives (including at church). Being willing to act as an ally will allow Christ’s love to flow through you to LGBTQ people and their families in the most powerful way possible. 

If more church members avoid insensitive comments and proactively say positive things as well, then the pain that LGBTQ church members and their families feel from the doctrine of the church can be softened – and all of that can be done without contradicting the doctrine of the church at all. In fact, I think the most core doctrines of the church relating to true Christ-like discipleship require that we try to soften pain whenever we can and show unconditional love to all.