Chapter 3-
Can a changing church provide hope?

• How do historical church teachings influence my views?

• Does the church say that experiencing gay sexual desire is a choice?

• What does science say about gay sexual orientation? How common is it in nature?

• Is mixed-orientation marriage encouraged by the church?

• How did the church respond to the legalization of marriage equality?

• How exactly does the church want us to love LGBTQ people?

• How did my experiences as a bishop prepare me for my son coming out to me?

• Shifting church policies: How can darkness descend, and hope be rekindled, both so quickly?

• How do I feel about Elder Holland's 2021 talk at BYU?

Chapter synopsis: Positive changes in the church’s teachings on gay sexual orientation correspond with greater modern scientific understanding. Both unknowingly helped prepare me for Wes coming out as gay. But painful confusion still exists in the church about how exactly to go about loving and accepting gay people, and gay people still cannot marry (consistent with their sexual orientation anyway) and stay in the church.

In order to fully explain my current near-despair about church teachings relating to gay sexual orientation, I need to describe the evolution of my beliefs on the topic. I grew up in Murray, Utah, a wonderful but relatively conservative place. And I grew up in a relatively conservative era as well (the 1980s and 1990s). I remember using gay slurs regularly as a kid (and even in adulthood) in ways to derogatorily tease my friends. I remember playing a made-up game during recess in elementary school that someone started calling “smear the queer,” where the guy with the football was the “queer” and the rest of us would just try to chase him down to tackle and pummel him until he gave up the ball. There was no scoring – the whole aim of the game was to tackle the person whose turn it was to be the “queer” and see how much pain he could take before relenting. Now, I should clarify that, despite that horrific game, I wasn’t raised to hate. I’m not even sure I knew what “queer” really meant at the time. I had an amazing upbringing in a loving home - my parents raised me to love and be kind to others. I never thought about actually hurting anyone just because they were gay. No one in my home or in the church ever even suggested that would be okay to do. So I wasn’t hateful or violent toward LGBTQ people, but I would definitely say I was ignorant. In hindsight I can say I was intolerant – unintentionally homophobic is probably a good way to describe how I was until my mid-30s. 

I think that was in part due to the fact that I have believed in the church’s teachings all my life. I haven’t been perfect in following all of them all the time (I don’t think anyone can be - although I have always had a temple recommend ever since I was old enough to get one). I always tried to be good, and repent to become better at following church teachings. So I accepted the church’s views about gay sexual orientation instinctively, without hesitation. I don’t remember knowing anyone personally who was openly gay until I was 19 years old and serving a two-year full-time mission for the church in San Francisco (from 1994-1996). 

Growing up, my understanding of official church teachings was that being gay was an evil perversion, and that “same-sex attraction” was a choice and could be altered if someone really wanted to change. Other church teachings and practices during my childhood and youth that I wasn’t aware of at the time (but that I have since learned about) included encouraging mixed- sexual orientation marriages as a cure for gay sexual orientation, and abusive conversion/aversion/reparative therapy meant to repress gay sexual desires, including a program at BYU where gay men, as part of their repentance efforts, were shown same-gender erotic materials while having their genitals shocked to try to teach their bodies to not respond with arousal. In the 2017 McMurrin Lecture at the University of Utah, titled “Science vs. Dogma: Biology Challenges the LDS Paradigm,” historian and scholar Dr. Gregory A. Prince spoke about these treatments. He wryly notes, “Pornographic pictures of nudes—which he was asked to provide— were... I presume not available in the BYU Bookstore.” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gssnz1WZ3dU (this statement is said at the 31:45 minute mark); See also https://abcnews.go.com/Health/mormon-gay-cures-reparative-therapies-shock- today/story?id=13240700; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigham_Young_University_LGBT_history ). 

Our church wasn’t the only church teaching these harmful ideas or engaging in similar abusive practices. Many other conservative churches were doing likewise. But it is still troubling to me to recognize that the highest leaders in our church (including some who are still alive and leading the church today), whom I consider prophets and apostles, were in charge when such practices occurred. 

After getting to know some gay people in San Francisco on my mission, I began to research more about our church’s doctrine on gay sexual orientation – mostly just out of curiosity though. Because of what I perceived as unwanted sexual advances that a gay church member made toward me while I was on my mission, and a few confrontational interactions I had with gay and transgender people as I was proselytizing on the street, I did not have kind feelings toward LGBTQ people generally while I was on my mission. The church resources I was able to find on my mission still described gay sexual orientation (not just behavior) as a sinful choice. So it wasn’t until years later when I moved to Boston in 2003 that my negative thoughts about people being gay began to slowly soften. 

Around that time, marriage equality was a hot political issue. The church was heavily involved around the country in efforts to prevent the legalization of gay marriage, including having local church leaders in California formally instruct their congregation members to oppose marriage equality ballot initiatives with their individual time and money. Church members in California did this especially effectively, becoming what many believe was the primary driver behind the success of defeating the marriage equality initiative in California in 2008: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/politics/15marriage.html . I agreed with the church’s political views about gay marriage at the time. But debating marriage equality with my non- Latter-day Saint friends here in Boston who were in favor of it did soften my perspective a bit. 

That slight softening turned out to be helpful for me when I served as the volunteer leader of our local congregation (initially as a branch president and later as a bishop) in southeastern Massachusetts from 2011-2016. Some individuals came to me around mid-way through those years seeking guidance about how to approach their attraction to people of their same gender from a spiritual perspective. I honestly didn’t know how to help them. So I did some investigating and study. 

I found in my research that the church had published a website just the year before (in December 2012) called www.mormonsandgays.org (now https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay/ ). 

I learned on the church’s website that the church didn’t consider being attracted to people of the same gender to be a choice anymore. While the initial version of the site used to have the statement that “same-sex attraction” was not a choice on the lead page (if I remember correctly anyway), you now have to click through a couple pages to find that idea. But the current site still says: 

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that the experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them.” (M. Russell Ballard, Apostle, “Church Leaders,” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay/ , 2015) 

I wish the church would have publicized its original mormonsandgays.org site more when it first came out in 2012. Not many church members knew about it and so held onto false beliefs for many years thereafter, that being attracted to people of one’s same gender is a choice. Those beliefs were based on statements made over prior decades by past church leaders – that God would never allow an individual to be born gay because it would contradict the plan of salvation – or that bad parenting could result in a child being gay - both of which are concepts the church no longer teaches are true: https://mormonlgbtquestions.com/ . All of those past teachings have now been disavowed by the church. The official teaching of the church now is that gay sexual attraction is not a choice (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay/ ).

That new position of the church (that “same-sex attraction” is not a choice) is consistent with what I had just begun to find out about scientific perspectives on the cause of gay sexual orientation as well. Through some reading, I had learned that genetics and developmental environment could both be at play – and neither meant that a person chose to have gay sexual desires. While different studies are continuing to provide more and more details, many have now emerged that suggest that a key to understanding the cause of varying sexual orientations is “epigenetics” (which means “over” or “around” genetics). That is a field of science that studies how environmental factors can actually change how DNA works (i.e., how genes are expressed): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetic_theories_of_homosexuality . 

Specifically, I have learned that researchers have found there are thousands of genes influencing sexual orientation, not a single “gay gene.” Scientists also found environmental factors that can actually alter or “hard-wire” the expression of those genes. This can happen with a fetus in the womb (or, as some researchers suggest, with a child after birth, although much less evidence supports post-birth epigenetic changes: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/15/homosexuality-may-be-triggered-by-environment-after-birth/amp/ ). In utero, brains of fetuses have different levels of exposure to, and different abilities to absorb, testosterone – resulting in interplay of other hormones and steroids (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/homosexuality-may-be-caused-chemical-modifications-dna ). It is important to note that in epigenetics, the inherited genetic makeup of the fetus may play a significant role in whether environmental conditions alter DNA. Some inherited genetic makeups may be less affected by environmental conditions than others. So as with most physical traits, both parents play a role biologically in determining the sexual orientation with which their child is born.

All of this can result in a wide spectrum of sexual orientations with which people may be born (just like there are wide spectrums among many other physical characteristics in biology, like eye color, handed-ness (right, ambidextrous, left), etc.). The spectrum of sexuality is often referred to as the Kinsey Scale: https://kinseyinstitute.org/research/publications/kinsey-scale.php ). That means that some people who feel gay, bisexual or straight sexual desires may feel them more strongly than others. Even identical twins may feel sexual attractions differently, even though they share the same DNA, because their DNA is expressed differently due to epigenetic factors (i.e., due to different levels of exposure to hormones in utero, through separate amniotic sacs or otherwise). 

Modern science shows that a gay sexual orientation is an unchosen reality for many people. That reality is a biological one by definition, because sexual desires are of the body. I was amazed to learn that both the church and science were now in agreement that having a gay sexual orientation is an unchosen biological trait. 

Now, notwithstanding the scientific findings explaining the origins of sexual orientation, a few individuals have told me that since some people have shown “fluidity” in their sexuality over time, sexual orientation can’t be just a purely biological thing. They argue that some choice in sexual desire is obviously present because of that demonstrated flexibility. I believe that is a faulty conclusion though. The sexual orientation spectrum is broad because the brains of developing babies absorb wide-ranging levels of hormones while in the womb. Brain development in utero puts most babies on the primarily straight or primarily gay ends of the spectrum. But some people seem to have developed in utero with hormonal absorption levels somewhere in the middle, so they are born with bisexual orientation. They still have an unchosen biological orientation – it just happens to allow for more natural flexibility. Stated differently: 

“Some will argue that our commonsense experiences are full of people who are “fluid” in their sexual orientations or change their sexualities...Change is widely used to argue against biological explanations. Critics will say that if behaviour changes, or is “fluid,” then surely it can’t have a biological basis? This is false because it is our biology that allows us to learn, respond to socialisation, and helps generate our culture. So showing evidence of change is not an argument against biology. There is indeed some fluidity in sexuality over time, predominantly among women. But there is no “bell shaped curve” to sexual orientation. People may change the identity labels they use and who they have sex with but sexual attractions seem stable over time.” (https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2015/jul/24/gay-genes-science-is-on-the-right-track-were-born-this-way-lets-deal-with-it ) 

So a biological explanation for sexual orientation is not diminished just because we see someone in a gay relationship at one point and then later observe them to have a straight relationship instead. All that might mean is that they are biologically wired somewhere in the middle of the sexual orientation spectrum – i.e., their biological orientation doesn’t change; it just provides that particular person more fluidity in attractions. This is analogous to the way that an ambidextrous person may alternate between feeling comfortable using their right or left hand in different situations or over the course of their life. 

Interestingly, as I continued my research, I also learned that same-sex sexual behavior is widespread in the animal kingdom, occurring in every major animal group. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals ). I also didn’t know that the percentage of animals within many species that exhibit same-sex sexual behavior is about the same as the percentage of humans who are LGBTQ (between around 2-10% of the population, depending on the study and location: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation#Denmark ). 

In any event, during the course of my research into all this scientific stuff, I started to realize I was very much behind the curve in understanding the biology behind, and scope of, gay sexual orientation in general. 

Finally, I should note that I regret that I required scientific evidence explaining how gay sexual orientation is innate before I believed it could be. I wish I would have believed the testimonies of LGBTQ people, rather than being a Doubting Thomas and requiring evidence. Because straight people are the majority, or heterosexuality is seen as “normal,” there are far fewer studies that try to figure out why people are straight. I wish there were no need to have so many studies about why people are gay. I wish we all just loved each other better and understood gay sexual orientation as a helpful and normal occurrence (see Chapter 4 for a discussion about the benefits of gay sexual orientation in nature), not needing evidence to accept each other’s lived experiences and realities.

Furthermore, as some LGBTQ rights commentators have noted, relying too much on scientific explanations for LGBTQ realities can actually hurt the cause of equality (https://www.ted.com/talks/dr_lisa_diamond_why_the_born_this_way_argument_does_not_advance_lgbt_equality?language=en ). So while I think the scientifically validated middle-spectrum orientations with which some people are born can clearly explain the sexual fluidity that they exhibit over the course of their lives, I nevertheless still wish we all just simply believed each other, without requiring scientific evidence, when we say what our respective sexual orientations or gender identities are, whether LGBTQ or straight/cisgender. 

Returning to my learnings on the church front, I also discovered that, for quite some time, church leaders had been discouraging gay people from marrying straight people as a cure for having a gay sexual orientation: 

“[M]arriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices ....” (Gordon B. Hinckley, Apostle, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1987/05/reverence-and-morality , 1987) 

“Marriage should not be viewed as a way to resolve homosexual problems. The lives of others should not be damaged by entering a marriage where such concerns exist. Encouraging members to cultivate heterosexual feelings as a way to resolve homosexual problems generally leads them to frustration and discouragement.” Understanding and Helping Those Who Have Homosexual Problems. Suggestions for Ecclesiastical Leaders, 1992, p. 4. (http://www.qrd.org/qrd/religion/judeochristian/protestantism/mormon/mormon- homosexuality) 

That was different from what I had heard before, and constituted a change in church policy. For decades before the above statement by President Hinckley was made, the church had regularly been promoting mixed-orientation marriages as a cure for someone having a gay sexual orientation. That is, before 1987, informal church policy was for local leaders to advise gay men to marry women. 

Some more recent and clear statements by general church leaders saying the church no longer supports mixed-orientation marriage as a cure are as follows: 

“We don’t counsel people that heterosexual marriage is a panacea. You’ll see in some of these experiences that are related on this site that it has been a successful experience in a few cases, or some have expressed the success they have found in marriage and in raising a family, and in the joy and all that has filled out and blessed their lives as a consequence. But that we know is not always true. And it’s not always successful. Sometimes it’s been even disastrous. We think it’s something that a person can evaluate, and they can discuss, and both with priesthood leaders and family and others, and make decisions. But we simply don’t take a uniform position on saying, ‘Yes, always,’ or ‘No, always.’” (D. Todd Christofferson, Apostle, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay/leaders?lang=eng ) 

“[Church leaders] definitely do not recommend marriage as a solution for same- gender feelings. No, it’s not a therapy. In times past, decades ago, there were some practices to that effect. We have eradicated them in the Church now.” (Dallin H. Oaks, Apostle, “Elizabeth's Story: Ricardo's Wife,” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay/videos/elizabeths-story?lang=eng , 2016) 

I have heard many accounts of local church leaders, presumably unaware of the church’s changed position on mixed-orientation marriage, who still counsel gay church members (who do not express any opposite gender attraction) to earnestly consider marrying someone of the opposite sex. So I think the church’s apparent desire to have such advice “eradicated” should be followed up with additional action: more training materials that emphasize the change, and required review on a regular basis by local leaders.

Even some other relatively recent statements by church leaders that seem to encourage mixed- orientation marriage, don’t actually do so when they are read closely. Instead, they illustrate that a couple should only marry if there is genuine attraction present between them. I think that means the church’s position is that any person who experiences gay sexual desires must be actually bisexual (at least bisexual to a degree sufficient to feel sincerely attracted to their potential spouse) in order to appropriately marry a person of the opposite sex – because there has to be genuine attraction present between both parties: 

“We are all thrilled when some who struggle with these feelings are able to marry, raise children, and achieve family happiness...[but] recognize that marriage is not an all- purpose solution [and that] same-gender attractions run deep, and trying to force a heterosexual relationship is not likely to change them...[Some attempts at marriage] have resulted in broken hearts and broken homes” (Jeffrey R. Holland, Apostle, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2007/10/helping-those-who-struggle-with-same-gender-attraction , 2007). 

“[P]ersons who have...shown their ability to deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background, and feel a great attraction for a daughter of God and therefore desire to enter marriage and have children and enjoy the blessings of eternity— that’s a situation when marriage would be appropriate.” (Dallin H. Oaks, Apostle, https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction , 2006) 

I believe church leaders wisely changed prior teachings on mixed-orientation marriage when statistics in the 1980s and 1990s started showing such marriages had a disproportionately higher rate of divorce. A 2015 study showed such 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 . 

Well, after learning of the new positions the church was taking and the science that agreed with such positions, I told the individuals who came to me seeking guidance, to not feel bad about their gay sexual attractions, to try to resist them (because, even though the church had changed its position about the attractions being a choice, acting on them is still considered a sin), and to have faith that God would help them figure out how to stay chaste and be happy going forward. My heart ached in having to provide that counsel, because when I tried to put myself in their shoes, I honestly didn’t know how these individuals would be able to obey the church’s rule for chastity and also find happiness if they had to repress any hope for a uniform-orientation marriage someday. But, at the very least, I was glad I didn’t need to tell them they were sinning in just feeling gay sexual desires, or recommend they pursue a mixed-orientation marriage or go to conversion/reparative therapy, as bishops in the past were instructed to counsel. 

I admire church leaders for softening the church’s stance. An essay written by Bryce Cook, a faithful, active Latter-day Saint, does a great job summarizing the doctrinal evolution that has occurred within the church: https://mormonlgbtquestions.com/ . This essay also explains the harm that even our improved current doctrine can still have on LGBTQ church members - and possible ideas for how our doctrine could change even more while still staying within existing theological tenets. I’m glad our prophets and apostles became aware of the flawed science that formed the basis of their counsel (and that of so many religious leaders in other churches), and of the harm their positions were causing, and that they changed the official teachings of the church accordingly.

After observing in private meetings the heartache that the individuals who came to talk to me were experiencing, and seeing their tears and knowing how much they wanted to be happy in the church, I was very encouraged to see the church moving in what I thought was a more kind, loving and Christ-like direction. In fact, in March of 2015, the church was even instrumental in passing groundbreaking LGBTQ rights legislation in Utah, which was great: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/us/politics/utah-passes-antidiscrimination-bill-backed-by-mormon-leaders.html . 

Then the U.S. Supreme Court legalized marriage equality in June of 2015. The following month, the highest governing body of our church gave some instructions in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling. That governing body is known as the First Presidency, which is comprised of the President of our church, also referred to as the prophet, and his two counselors. (An analogy to Catholicism would have the prophet being like the Pope, because he holds the highest church position possible.) The First Presidency required that all local church leaders read a statement to their congregation members, to reiterate the church’s doctrinal position that gay sexual behavior was still considered a sin. 

Because I thought those people I had counseled with in our congregation might be listening especially carefully as I followed that directive from the First Presidency (and because my understanding of gay sexual orientation had expanded greatly and my heart had softened immensely by this point), I decided to read the church’s statement in a special meeting where I could try to facilitate a more fulsome discussion. I asked all the adults and teenage youth in our congregation to attend that discussion in lieu of an hour of the normal Sunday classes. I took only about five minutes in that meeting to follow the church’s instruction to clarify that the doctrine forbidding same-sex sexual behavior had not changed as a result of the Supreme Court ruling. I then spent almost 40 minutes leading a discussion about two of the church’s other positions that had changed: 1- that gay sexual attraction is not a choice; and 2- that church members need to do a better job of showing more love and acceptance toward LGBTQ people. 

Many members of my congregation said afterward that they did not know the church held those positions now. But because of the church’s website (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay/ ) showing this revised approach, it was easy for me to stay within orthodox boundaries during that meeting, while still keeping the focus on gaining greater love and understanding. 

Unfortunately, I have observed that many church members still aren’t aware of the change in the church’s teachings about gay sexual orientation and how we should increase our efforts to love LGBTQ people. I can understand why that is. The church’s website on same-sex attraction (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay/ ) has not yet been discussed in any General Conference or publicized much, especially in comparison to marketing efforts the church has made in other contexts. And there is a long history of many prophets, apostles and other General Authorities in the church making incredibly homophobic and hurtful comments, teaching them as church doctrine and God’s will (trigger warning: the quotes contained in this comprehensive history of church leader statements can be difficult to read: https://lattergaystories.org/record/ ). As with most instances of homophobia, I understand church leaders were speaking from a position of protecting their own worldview and social/religious dynamics, not out of hate. But because their statements were taught as doctrine, I think it will take many years and sustained, increased efforts by church leaders at new messaging before most church members adopt a new way of thinking. 

But while I think much more needs to be done in that regard, I am nonetheless glad that church leaders have been trying in recent years to correct the harmful teachings of the past. Some of my favorite teachings from our current church leaders encouraging more love are as follows: 

“Hope is very important to everyone involved, but especially to the LGBT individual. Love is the minister of Hope.” (Dallin H. Oaks, Apostle, statement on the original church website mormonsandgays.org) 

“Young people struggling with any exceptional condition, including same-gender attraction, are particularly vulnerable and need loving understanding – not bullying or ostracism. With the help of the Lord, we can repent and change and be more loving and helpful to children, our own and those around us.” (Dallin H. Oaks, Apostle, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2012/10/protect-the-children , 2012) 

“We need to listen to and understand what our LGBT brothers and sisters are feeling and experiencing. Certainly we must do better than we have done in the past so that all members feel they have a spiritual home where their brothers and sisters love them and where they have a place to worship and serve the Lord.” (M. Russell Ballard, Apostle, BYU address, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/elder-ballard-tackles-tough-topics-and-gives-timely-advice-to-young-adults , 2017). 

“...as a Church nobody should be more loving and compassionate. No family who has anybody who has a same-gender issue should exclude them from the family circle. They need to be part of the family circle...We have a plan of salvation. And having children come into our lives is part of Heavenly Father’s plan. But let us be at the forefront in terms of expressing love, compassion, and outreach to those and let’s not have families exclude or be disrespectful of those who choose a different lifestyle as a result of their feelings about their own gender...I feel very strongly about this. . .It’s a very important principle.” (Quentin L. Cook, Apostle, https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/category/homosexuality#_ednref7 ). 

In addition to those quotes, there have been several other positive statements made by our apostles about generally loving LGBTQ people better than we do. For a good listing of other positive and loving quotes on LGBTQ matters, see this document compiled by an influential and active, faithful Latter-day Saint, Richard Ostler: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1sklAZfBlrG8SnB7B89Cf57gg17PXPQ_Z . 

While I love all the teachings that have focused on increasing love, I think it is still important to clarify what specific acts of love are deemed “okay” for parents and others to take. Despite all the talk about loving our LGBTQ church members better, no apostle has stated specifically what sort of acts are appropriate. I think it would be immensely helpful for someone in the First Presidency to clarify, in one of our worldwide General Conferences, what specific acts of inclusion are appropriate (or inappropriate, if there are any). 

I know it may sound silly for me to say I want specific instructions about how to love. But, unfortunately, I know many people in the church worry about acts of love toward gay people being construed as approval of gay sexual behavior. So I think we need to get at least some General Authority instruction on this front that has the same degree of specificity that past statements about exclusion have had: 

“Avoid as the plague social interaction with persons who justify, encourage or engage in homosexual behavior. Stay away from places where those challenged by same-gender attraction congregate” (Alexander B. Morrison, General Authority https://web.archive.org/web/20120724194315/http://www.evergreeninternational.org/morrison.htm , 2000). 

If parents of a gay son or daughter who has decided to enter into a gay relationship were to follow that teaching precisely, they would have to cut off all contact with their child. 

A more recent statement (which has not been retracted or corrected) was made by one of our highest church leaders that parents can be justified in treating their LGBTQ adult children differently from their other kids in several specific ways. The following statement to that effect was made in response to a question about how families should respond to a gay son wanting to attend a family gathering with his same-sex partner: 

“I can imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, “Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your partnership.” (Dallin H. Oaks, Apostle, https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction , 2006) 

Other statements that cause confusion about what sort of interactions are appropriate with LGBTQ individuals include more recent remarks made in 2018 and 2019 by President Dallin H. Oaks, a current member of the First Presidency, that Satan “seeks to confuse gender [and] distort marriage” (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2018/10/truth-and-the-plan ), and that LGBTQ “lifestyles and values” are part of “a culture of evil and personal wickedness” (https://devotional.byuh.edu/node/1788 ; https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/06/20/this-week-mormon-land/ ). While President Oaks has talked about loving LGBTQ individuals in a few General Conference remarks, he seems to prefer doing so in generalities, and with qualifications (see Chapter 4). 

Without clarifying how families should interpret all the above statements, we are left in confusion. 

By way of analogy for my fellow Latter-day Saints, can you imagine how we would feel if we heard of nonmember parents who thought our church was evil (and there are people out there who think that) and so told their son who had joined the church and married a Latter-day Saint woman, that their participation in family gatherings would be controlled or limited, and that they wouldn’t be introduced to friends, just because he was now a Latter-day Saint or married to one? 

President Oaks has talked a lot about “fairness for all” in the religious liberty political context. Shouldn’t the same principle apply in our families? In my opinion, it would be helpful for him to publicly clarify how it does specifically. For example, Cheryl and I got that sort of clarification privately when we met with an Area Authority of the church who was in Massachusetts with us in September 2019 (see Chapter 9; note this was not the General Authority discussed in that chapter with whom we had hurtful discussions). He said that if Wes finds a man to marry, we should celebrate at his wedding and welcome his future husband into our family just like we plan to do for any other future spouse of our other kids. While we appreciated hearing that from that Area Authority, until someone in a higher up position (like an apostle or the prophet) says something like that publicly, parents of gay kids in the church will be nervous about having their local leaders revoke their good standing in the church (i.e., take away their temple recommends) because they treat their gay child the same as their other kids. I have heard many stories where that has happened: parents have lost their temple recommends because they paid for a kid’s gay wedding or paid for a trans kid’s hormone treatments, etc. Without clarification from the top leadership of the church, different local church leaders will interpret things in vastly different ways, with some pointing to past statements by President Oaks and others as justification for being harsh. We shouldn’t leave parents questioning how much they can show their love based on a game of local church leadership roulette (i.e., where it all depends on what your local bishop or stake president thinks). 

All that being said, overall, I am happy the church has tried to correct many of the harmful teachings of the past. And I will forever be grateful to the individuals in our congregation who came to talk to me about their gay sexual attractions. They helped me change my views and led me to further research in science and in church policy. I am also glad I spent so much time talking about love and acceptance of gay people in that special meeting our congregation held – because it was only a few months later that Wes finally came out to Cheryl and me. I had no idea my own son was among the members of my congregation toward whom I was trying to be especially (and discreetly) sensitive during that meeting. I’m glad Wes knew I had talked about love and acceptance of LGBTQ people in a public setting like that - because I know I had said (and know Wes heard me say) unkind things about gay people in the privacy of our own home over the years. 

I believe God was preparing me to appropriately and lovingly respond to Wes when he came out privately to Cheryl and me in the fall of 2015. While I regret that I first responded by asking some probing questions to try to “confirm” that Wes was actually gay, I am glad that I also told him without hesitation that I loved him and would support him in any path he chose for his life. In hindsight, I can admit now that I always knew Wes was gay. But I was in involuntary denial. I used to ask Cheryl about once a year or so when he was growing up if she thought Wes was gay. I would see him act a certain way or hear him talk about girls in a way that seemed different to me. Back then, knowing how worried I would have been if I knew Wes was gay, Cheryl would just kindly respond by telling me “No, he’s not gay – don’t worry about it” (while privately thinking to herself: “I think he actually might be gay”). So I accepted her reassurance and just kept on being oblivious. 

Because he is close to his siblings, Wes told them he was gay around the same time he told Cheryl and me. It was good for us all to recognize that his fears about being gay contributed to the depression Wes had been suffering for about 18 months. Cheryl and I tried to help him with his depression to no avail, because he would only partially open up to us, as he was just coming to terms with being gay himself. It finally felt really good for our whole family to be open and honest about everything. And Wes was a bit happier. He was no longer depressed or as scared about being gay because he knew his family accepted him unconditionally. But he did still have worries about finding his place in the church as a gay man. 

Overall, we were in a bit of a better place. While we still didn’t like the church’s position preventing doctrinal marriage equality, we had hope that it would change eventually. But we knew God did not want us to engage in any sort of aggressive public protesting to pressure the church to change its doctrine. I believe only God can know when the membership of the church as a whole is ready for change. Sometimes external pressure can help church leaders pray harder to receive revelation about that, but we didn’t feel like it was our role to exert that pressure. I believe that if the time comes, change will be revealed through proper channels (i.e., through the First Presidency and the other apostles). We felt inspired to stay in the church. We felt that God wanted us to encourage more church members to open their hearts to LGBTQ individuals. And we hoped that maybe as more people became increasingly loving and sympathetic, God would deem the time to be right sooner for expanded truth to be revealed. So we had hope for change, even if it was likely decades away still. 

In November of 2015, just a few weeks after Wes came out to us, darkness fell like a hammer when the church came out with a new policy that declared that 1) gay couples were apostate (which essentially meant our leaders wanted them all out of the church); 2) the children of gay couples could only be baptized once they turned 18 (instead of at age 8, the normal age for baptism), unless special permission was granted by the First Presidency; and 3) a condition of their baptism was that they needed to disavow their parents’ same-sex cohabitation or marriage. 

Cheryl and I were on a romantic getaway in Puerto Rico when that news made headlines. I still remember exactly where I was standing in our hotel room when I saw the news on my phone. I honestly felt like my mind and my soul had just been hit by a truck. The policy seemed to go against one of our church’s core beliefs that no one should be punished for anyone else’s sins, which belief stems from our doctrine that babies are not born into original sin just because of the fall of Adam and Eve. I began to wonder what this new policy might mean for our future grandchildren if Wes eventually married a man and they adopted kids. 

The church clarified some days later that the policy was meant to keep kids from being taught things at church that would contradict their parents. While I could recognize that rationale as having a sense of logic to it, I really just couldn’t understand why the policy was necessary. Couldn’t gay parents be trusted to decide what sort of mixed messages their children could tolerate, and to help them understand those messages? And what about couples who were in mixed-orientation marriages before divorcing? That is, if the gay ex-spouse remarried a same- sex partner and the straight ex-spouse wanted one of their kids to be baptized, would a termination of shared custody arrangements have to happen first? 

Nothing about the policy made any sense to me. And I couldn’t shake the clear feeling that the church was trying to purge its ranks of anyone who might be raised thinking marriage with same- gender spouses was okay – like this was some kind of preemptive measure to prevent support for doctrinal marriage equality from rising up within the church in the years ahead. But, recognizing that this was just a policy, not a new doctrine canonized in the scriptures, I still clung to my private hope for change and continued serving as a bishop. I think I found it possible to still cling to my hope for change because SO many other church members felt exactly the same way I did about this new policy. It was easy to think it wouldn’t last long. Even when an apostle declared a couple of months after the policy’s implementation that it was given by divine revelation, I was still guessing the policy wouldn’t last more than 10 years. 

And it didn’t. By way of further divine revelation, the reversal of the policy (dubbed the “Exclusion Policy” by many), was announced on April 4, 2019 after only 31⁄2 years. I was so happy to see it changed. Wes happened to be coming home from his mission in Brazil around the same time. It just gave me such hope that, despite what the prophets and apostles said at any given point in time about God’s will for the church, things could change in the future as God gently works on hearts and minds to afford them greater compassion and understanding. 

Following the April 2019 announcement regarding the reversal of the Exclusion Policy, the church’s handbook of instructions for local and regional leaders was not officially updated to reflect any change until eight months later in December 2019, despite the church having updated several other sections of the handbook in the interim. When the handbook change finally came, the requirement was removed that children of gay parents needed to get First Presidency approval for their kids to be baptized before age 18. Currently, only local church leader approval is needed for any child over the age of 8 to be baptized. Surprisingly though, the December 2019 handbook change also included a brand-new section titled “Church Participation” with this alarming language: 

“Those who attend should avoid disruptions or distractions contrary to worship or other purposes of the meeting. All age and behavior requirements of different Church meetings and events should be respected. That requires refraining from overt romantic behavior and from dress or grooming that causes distraction. It also precludes making political statements or speaking of sexual orientation or other personal characteristics in a way that detracts from meetings focused on the Savior.” (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/38-church-policies-and-guidelines?lang=eng#title_number3 , General Handbook, Section 38.1.1) 

While the language “overt romantic behavior” and “sexual orientation” is neutral as to gay vs. straight behavior/orientation, many people are worried that local leaders, given the church’s doctrine prohibiting gay sex, will interpret such wording only to the detriment of LGBTQ individuals, and not against similar heteronormative behavior or speech. Many LGBTQ church members and their allies fear this will lead to interpretation by local leaders throughout the church to (i) prevent LGBTQ people from speaking about their sexual orientation at church or at church events and/or (ii) remove from church property gay couples showing any sort of physical affection toward each other, despite frequent physical affection in church being normalized between heterosexual couples, married and unmarried. 

Then in February 2020, the church released a new publicly accessible version of a consolidated handbook. This new General Handbook has provisions that no longer categorize someone in a same-sex marriage as apostate. That means that while marriages between same-sex individuals are still considered sinful, local leaders have more discretion about whether or not a member in such a marriage should lose their membership in the church (see Section 32.6.2 here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils?lang=eng#title_number14 ). 

Concurrent with the release of the new General Handbook in February 2020, BYU changed its Honor Code to remove language saying “homosexual” behavior was prohibited among its students. BYU stated that this change was made to be consistent with the General Handbook’s new approach for rules regarding sexual behavior, which is that gay sexual activity (even if within marriage) is now treated the same way as straight extra-marital sexual activity (https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2020/02/19/byu-appears-remove/ ). In the days following the change in the language of the Honor Code, hundreds of people made inquiries to multiple officers in the Honor Code Office at BYU, who confirmed that same-sex dating, hand- holding, and kissing would no longer automatically result in Honor Code investigations at BYU. Many gay students came out of the closet publicly following that announcement, saying they finally felt it was safe to do so at BYU. 

However, two weeks after the change in the language of the Honor Code, the Church Educational System issued a letter that clarified that nothing had really changed at all, despite previous assurances from Honor Code Office personnel (https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2020-03-04/byu-honor-code-language-clarification-ces-statement-176245 ). The letter referenced teachings found in the church’s 1995 family proclamation, saying that the reason nothing had changed is because “Same-sex romantic behavior cannot lead to eternal marriage and is therefore not compatible with the principles included in the Honor Code.” 

Many criticisms of that rationale quickly circulated, including that: (i) straight nonmembers at BYU are allowed to date even though their dating is not done with any intention to marry in the temple; (ii) a temple-married widow is allowed to date on campus to try to find a new husband even though under church sealing practices, she can never be sealed to that new husband (because her eternal marriage is deemed to exist only with her first, deceased husband); and (iii) ironically, lifelong celibacy (which is what the church is asking gay students at BYU to embrace) does not lead to eternal marriage either. Perhaps the best criticism is that it undermines the idea that is said to be the basis of the new handbook, namely that heterosexual immorality and homosexual immorality are to be treated equally. Clearly the church does not espouse that idea in practice – because straight non-sexual romantic behavior is not considered immoral but gay non- sexual romantic behavior is considered immoral. 

Some people have said that the BYU administration, not the church, was to blame for the confusion over the Honor Code language change. But I find it very hard to believe that someone at BYU would take any action of such a sensitive nature without consulting church headquarters first. That sort of rogue decision is one that would presumably have significant adverse consequences for a person’s career at BYU. I strongly suspect that there is a difference of opinion among leaders at BYU and at church headquarters about gay marriage. 

In any event, it is a tragic shame that this confusion created false hopes among gay students. And, again, that confusion was not the fault of the students. They were not negligent in letting their hopes rise. They asked clarifying questions of administration officials at BYU and were repeatedly told that same-sex dating was allowed. Parents (including me, because my straight son, Owen, was attending BYU at the time) were also told the same thing by BYU personnel over the phone. 

And it wasn’t just the students, parents, and administration officials who were confused. A video made by a professor at BYU went viral shortly after the Honor Code language change, explaining why, in his opinion, the allowance for same-sex dating was consistent with the new church handbook. He said that accepting that new allowance on BYU campus was a way for students to follow church leaders. He added that the new policy gave straight students on campus a chance to become better prepared to respond appropriately to gay relationships in the work environment in their future careers (https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2020/02/26/popular-video-this-byu/ ). 

The church is media savvy and has good public relations firms working for it. There is no excuse for the church to have allowed false hopes to arise among one of the most vulnerable and marginalized groups in the church. The message contained in the clarification letter should have been published at the same time the language of the Honor Code was changed. I wonder why that didn’t happen. It’s not like it was hard to predict that this action would raise questions. 

Because of the harm caused by this misstep in communication, and failure to be sensitive to gay students, it’s not surprising that large numbers of BYU students protested the clarification on the same day it was made (https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2020/03/04/after-byu-honor-code/ ). Interestingly, I have read in multiple social media accounts that when BYU administration officials approached the group of students who seemed to be leading the largest protest, to explain to them that protests were not allowed on campus without a permit, the officials had in their hands at the time an application for such permit. Ironically, BYU personnel had pre-completed the form for the students. It is clear to me that this opposition to same-sex dating on campus did not come from BYU administration or staff. I think it was directed by the school’s governing body, the Church Educational System, whose board is comprised of our church’s prophets and apostles. 

To help any LGBTQ students who came out as a result of the confusion, and who now feel threatened being on the BYU campus or have now been disowned by their families, a fund was set up to help pay for transfer-related fees. That fund raised over $24,000 from 624 people within hours after being posted online: https://charity.gofundme.com/o/en/campaign/transfer-fund-for-lgbtq-byu-students .

Several months after that BYU Honor Code debacle, in the aftermath of national and worldwide protests about racial injustice sparked by the killing of George Floyd, an additional update to the church’s general handbook was released in December 2020. This update included a new instruction for all church members to reject prejudice “of any kind. This includes prejudice based on race, ethnicity, nationality, tribe, gender, age, disability, socioeconomic status, religious belief or nonbelief, and sexual orientation” (https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/12/18/lds-handbook-adds-warning/ ). The reaction to this handbook update that I observed on social media and online generally, among both prominent church supporters and critics alike, was mostly positive. And I think that’s appropriate. This update should rightfully be praised. However, I also think it is important to acknowledge the irony that exists in having the church decry prejudice based on sexual orientation. Because when it comes to marriage, current church teachings are, in fact, prejudicial in that regard: they encourage straight church members to marry in a manner that is consistent with their sexual orientation while simultaneously prohibiting gay church members from doing likewise.

BYU then made headlines again with respect to LGBTQ issues in August 2021 due to a controversial talk given by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland to staff at the university. While it is important to remember his audience was not all church members, his talk was still broadcast worldwide and made available to everyone online. The video and full transcript of his talk can be accessed here: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/elder-jeffrey-r-holland-2021-byu-universityconference . I want to take some space here to write about Elder Holland’s talk because I know thousands of LGBTQ church members and their loved ones felt like his talk represented the greatest betrayal of hope for change in the church since the Exclusion Policy. That is in large part due to a widespread perception, prior to this talk anyway, that Elder Holland was more compassionate than many other apostles. People had hope that if he lives to become the prophet and preside over the church, that positive change might occur on LGBTQ issues.

Following his talk, many opinions were shared across all forms of media to both criticize and defend Elder Holland. The homogeneousness and insensitivity of his talk, contrasted with prior remarks from him praising diversity and compassion, is aptly described in this article by Jana Reiss: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/08/26/jana-riess-lds-apostle/ . As Dr. Reiss states, this talk did “not seem to have been [Elder Holland’s] finest hour.”

I’ve read and watched Elder Holland’s talk many times. I do not believe he had the intent to cause harm to anyone. I think his aim was to ask BYU staff to not do anything in their roles as employees of BYU that could be construed as supporting concepts that are contrary to church teachings. But his intent is not as important as the effect of his words (ironically, a 2019 article in the magazine LDS Living highlighted a prior talk by Elder Holland to show that the effect of our words is more important than our intent: https://www.ldsliving.com/why-we-need-to-be-careful-about-how-we-use-the-phrase-choosing-to-be-offended/s/90284 ). The indisputable effect of Elder Holland’s talk was additional harm caused to LGBTQ church members. I saw thousands of heart-felt comments from them on social media to that effect after he gave his talk. I know therapists in Utah County saw a drastic surge in the number of LGBTQ patients asking to prepare suicide prevention plans. I know of at least one youth suicide attempt that parents report was made in response to Elder Holland’s talk. I think those negative effects stem from some elements of Elder Holland’s talk that were incredibly insensitive and uncaring, which were ironically exacerbated by his insistence that he and the other apostles are so thoughtful and compassionate toward LGBTQ church members that they have shed many tears over them - and that the apostles have “scar tissue” of their own stemming from criticisms they have received regarding the church’s positions on LGBTQ issues.

I believe the most significant negative element of the talk was Elder Holland’s use of the violent metaphor of musket fire (which he noted was used before by some of his fellow apostles) in relation to how BYU staff should engage with supporters of LGBTQ equality in the church. Calling for intellectual musket fire against LGBTQ equality seemed to show indifference to the fact that LGBTQ people and their allies have long been the victims of violence (for example, a lesbian couple in Utah was killed by gunfire just days before his talk: https://www.metroweekly.com/2021/08/lesbian-couple-shot-dead-in-utah-after-alerting-friends-to-creepy-guy-near-their-campsite/ ). I believe Elder Holland’s choice to re-use the musket metaphor was irresponsible. Many religious universities are struggling to know how to lovingly include LGBTQ students. A more responsible way for him to instruct BYU staff, that hopefully wouldn’t feel like heresy to him (or like “friendly fire”, to use Elder Holland’s words) might have been to encourage an increased focus on student well-being instead, as this Christian educator and ethicist encourages other religious universities to do in this article: https://baptistnews.com/article/for-universities-when-it-comes-to-lgbtq-issues-focus-on-student-well-being/ . In short, it would have been wonderful to see Elder Holland prioritize the mental health and well-being of LGBTQ BYU students over the defense of dogma. That would have been more in line with Jesus’ example of prioritizing people over rules.

Another harmful element of Elder Holland’s talk was his condemnation of the valedictorian speech by Matt Easton at the 2019 BYU graduation ceremony, for the simple fact that Matt mentioned he was gay in his speech. Elder Holland would never say another student was wrong for mentioning their opposite sex spouse or girl/boyfriend in a speech. And he himself has mentioned his own wife in talks at BYU repeatedly. So he has “come out” as straight many times in a context and to an audience that is no different really. If the church truly believes it’s okay to be gay, then gay members should be allowed to talk about being gay just as freely as straight members talk about being straight. Plus, Matt had every word of his valedictorian speech approved beforehand by BYU administration. I believe it was un-Christlike, hypocritical and tactless for Elder Holland to condemn the simple reference to being gay in a valedictorian speech.

All that being said, I want to extend some grace to Elder Holland. He has previously admitted that he and his fellow apostles and prophets are fallible. They can make mistakes. I believe Elder Holland made some horrible mistakes in his talk. When our church leaders make mistakes that hurt other people, one way of sustaining them is for us to help them see how they caused hurt – by speaking up about it. Many of those pointing out where Elder Holland caused pain are also those who love him and want to sustain him in his calling. I hope Elder Holland understands that – and I hope he eventually apologizes for the harmful effects of his talk.

***

If you believe all these changes to the church handbook, updates to the BYU Honor Code and delivery of controversial speeches described above seem to create a confusing situation for LGBTQ church members, I agree with you. I hope that all this messiness of policy changes and reversals, hypocritical handbook pronouncements, and incredibly insensitive and harmful rhetoric from church leaders are labor pains, meaning that full equality for all God’s children is struggling to be born.