Chapter 8- What might prompt doctrinal change?

• Will science, normality of LGBTQ families, or guilt over psychological harm help?

• What about the church’s political stance on conversion therapy?

• Should the church do more to denounce conversion therapy?

• Are church teachings contributing to more suicides?

• Will outside forces again influence doctrinal change?

• Can a church member be in good standing if they support LGBTQ political causes?

• Should scripture and history teach the church to stay out of LGBTQ politics?

• How careful should LGBTQ political activists in the church be?

Chapter synopsis: It hurts to see much of society express more compassion toward LGBTQ individuals than our church does, and to see that our church’s policy and doctrine may allow harmful therapeutic practices to continue. The suicides of LGBTQ church members are incredibly painful to observe. I wonder if governmental or societal pressure will end up being the only way the church changes. The church allows for disagreement on marriage equality, but LGBTQ activists in the church should still be careful – because alienation of church members is counterproductive.

I think there are several factors that could help prompt a change in the church’s stance on doctrinal marriage equality. The first is science. As the fact becomes more widely known and accepted that gay sexual orientation is not a choice, the more quickly change may come. Many people still don’t know about the general consensus within the scientific community, endorsed by the church, that experiencing gay sexual attraction is not a choice. As the genetic and epigenetic causes of gay sexual orientation become more understood by the general population, the general church membership will likewise become more aware as well (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/homosexuality-may-be-caused-chemical-modifications-dna ; Also see Chapter 3). That being said, I doubt that widespread knowledge of the science about gay sexual orientation will ever be the main reason to prompt doctrinal change, because church leaders already acknowledge that experiencing gay sexual attraction is not a choice and yet the church still prohibits marriage equality in our doctrine.

A second factor that may spur change eventually is a more widely held understanding that gay couples are not causing any harm to society. I suspect that the longer gay marriages are an ordinary part of our societal makeup, the more people will realize that all the fears were unfounded about the societal ills gay marriage would cause. In fact, people may start to see the societal benefits of gay marriage, such as a decrease in suicide rates, among other benefits: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/14/suicide-rates-fall-after-gay-marriage-laws-in-sweden-and-denmark ; https://www.upworthy.com/legalizing-gay-marriage-has-caused-a-dramatic-drop-in-lgbt-suicide-rates .

Also, as society witnesses more children of parents in gay marriages grow up to be just like all other adults, I believe worries will diminish and hearts will soften. I think it will take time to see that happen, because a lot of people already ignore existing consensus that kids raised by LGBTQ people are no different:

“Taken together, this research forms an overwhelming scholarly consensus, based on over three decades of peer-reviewed research, that having a gay or lesbian parent does not harm children.” (https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/ )

Rarely is there as much consensus in any area of social science as in the case of gay parenting. This is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support of LGBTQ parental rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting ). Similarly, a scholarly consensus seems to be forming that kids raised by gay couples are not more likely to self-identify as LGBTQ (although they are more open-minded about sexuality, and, if LGBTQ, such kids may be more likely to come out of the closet sooner). Most of them identify as heterosexual, and they do not have any differences in their gender role behaviors in comparison to those observed in heterosexual family structures (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#cite_note-Stacey_Biblarz-33 ).

But again, I don’t think widespread knowledge of the normalcy of gay marriage and gay parenting will be the primary impetus for doctrinal change either. I say that because, by reversing the November 2015 Exclusion Policy, our prophets and apostles have already acknowledged that gay parents might be good at parenting, because the policy change implicitly acknowledges that gay parents are able to raise kids who want to be in the church. Yet the church still prohibits gay marriage.

A third factor that could help facilitate eventual change might be if it becomes more widely known how intense the harm is that certain religious teachings can cause LGBTQ people. I saw a powerful public post online about this topic in response to President Nelson’s talk at BYU on September 17, 2019 (in which he said the law of chastity was a divine law, comparable to unchanging laws of nature: https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/russell-m-nelson/love-laws-god/ ). Because the post in response was so eloquent, I am just going to let it speak for itself on this point (included anonymously to protect privacy):

“A Response to President Nelson’s BYU Address: What makes a heart beat and what makes a heart stop? As a physician, that’s what President Nelson shared learning about in his talk. Learning which eventually enabled him to perform successful open heart operations. He went on to share, ‘The same can be said of the law of gravity, and the laws of foil and lift that allow airplanes to fly. Each is an absolute truth. Doctors or pilots do not have the power to change those laws, but their understanding of them safeguards lives.’

As a mental health therapist, I too completed my graduate work with a focus on the heart, but in my case, on an aspect more specific and sometimes harder to see: What makes a LGBTQ heart beat and what makes it stop. Or in other words, what makes a LGBTQ heart want to live and what makes a LGBTQ heart want to die. As I am tasked with safeguarding LGBTQ lives against suicide, learning the principles that govern positive mental health outcomes for LGBTQ people has been imperative. Presently, I work with suicidal LGBTQ Mormons on a daily basis and I feel God with me in my work.

President Nelson cites looking to research and new experimentation in his graduate years as the foundation of his learning. My graduate learning about the LGBTQ heart took a similar focus. A growing body of research indicated that sexual orientation had a biological origin and that decades of trying to change people’s orientation or gender identity via reparative therapies not only didn’t work, in countless cases it caused considerable harm. Research had also begun to point to the incredible power of Family Acceptance of their LGBTQ children -- that accepting families reduced risk of LGBTQ suicide attempts by 8 times.

Perhaps one of the most moving studies I learned about was MRI brain scans of people falling in love: Whether someone falls in love with someone of the opposite gender, or falls in love with someone of the same gender, the same parts of the brain bursting with dopamine light up. Recently, brain scans of transgender people have also shown their brains to be more similar to the gender identity they feel within themselves than their biological sex. Science is fantastically eye opening and these are all things we didn’t know a generation ago.

Two studies specific to LGBTQ Mormons also had a significant impact on my learning. One found that LGBTQ Mormons who took a single celibate or mixed-orientation marriage path frequently had poor mental health while those who dated a same sex partner had significantly better mental health. The most eye opening part though was this: that LGBTQ Mormons who were able to integrate and live into both their queer identities and their spiritual identities as Latter-day Saints had the best mental health outcomes of all! In the second study (a study that took place in the year following the implementation of the November 2015 policy) it was found that stunningly, 73.4% of LGBTQ Mormon participants had [multiple] symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in connection to their religious experiences [89.2% reported at least one symptom] (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 ). The same symptoms most often associated with soldiers returning from war, refugees fleeing persecution or victims escaping domestic violence or sexual assault, were showing up in both post and still practicing LGBTQ Mormons at a rate 10 times the general population. That was mind blowing. In simplified summary, research was indicating that LGBTQ Mormons did best when they were able to healthily live into both their queer and religious identities at the same time, however this outcome was quite rare, and instead, an astronomical amount were suffering with symptoms of PTSD.

What makes a LGBTQ heart beat and what makes it want to stop? As I sit with LGBTQ Mormons and post Mormons whose hearts are suicidal as an outgrowth of spiritual trauma, they get better as they are able to shed the negative messages they have internalized about being LGBTQ from both religion and society. They get better when their families come to shed these negative ideas as well and embrace them with open arms. They get better when their agency on how to move forward in their life path is honored as sacred ground and are celebrated in communities that affirm their choices. They get better when they distance themselves from negative messages or rejecting spaces while they are still healing. They get better when their family members and friends speak up in their behalf when they are being put down, left out or marginalized, no matter who the speaker is. They get better when their psychological trauma is treated with trauma specific therapies. They get better when they are able to build life partnerships and families that have the same meaningful bonds that every human heart seeks to form and nurture. They get better when they know they can take this journey with their God, not being told or internalizing that they will be cut off from God if they do so. They get better when they are able to lay hold on every good thing -- the part of them that is LGBTQ and the part of them that is spiritual; the part of them that wants to connect and the part of them that wants to contribute their many gifts.

Like doctors and pilots, I didn’t make up the principles that govern LGBTQ mental health -- we have merely discovered them and now use it daily to safeguard lives. I pray with my feet every day that Latter-day Saints will come to fully understand these discoveries too. We are all part of one body in Christ. May we see that each part however different is equally needed by us.”

In President Nelson’s talk, he also said one of the reasons the Exclusion Policy was modified was because he and the other apostles wept over the pain the policy had caused. I’m hopeful that sort of empathy will prompt future doctrinal change that allows marriage equality to exist in the church as well. But, again, based on past history in the church with discriminatory issues, I unfortunately don’t think it will be the primary force behind a change, given the focus church leaders place on eternity over mortality.

Examining the church’s position on the advisability of reparative therapies mentioned in Chapter 3 (which are also called “conversion” or “aversion” therapies) is indicative of how far away from doctrinal change we may still be.

In October 2019, the church objected to a proposed new licensing rule in Utah that would have banned reparative therapies for minors. When the church’s objection to the proposed licensing rule received a lot of negative national press, the church clarified that it does not support such abusive therapies but nevertheless objected to the proposed rule. The church explained the rationale behind its objection in this Deseret News article: www.google.com/amp/s/www.deseret.com/platform/amp/utah/2019/10/23/20929351/lds-mormon-church-conversion-therapy-opposition-jesus-christ- latter-day-saints (you’ll need to actually read this article to understand what I’m going to say below about the church’s position on conversion therapy).

A revised version of the licensing rule was endorsed by the governor of Utah some weeks later, but only after making the changes that the church requested (https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2019/11/27/gov-herbert-announces/ ). A good history of the full legislative and rule-making process is found here: https://www.kuer.org/post/how-bill-became-rule-journey-utahs-conversion-therapy-ban#stream/0 . The updated version of the licensing rule has now been implemented in Utah, effectively banning most forms of conversion therapy for minors in the state. This is a very positive thing and I’m glad the church supported the adoption of this new rule condemning what it considers to be abusive therapeutic practices.

However, all that being said, I must say that I disagree with the church’s position that the initial version of the new licensing rule would have been problematic from a religious liberty perspective. From what I understand, the professional therapist licensing board in Utah felt that there was no risk at all that a parent, grandparent, bishop, etc., who is a licensed therapist would lose their license for just discussing religious beliefs in a context where they have not been engaged to serve as a person’s professional therapist. In other words, despite the church’s concern, a therapist parent talking to their kid at home or a therapist bishop talking to a ward member at church would not be problematic under the first version of the proposed rule. Even in a professional therapy context, existing professional guidelines require a therapist to discuss with a patient their religious values (and in the case of a patient who is a minor, the religious values of that patient’s family) when providing counseling (e.g. https://societyforpsychotherapy.org/integrating-spirituality-religion-psychotherapy-practice/ ).

Similar religious exemptions already existed in other laws governing the practice of mental health therapy in Utah anyway. So if existing professional guidelines already require a patient’s pertinent religious values to be discussed in actual therapy sessions, and Utah’s existing laws already allowed for religious discussion by family and clergy who are therapists as well, it’s hard to see how the church could have imagined a therapist losing their license for talking about religious values with their own children or ward members outside the context of a professional therapy session. If I’m giving church representatives the benefit of the doubt, they seemed to be worried about an extremely far-fetched slippery slope situation.

But to be totally honest, I suspect the church was trying to get (and ultimately succeeded in getting) language added to the proposed rule that would allow what I consider to be “light” conversion therapy to continue: where undue emphasis is placed on having someone try to live according to church standards than according to what is best for their own mental health and well-being. Now, I don’t mean to suggest that the church wants counselors to intentionally provide guidance that is harmful from a mental health perspective. However, I do think the church wants to maintain a situation where minors are allowed to be brought to a therapist who will place more emphasis than is normal (per professional guidelines) on religious beliefs.

I think the church is trying to keep a situation that allows religious values to have more weight in the counseling of a minor patient than existing professional guidelines say they should. That can be a harmful thing to a kid who falls somewhere on the spectrum of sexuality where lifelong abstinence or mixed-orientation marriage will be more likely to result in depression than it might with some other patients. I think the therapist’s role should be to try to assess where on the sexual orientation spectrum a patient thinks they are (knowing that can change as a kid matures and figures out more about their sexuality), then assess how the religiosity of that patient and their family might affect the patient’s mental health if they conform or fail to conform to the applicable religious values.

With the religious exception that the church successfully requested, therapists can continue to recommend that a minor patient conform to the religious values of their parents, even if doing so may not be in the best interests of that minor’s own mental health. In my opinion, that is “light” conversion therapy. Religious values should be weighed, but not more than what professional psychology boards recommend. If a therapist parent or bishop emphasizes religion more than professional guidelines suggest, maybe they should lose their license, right? Shouldn’t we all be interested in preventing religion from being used in a way that can cause mental illness? By way of analogy, how would we feel if the church opposed a licensing rule meant to prevent doctors from prescribing harmful medications?

I understand from friends that prior to the updated rule, there were kids in Utah undergoing abusive conversion therapy (of the type I presume the church opposes) at the behest of their misguided parents. So when the church’s weak slippery slope concern (which I suspect might be a desire to still allow conversion therapy “light”) is weighed against the abuse that was ongoing at the time of the church’s objection, I don’t see the church’s position in opposing the initial version of the licensing rule to be praiseworthy. But I am thankful a version of the rule got approved and implemented that seems likely to prevent that most severe type of conversion therapy with minors from continuing in Utah.

Not all parents of gay kids share even that simple feeling of gratitude though. While the following is more bluntly stated than I prefer, I can nevertheless understand the pain in this comment from a self-described “father of a gay son and former bishop of a large single student ward of the LDS church who ultimately asked to be released, left the LDS church, and began to speak out publicly on this issue twenty years ago” (included anonymously to protect privacy):

“While the LDS church and its institutions may no longer be involved in the more overtly-barbaric forms of conversion therapy (commonly known as ‘aversion’ or ‘reparative’ therapy), it remains ever involved in what I believe to be the more fundamentally and psychologically damaging practice of instilling in LGBTQ youth and their families the core belief that the words underlying the acronym LGBTQ are merely adjectives describing sinful sexual behavior rather than nouns identifying people. This is a doctrine that in reality relegates LGBTQ youth (and adults) to a recognized status within the Mormon church and broader community as broken and defective ‘second class citizens’ to be at best pitied (‘Loved’), and at worst avoided. Until recently, public pronouncements and writings by church leaders preached the doctrine that ‘same-sex attraction’ was a conscious, aberrant lifestyle choice. Less of that now, and more ‘OK, maybe God did make you that way, tough luck - but no marriage or the deep emotional and sexual intimacy that heterosexuals are permitted as part of God’s plan – EVER (unless, of course, you change).’ How would it affect you to be reduced to ‘collateral damage’ in God’s eternal plan? By your parents, grandparents, neighbors, friends, and church leaders. This is the most powerful and damaging conversion therapy imaginable. What does your heart tell you about your son or daughter, grandson or granddaughter, family member or friend?”

In all of this, I think it is helpful to remember that the church is not always right on these sorts of things. For example, as I mentioned in Chapter 3, in the 1970s, when President Oaks was BYU President, gay men at BYU, as part of their “repentance” process, received electroshock treatment to their genitals while being shown erotic same-gender images (so their bodies could be “trained” to not be aroused). Again, I’m glad the church doesn’t support that sort of conversion therapy anymore, but I think, given that the church did encourage different types of abusive conversion therapy for decades, the onus should be on the church to prove why the revised rule is better for the mental health of gay kids than the initial recommendations of a board of professional counselors in Utah (who are well aware of church values and religious liberty concerns). All parties involved in the bargaining have said they can’t discuss what was said in the negotiations process. So I don’t think we will ever hear the church give such an explanation. Unfortunately, the church has some trust to earn back in this area, to say the least, and I don’t see that happening by insisting that the new licensing rule in Utah had to contain a religious exception to conversion therapy.

Although the church's position opposing what it considers to be conversion therapy is clear, their position is still confusing because the church has not affirmatively denounced former teachings by General Authorities supporting conversion therapy. When I wrote a first draft of this book in October 2019, I visited www.newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org, searched for “homosexuality,” and found a link to a talk that a General Authority named Elder Bruce C. Hafen gave in 2009 at Evergreen International, an organization that provided conversion therapy for many years. The link to his talk has since been removed (which I think happened some weeks after the Deseret News article was published, linked above). Many people have pointed to Elder Hafen’s talk as an example of teachings that contradict what the church is trying to say now about its opposition to conversion therapy. Summaries of the talk, with some pertinent excerpts can still be seen here: https://religion.wikia.org/wiki/Bruce_C._Hafen ; and here: https://www.mormonwiki.com/Bruce_C._Hafen#2009_Talk_on_Gay_Rights_and_Same_Gender_Attraction . The talk stated very clearly that sexual orientation could be willingly changed. While those summaries available online don’t show it, Elder Hafen quoted a study by Dr. Robert Spitzer that the researcher himself retracted in later years. Dr. Spitzer said,

“I believe I owe the gay community an apology for my study making unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy. I also apologize to any gay person who wasted time and energy undergoing some form of reparative therapy because they believed that I had proven that reparative therapy works with some 'highly motivated' individuals.” (https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/pn.47.12.psychnews_47_12_1-b )

I’m glad the church removed Elder Hafen’s talk from its website. But I think it would have been better for the church to have actually kept the talk on its site and included a disclaimer that the talk no longer represented church teachings. Just taking the talk down is insufficient because, without a label saying the talk has been denounced or without a different General Authority giving a new talk that specifically renounces all past teachings endorsing conversion therapy, the implication still exists that the church might be okay with statements made in similar talks made by other General Authorities endorsing conversion therapy as well (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_International ), like this one:

“Can individuals struggling with some same-gender attraction be cured? ‘With God nothing should be impossible’ (Luke 1:37) ... The right course of action remains the same: eliminate or diminish same-sex attraction…Feelings of attraction toward someone of the same gender should be eliminated if possible or controlled.” (James O. Mason, General Authority Seventy, https://web.archive.org/web/20120724194231/ , http://www.evergreeninternational.org/2005%20Mason.pdf , 2005)

Unless the church does more to affirmatively denounce all prior teachings made by General Authorities about changing sexual orientation with enough faith, mixed understandings about the church’s views on gay sexual orientation and conversion therapy will continue to persist.

The First Presidency said the following in 2016: “The Church denounces any therapy that subjects an individual to abusive practices” (https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/statement-proposed-rule-sexual-orientation-gender-identity-change ). While I appreciate that statement, it does not constitute a denunciation of conversion therapy because it leaves the word “abusive” open to interpretation and also implies that changing sexual orientation is possible through “non-abusive” therapeutic practices. The closest thing I have seen to a denunciation of conversion therapy by one of our apostles is the following from a General Conference talk in 2015:

“And, I must say, this son’s sexual orientation did not somehow miraculously change—no one assumed it would.” (Jeffrey R. Holland, Apostle, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2015/10/behold-thy-mother , 2015)

Indeed, based on what the church’s own professional counseling affiliate, Family Services, offers by way of counseling for individuals who experience gay sexual desire, it still seems quite unclear to me whether the church truly opposes conversion therapy in all forms:

“We assist individuals and families as they respond to same-sex attraction. Our therapists do not provide what is commonly referred to as 'reparative therapy' or 'sexual orientation change efforts.' However, when clients self -determine to seek assistance for individual and family issues associated with same-sex attraction, we help them strengthen and develop healthy patterns of living. We assist clients who desire to reconcile same-sex attraction with their religious beliefs. Our services are consistent with applicable legal and ethical standards, which allow self-determined clients to receive assistance with faith-based or religious goals.” (https://www.deseret.com/2018/2/7/20639656/the-weeds-story-is-one-of-many-stories-of-lgbt-latter-day-saints-that-continue-to-be-written )

Similar statements about self-determination being respected in therapy can be found on the church’s “Same-Sex Attraction” website as well: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay/leaders?lang=eng .

I wonder how much a minor child brought to a Latter- day Saint therapist by their religious parents is really able to “self-determine” the degree to which they want to receive the “regular” or the “religious” version of counseling. It seems to me like the religiosity of the parents and of the therapist may do more of the determining in that situation than the kid does. I have heard stories about kids who felt forced to try to stop having gay sexual desires by their parents and Latter-day Saint therapists. I think the church should not be involved in determining the licensing rules for professional therapists and it is sad that the church succeeded in getting a religious exception put into the final version of the new rule in Utah.

When it comes to conversion therapy, I wish the church would follow the example of Allen Bergin, a former BYU professor, bishop, stake president, and member of the General Sunday School Presidency, who apologized in July 2020 for his past endorsement of conversion therapy. Brother Bergin was a psychotherapist and was often quoted by church leaders in the late 20th century as an authority on gay sexual orientation. His teachings included that “homosexuality was a compulsion, it led to bondage…label[ed] homosexuals as bizarre…[that] the average gay man had between 500-1000 partners…[and he] taught that self-discipline and a mixed orientation marriage would successfully overcome the problem of homosexuality.” His July 2020 apology is sincere and far-reaching, completely reversing his prior teachings and expressing anguish over the harm he caused. It is worth reading as an example of sincere contrition: https://lattergaystories.org/bergin/ ; https://religionnews.com/2020/08/07/a-prominent-mormon-therapist-apologized-for-anti-lgbt-activism-whats-the-next-step/ .)

Until our highest church leaders similarly apologize on behalf of the institutional church for the non-scriptural teachings that treat gay church members differently than straight church members, the church will always be condoning a form of conversion therapy – because its teachings will continue to encourage perpetual suppression of innate gay sexual desires. Important research has shown that simple informal counseling by religious leaders (like bishops) that encourages never-ending suppression of in-born gay sexual desires (i.e., not even allowing them to be expressed in marriage), can have similar traumatic effects to those seen from more formal conversion therapy programs:

“Conversion practices can include formal programs or therapies in both religious and healthcare environments. However, they more often involve informal processes, including pastoral care, interactions with religious or community leaders, and spiritual or cultural rituals.” (https://theconversation.com/new-research-documents-the-severity-of-lgbtqa-conversion-practices-and-why-faith-matters-in-recovery-154740?fbclid=IwAR0mgnAZbobJJEZTFkIvXDrnLKbGviRRrx4ueP0ERL7oIyi268SbQrDg44 ).

Recovering from the trauma caused by conversion therapy is incredibly hard, regardless of whether it is experienced through a formal abusive program or through informal religious counseling with messages that gay sexual desires should always be suppressed (like the message the church encourages bishops and stake presidents to convey to gay church members). But that same research cited above shows that recovery is most effective when conversion therapy victims are not required to ignore their religious faith in order to stop stifling their sexuality. So the only way the church can stop practicing conversion therapy, and help its gay members recover from it, is to change its teachings to allow gay couples to be married and remain in full fellowship in the church.

Is there a need for doctrinal change in the church to prevent parents and therapists from contributing, intentionally or unintentionally, to kids feeling depressed about their sexuality? That seems like an effective solution to me, but I leave that up to God and the prophets and apostles to answer. However, in the meantime, I think there is a pressing need to do something now to change how lonely and unwanted most LGBTQ youth in the church feel. Because Utah has a higher suicide rate than the national average, with suicide being the leading cause of death among Utah youth, and with LGBTQ individuals having a higher suicide rate in general, a debate has been ongoing in recent years about the causality between suicide and church teachings regarding gay sexual orientation (https://www.kuer.org/post/can-lds-church-be-blamed-utah-s-lgbt-suicides#stream/0 ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_among_LGBT_youth ). Some strongly believe that church teachings play a role in high suicide rates in states with high Latter-day Saint populations

(https://www.mrm.org/suicide-and-mormonism ).

The following social media post from May 2020 is written by Thomas Palani Montgomery, a fellow Dragon Dad and an excellent LGBTQ ally writer and commentator. It provides useful resources assessing the reality that church teachings are a contributing factor in suicides of LGBTQ church members:

“Meridian Magazine has once again published an article protecting the LDS Church in any/every way possible regarding harm the LDS Church causes its own LGBTQ youth and adult members. The article meanders through many arguments without actually presenting anything new and attempting to put out many fires.

latterdaysaintmag.com/is-latter-day-saint-theology-responsible-for-lgbt-suicides/?fbclid=IwAR0F5ErowdnEgoXQSPkLAmZFEIIxVsAgNLVyQMdnP4A18lapw 3gxcShBNp8

It challenges John Dehlin’s study saying that “most studies” say something else - except for the fact that there are no “other studies” that either contradict or challenge John’s study. John’s study is published and peer-reviewed (9 studies across 7 different journals have published the findings of his studies: http://www.johndehlin.com/research/ ).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MxCXjfAunk

It ignores that John’s study is fully consistent with Brian Simmons’s study on PTSD among LDS-LGBTQ Mormons. Brian’s study is published and peer-reviewed.

https://athenaeum.libs.uga.edu/handle/10724/38227

It ignores that John’s study is fully consistent with the Family Acceptance Project’s research on the harm of rejection from orthodox religiosity. The Family Acceptance Project is published and peer-reviewed.

https://familyproject.sfsu.edu/

It ignores the spike of suicides from 2008 in Utah while saying Utah is comparable to other states in the region. Except for the past twelve years.....years in which the LDS Church’s political activism against LGBTQ people also spiked. From Prop 8 in California onward, the LDS Church has been actively, politically hostile to LGBTQ people. The only notable exception is the Utah work and housing bill extending rights to LGBTQ persons (with the notable exemption of the LDS Church to the rights outlined in the bill.) To think that this doesn’t seep into the minds of LDS members is significantly naive - even if they were not homophobic to begin with.

https://rationalfaiths.com/utahs-escalating-suicide-crisis-lds-lgbtq-despair/

Saying that suicide is complex and multi-faceted, which is true, does not remove the demonstrable fact that several of those facets are (1) exclusively heterosexual/patriarchal theology, (2) Mormon anti-LGBTQ culture, (3) homophobic members and leaders, (4) continuous political activism against LGBTQ people, and (5) extensive history of harmful rhetoric and actions from LDS Church leaders.

For active members, ignorance is a shield, and articles (like this one) are taken as fact in the vacuum of that ignorance. In order to maintain this ignorance, no mention can be made of Greg Prince’s comprehensive book Gay Rights and the Mormon Church: Intended Actions, Unintended Consequences. You can’t read this book and remain ignorant. Its final chapter is about the current suicide epidemic in Utah.

https://www.amazon.com/Gay-Rights-Mormon-Church-Consequences-ebook/dp/B07QNGYBM6/ref=sr_1_1?crid=5OE44JWCO0BV&dchild=1&keywords=gr eg+prince+books&qid=1589475689&sprefix=greg+prince%2Caps%2C195&sr=8-1

To all this, I would add my own writing on the subject. Eight years immersed in the pain and harm the LDS Church causes its LGBTQ members and through its political activism, the LGBTQ community at large:

What Can’t Be Said (November 2018) - http://www.nomorestrangers.org/what-cant-be-said/

The Safe Way (September 2018) – http://www.nomorestrangers.org/the-safe-way/

Sacred Spaces (October 2017) – http://www.nomorestrangers.org/sacred-spaces/

Grace (July 2017) – http://www.nomorestrangers.org/grace/

Rejection and the Family (March 2017) – http://www.nomorestrangers.org/rejection-and-the-family/

Anger (November 2016) – http://www.nomorestrangers.org/anger/

A Tale of Two Weddings (September 2016) – http://www.nomorestrangers.org/a-tale-of-two-weddings/

Clarity (July 2016) – http://www.nomorestrangers.org/clarity/

Emotional Distance (May 2016) – http://www.nomorestrangers.org/emotional-distance/

The Scarlet Letter: Apostasy (December 2015) – http://nomorestranger.wpengine.com/the-scarlet-letter-apostasy/

Sadness (October 2015) – http://nomorestranger.wpengine.com/sadness/

Trust (August 2015) – http://nomorestranger.wpengine.com/trust/

Seeing Through My Tears (January 2015) – http://nomorestranger.wpengine.com/seeing-through-my-tears/

Doctrine of Celibacy (October 2014) – http://nomorestranger.wpengine.com/the-doctrine-of-celibacy/

What Words Can’t Define (August 2014) – http://nomorestranger.wpengine.com/what-words-cant-define/

A Difference of Opinion (June 2014) – http://nomorestranger.wpengine.com/a-difference-of-opinion/

Shame and Affirmation (June 2014) – http://nomorestranger.wpengine.com/shame-and-affirmation/

Cool Tolerance (March 2013) – http://nomorestranger.wpengine.com/cool-tolerance/

It’s Complex (August 2013) – http://nomorestranger.wpengine.com/its-complex/

Christmas Cards (January 2014) – http://nomorestranger.wpengine.com/christmas-cards/

What the Heck is Traditional Marriage? (July 2013) – http://nomorestranger.wpengine.com/what-the-heck-is-traditional-marriage /

Defending Marriage (May 2013) – http://nomorestranger.wpengine.com/defending-marriage/

Why Does the Lord Allow His Covenant People to Err? (April 2013) – http://nomorestranger.wpengine.com/why-does-the-lord-allow-his-covenant-people-to-err/

The Catalyst (January 2013) – http://nomorestranger.wpengine.com/the-catalyst/

The Victoria Theater (June 2013) – http://nomorestranger.wpengine.com/the-victoria-theater/

Of Pain and the Journey (September 2013) – http://nomorestranger.wpengine.com/of-pain-and-the-journey/

I See the Image of Christ in My Gay Son, Lord (August 2012) – http://mitchmayne.blogspot.com/2012/08/a-fathers-poem-to-his-gay-son-from.html

It is odd that the author of the Meridian article cites his own study, but doesn’t source his study. The LDS Church’s theology and culture harm LGBTQ youth and members. It may not harm every LDS/LGBTQ member, but it harms enough of them to be demonstrable. I think I have provided ample sources.” (https://www.facebook.com/thomas.p.montgomery/posts/10218664665300613 )

On the topic of LGBTQ Latter-day Saint suicide, I also want to highlight the peer-reviewed August 2020 study conducted by James McGraw at Bowling Green State University (BGSU) and his colleagues. They found that lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) Utahns are over 4.5 times more likely to have recently thought about suicide/self-harm and nearly 10 times as likely to have attempted suicide in their lifetimes, when compared to heterosexual Utahns. What’s even more alarming is that the rates of suicidal thinking and suicide attempts among LGB Utahns was around three times higher than the rates among LGB non-Utahns living in the U.S., Canada and Europe. The rates of suicidal thinking and suicide attempts among heterosexuals in and out of Utah was not found to be nearly as divergent (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zNs8K5nNPw4SQxPch0uc_PFH0f0Q3kIq/view?usp=drivesdk; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13811118.2020.1806159 ).

Some people have postulated that Utah’s high altitude is a contributing factor to the high suicide rate among LGBTQ people. But I think the fact that the rates for straight folks in and out of Utah were not as different as the rates for LGB folks in and out of Utah suggests that Utah’s high altitude is not the primary reason LGB Utahns are so much more prone to suicide. It’s important to note that the BGSU study does not propose a reason for its findings or address the influence of religious beliefs at all. But I think when its findings are read in conjunction with those of the previously referenced study by Brian Simmons at the University of Georgia regarding the traumatic effects of some church teachings on LGBTQ Latter-day Saints, it’s not difficult to identify a distinguishing factor about Utah that could be making it harder for LGB people who live there to avoid suicidal thoughts.

In May 2021, James McGraw, Tyler Lefevor and Samuel Skidmore published a research article that actually identified four things that were strongly related to suicide ideation among sexual minority current and former Latter-day Saints:

1) interpersonal struggles and conflict around their faith;
2) internalized negative beliefs about experiencing same-sex attraction;
3) hiding experiences of same-sex attraction; and
4) using faith to cope with difficult emotions.

They also found three things that protected against suicide ideation among both current and former sexual minority Latter-day Saints:

1) resolving conflict between religious and sexual identities;
2) support from family; and
3) support from friends.

(https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcop.22591?fbclid=IwAR0DFVKAaBeZoVDDruuSg77KQC1loT3pJTEg2AG9BnaZA2LvKIuigQuryFU).

Those researchers and other researchers at BYU also published in 2021 two separate studies that each found that LGBTQ Latter-day Saints had lower suicide risk than those of other faiths or no faith (https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2021/10/13/22672169/are-latter-day-saint-lgbtq-youths-less-suicidal-a-new-study-asks-the-question-mormon?fbclid=IwAR0_dXeYnHL0ad5SS7mcApB2buN7PdTkEcNwZJAjgIk_buu9mYV4hs4Xomk ). While that finding may at first seem to contradict the many studies that show the harmful effects of church teachings on LGBTQ mental health, it is possible to reconcile that finding by noting that: (i) LGBTQ Latter-day Saints may be less likely, because of the church’s dietary/health code called the Word of Wisdom, to turn to harmful (sometimes fatal) substances to try to cope with the traumatic effects of church teachings about marriage, gender and sexuality; and (ii) more significantly, survivorship bias is likely a factor in the reported outcomes of those two studies – namely, it is possible a significant portion of people who were Latter-day Saints, but who leave the church because they are suicidal/depressed, were not included among those LGBTQ Latter-day Saints who reported feeling positive effects relating to their involvement with the church. If only the small percentage of LGBTQ church members who stay in the church and don’t experience as much harm from it are counted as LGBTQ Latter-day Saints, then of course a finding that shows a positive correlation with the church will result.

[Side note: In August 2020, James McGraw and his colleagues also released a compilation of all the published and non-published empirical research on Latter-day Saint LGBTQ psychological and interpersonal functioning and synthesized the results together. This is a useful reference to see all the research that has been conducted on the topic (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1550428X.2020.1800545?journalCode=wgfs20; https://drive.google.com/file/d/18nKkeahLsuNXA56lYoy95rfLPtzVG0aB/view?usp=drivesdk ).

Also, mental health researcher, Kate Toronto, has found that simply ignoring the possible choices that face LGBTQ Latter-day Saints is a better coping mechanism than trying to deal with the dissonance of their sexual and spiritual identities by going to therapy, talking to family and friends, getting information, making plans for the future, and praying. In particular, individuals who employed disengagement coping strategies like drugs, alcohol, and pretending the dissonance didn’t exist, had better life outcomes. In other words, thinking about the lack of options is worse than just ignoring the seriousness of the conflict and trying to escape it somehow. Ms. Toronto concludes that if engagement coping mechanisms are negatively correlated with life outcomes, something is broken – and not with the individuals themselves, but with the environment and community context (https://katetoronto.blogspot.com/2019/05/surprising-results-from-lgbtq-research.html?m=1&fbclid=IwAR3F0B_Bk_QHlw_XP8LOoiMCjzyn4GmVnK7Mp8W6b3pJQXfdXfK1F63nAQY ).]”

Notwithstanding the debate over the degree of causality in LGBTQ suicides, research has at the very least shown that church teachings that gay sexual orientation will be “cured” in the afterlife have led many gay Latter-day Saints to engage in suicidal ideation or attempt or die by suicide (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_Mormon_suicides ). Many LGBTQ individuals have said that statements like the following ones made by General Authorities contribute to such thoughts:

“The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is this: 1) It is that ‘ I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season. 2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me.” (Lance B. Wickman, Seventy, https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction , 2006)

“If you are faithful, on resurrection morning—and maybe even before then—you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex. Some of you may wonder if that doctrine is too good to be true. But Elder Dallin H. Oaks has said it MUST be true, because 'there is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband and wife, and posterity.' And 'men (and women) are that they might have joy.’” (Bruce C. Hafen, General Authority Seventy, 2009, https://religion.wikia.org/wiki/Bruce_C._Hafen ; https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/59228-church-making-further-movements-toward-respect-for-gay-members/page/2/?tab=comments )

Cheryl and I have personally communicated with gay church members who have said they felt like Latter-day Saint therapists were not able to sufficiently invalidate their thoughts that it would be easier for them if they committed suicide (so God could switch their sexuality) than it would be to live a celibate life. There are thousands of stories of individuals who have felt harmed from a mental health perspective because of the church’s teachings about gay sexual orientation (https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2019/11/02/justin-utley-darkness-is/ ).

Notwithstanding the documented harm that can be caused to a gay person’s mental health by church teachings and their continued church activity, I regrettably don’t think concerns over such hurt will ever be the primary cause for any change in church doctrine – because church leaders instinctively place more emphasis on future eternal blessings than they do on relieving mortal suffering. If not essentially compelled to change by outside forces, I suspect the church will always take the view that any suffering experienced by LGBTQ individuals who try to live according to church standards here in mortality will be worth the pain they endure, from an eternal perspective.

That pattern of only making a change to relieve mortal suffering if forced to do so is what some people argue occurred in the contexts of both the church’s abandonment of polygamy and the priesthood/temple ban for Black people. Even if that’s true, I don’t think external pressure means revelation was absent. To the contrary, I think church leaders can sometimes become closer to God when external pressures require them to confront an “emergency” for the church. That happens to us as individuals when we face trials too; we pray harder and often become closer to God as a result.

In the case of polygamy, the U.S. government “had disincorporated the church, escheated its assets to the U.S. federal government, and imprisoned many prominent polygamist Mormons” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1890_ Manifesto). Were it not for those steps by the government, it’s hard to know whether polygamy would have still been abandoned by the church.

In the case of Black people and the priesthood/temple ban, some say a worry over the church potentially losing its tax exempt status may have contributed to the positive change made by the church in 1978: https://bycommonconsent.com/2019/07/15/the-tax-roots-of-od2/ . The threat of losing revenue from BYU sports programs may have also played a role:

“African-American athletes protested against LDS Church policies by boycotting several sporting events with Brigham Young University. In 1968, after the assassination of Martin Luther King, black members of the UTEP track team approached their coach and expressed their desire not to compete against BYU in an upcoming meet. When the coach disregarded the athletes' complaint, the athletes boycotted the meet. Also in 1968, the San Jose State basketball and football teams refused to play against Brigham Young. In 1969, 14 members of the University of Wyoming football team were removed from the team for planning to protest the discriminatory treatment they had received in their previous match with Brigham Young. In their 1968 match against University of Wyoming, BYU football players refused the customary post-game handshakes after their loss and went straight to the locker rooms. They turned on the sprinklers, soaking the University of Wyoming football players. Additionally, a ‘caricature of an ape and a black man’ awaited them in the visitors' locker room, and a local paper reported ‘BYU cleanses field of evil.’ In November 1969, Stanford University President Kenneth Pitzer suspended athletic relations with BYU. Athletes protested Mormon racial policies at Arizona State University, San Jose State University, the University of New Mexico, and others.”

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights_and_Mormonism#NAACP_involvement )

Certainly, embarrassment about public perceptions of the church was a factor as well. I wonder if outside forces (governmental or otherwise) that threaten financial harm against the church, its institutions, or its members might likewise be what primarily motivates a doctrinal change on marriage equality as well.

One way that may manifest itself in coming years is through the threat of BYU once again being ostracized by the inter-collegiate athletic and academic associations it depends on for competitive, reputational, or financial partnerships. Or BYU students may suffer from a lack of competitive recruitment on campus as a result of increasing numbers of employers and professional organizations boycotting the school for recruitment purposes (which is something that has already occurred in certain areas of study at BYU: https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2019/11/11/two-science-societies/ ). As BYU continues to prohibit gay dating on campus, academic professionals predict that the university and its students will become more and more alienated from the associations that they have traditionally relied upon for success in many areas. (An excellent discussion of this possibility is included in a podcast interview given by Michael Austin, BYU alumnus and executive vice president for academic affairs at the University of Evansville, which is a Methodist school in Indiana: https://soundcloud.com/mormonland/college-administrator-examines-byus-honor-code-reversal-on-lgbtq-issues-episode-129 ).

Outside legal pressure on BYU increased in 2021 when a group of 33 LGBTQ college students from 25 religious universities (including BYU) filed a class-action lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education, asserting that the religious exemption their schools rely on to treat LGBTQ students differently than non-LGBTQ students is unconstitutional and that it allows the Department of Education to breach its duty to LGBTQ students at religious colleges and universities “where discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is codified in campus policies and openly practiced” (https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/lgbtq-students-file-class-action-lawsuit-against-department-education-n1262526 ). Each of the named schools receives grants and other subsidies from the federal government to operate various academic and tuition assistance programs. The lawsuit asserts that the federal government should not be allowed to give taxpayer monies to those religious universities due to the discriminatory policies in place at the schools. While I think this case is a longshot to win, I sincerely hope this case at least helps increase awareness of how the government funds religious universities whose policies are harming LGBTQ students.

In any event, if BYU ever truly does permit gay dating among its students, many believe it is only a matter of time before the injustice of seeing happy gay couples at BYU not be allowed to get married results in the church modifying its prohibition on gay marriage.

In saying all that, I feel it important to reiterate that I don’t mean to imply that divine revelation would not be involved in such a process as well. In fact, I believe divine revelation was involved in the changes that occurred with respect to both polygamy and Black people. Just because a prophet is compelled by outside forces to pray harder or be more open-minded about a particular issue than he ever has before, doesn’t mean the resulting revelation is not genuinely from God.

I think most, if not all, of the revelations prophets receive come as a result of petitioning God about a mortal situation that is causing angst. Joseph Smith received the church’s revelation about health practices because he felt compelled to pray after his wife, Emma, complained about cleaning up spitting tobacco following church meetings (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-stories/chapter-31-the-word-of-wisdom-february-1833 ). Moses was compelled to pray because of a political hardship (slavery) facing his people. Just like all the rest of us, prophets often become closest to God when the church or the people they lead are forced to endure hardships. And the church facing threats to its financial well-being has previously been a prophetic hardship resulting in divine guidance and surprising doctrinal change. I suppose it could once again.

I believe the church is worried that the government will eventually require it to provide equal treatment in all respects, including access to temple sealings, for LGBTQ individuals. While the church was instrumental in one instance in passing pro-LGBTQ rights legislation in Utah (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/us/politics/utah-passes-antidiscrimination-bill-backed-by-mormon-leaders.html ), it is more often on the side of litigants seeking to limit LGBTQ rights. The church often unites with other faiths to file amicus briefs in cases dealing with LGBTQ rights. It did so to try to prevent the legalization of marriage equality in many states and then ultimately at the U.S. Supreme Court as well (https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/faiths-file-amicus-brief-on-marriage-cases-before-tenth-circuit-court ; https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/church-signs-amicus-brief-filed-on-marriage ). The church also filed an amicus brief in the LGBTQ employment case that was before the U.S. Supreme Court 2019, arguing that religious employers should be allowed to fire someone for being in a gay marriage or for openly transitioning to match their gender (https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/08/politics/supreme-court-lgbtq-arguments ) (https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-107/113604/20190826131230679_Harris%20Amicus%20Brief%20Final%20Version.pdf ). The Supreme Court ended up ruling on the case in June 2020. The court said employers could not fire someone for actions that, if taken by someone of a different sex, would have been protected by law (https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/15/politics/supreme-court-lgbtq-employment-case/index.html ). That ruling resulted in landmark legal protections for LGBTQ people from employment discrimination in general, but the court specifically left open the question about whether religious employers were exempted (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/16/supreme-court-closed-door-lgbtq-employment-discrimination-it-opened-window/ ). Then, in another case decided just a few weeks later, the Supreme Court confirmed that a religious employer is in fact allowed to discriminate against LGBTQ people in ways that secular employers no longer can (https://www.deseret.com/indepth/2020/7/8/21302953/supreme -court-employment-discrimination-catholic-schools-ministers-hiring-firing-ruling). The church filed an amicus brief in this later case as well, arguing that religious employers should be allowed to discriminate against LGBTQ people (https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-267/132581/20200210172618740_19-267%20Amici%20Curiae.pdf ). So, after these two court decisions, this is now the law of the land in the United States: secular employers cannot discriminate against someone for being LGBTQ but religious employers can.

Many church members wonder whether they can support civil marriage equality and other LGBTQ political causes and still be a member of the church in good standing. When one of our current apostles, Elder D. Todd Christofferson, was asked by a reporter back in 2015 whether Latter-day Saints would risk losing their church membership or temple privileges if they supported gay marriage privately among family and friends or publicly on social media, marched in pride parades, or belonged to gay-friendly organizations such as Affirmation or Mormons Building Bridges, he responded as follows:

“We have individual members in the church with a variety of different opinions, beliefs and positions on these issues and other issues...In our view, it doesn't really become a problem unless someone is out attacking the church and its leaders — if that's a deliberate and persistent effort and trying to get others to follow them, trying to draw others away, trying to pull people, if you will, out of the church or away from its teachings and doctrines.” (https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=2301174&itype=CMSID ).

So, given that latitude allowed by the church, and now that I am no longer in any church leadership position, I am more open about my political support for LGBTQ rights and about laws affecting the LGBTQ community (like the Utah conversion therapy licensing rule). I was hesitant to do so before because I didn’t want to risk confusing someone who perceived me as a representative of the church. But in being more open about my support for LGBTQ equality, I am not trying to pull people out of the church. I myself am deciding to stay in the church.

In fact, even in postulating publicly ways the doctrine of the church could possibly change, I don’t intend to attack the church. Rather, as I stated in the Preface, my intention is to help facilitate greater understanding of the pain that many LGBTQ church members and their families feel. I don’t see how I can do that without sharing my thoughts about church doctrine and my hope for how it could possibly change – because the way that hope has been affected by ongoing teachings from church leaders on LGBTQ matters gets at the root of my pain. I don’t want anyone to leave the church because of what I have shared. I haven’t left the church myself.

That being said, I don’t believe that makes me a better person than anyone who decides to leave the church. Everyone can have a unique path they feel inspired to follow. And I am now in a place in my life where I can say I honor and respect as equally valid all paths people choose to find love or to express love to others. While it’s not the path I feel called to pursue, I think it’s possible for God to want some people to leave the church to find what He wants for them in their own personal lives, or so they can do His will in ways there that they wouldn’t be able to if they remained inside the church.

In any event, I don’t think I have crossed any line to be at risk of losing good standing status (i.e., losing my temple recommend). One of the temple recommend interview questions asks: “Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?” I don’t believe I am supporting or promoting any contrary teachings or doctrine – because all I’m doing is asking questions about current and past doctrines and teachings, not organizing protests for change, etc. I’m just trying to ask whether church members as a whole should be open to the idea that we might be wrong about gay marriage – so we’re better prepared to receive any future revelation about how gay couples fit into God’s plan. But many LGBTQ-friendly church members are worried about how local and regional church leaders will apply the wording of that question (https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/10/22/jana-riess-new-lds-temple/ ). I am grateful my ward and stake leaders understand I’m just trying to help church members better relate to people like me and that they don’t feel inclined to revoke my temple privileges just because I have publicly written my thoughts here.

And I also hope my opposition to some of the political positions the church is taking on LGBTQ rights won’t alienate me from any of my church friends. Hopefully we can disagree and still be close friends, even if we’re at odds over the church’s politics. I have tried to remain close friends with many church members who I feel don’t follow the church’s teachings on other political issues.

So I hope my friends can remain close with me even though I choose to disagree with the church’s political stance on LGBTQ rights.

One of the reasons I feel comfortable being a believer but still not liking the church’s involvement in politics is, ironically, based in scripture. When the church argues against LGBTQ rights, I have wondered whether it is violating its own scripture:

“We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others…We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.” (Doctrine & Covenants 134:4, 9)

I often wonder whether the church is inappropriately mingling religious influence with government, and whether the church’s efforts are actually resulting in something that the above scripture says we don’t believe in: the favoring of one religion over another to the detriment of individual rights of citizens who are members of the disfavored religion. Specifically, because some churches support full LGBTQ equality in civil rights as a tenet of their religious belief to love everyone as Jesus did, could our church’s involvement in anti-LGBTQ rights issues promote a situation where one set of religious beliefs gets favored by the government over others? When religious beliefs of different groups conflict in the area of civil rights, should we interpret the above scripture as instruction for us to back off and just let civil government sort things out without religion being mingled in at all? One of our past apostles taught as much as follows:

“Anything that persons profess to do under the name of religion, which interferes with the rights of others is wrong, and the secular law may step in and protect the citizens and restrain or punish those people who attempt to do this under the plea of religion.” (Charles W. Penrose, Apostle, Journal of Discourses, Volume 25, Discourse 27, https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/07/11/stop-skipping-the-establishment-clause/ )

I also feel comfortable not agreeing with the church’s position on certain political issues because I draw a distinction between religious belief and political opinion. For example, just because I’m okay with a religious belief that prohibits drinking alcohol, that doesn’t mean I am in favor of reinstituting Prohibition. Also, the church has sometimes been on the immoral side of political issues and has changed its political positions repeatedly (including five times about slavery: https://gregkofford.com/blogs/news/five-times-mormons-changed-their-position-on-slavery ).

One of the reasons I wish the church would stay out of politics is because I fear it will be embarrassed if doctrinal change occurs again in the future. This happened not only about slavery but also interracial marriage. For many decades, the church supported laws making interracial marriage illegal and taught that it was a sin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints ). In a speech to the Utah legislature in 1852 in connection with a proposed pro-slavery law in Utah, Brigham Young even taught, while prophet, that it would be better from an eternal salvation perspective if an interracial couple and their children were decapitated or killed than be together as a family (https://books.google.com/books?id=LkRZGQ8oO8IC&lpg=PA49&ots=30VXmz65se&pg=PA49#v=onepage&q&f=false )

(https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Did_Brigham_Young_say_that_race_mixing_was_punishable_by_death%3F ).

If the church was wrong about its politics with respect to marriage and civil rights before, is it possible the church is wrong about its politics again today? Will we someday look back on the church’s legal efforts today to allow religious employers to fire their employees just because they are in a gay marriage with a similar sort of horror that we do when we look back on the church’s support of laws prohibiting interracial marriage? If so, wouldn’t it have been better if the church hadn’t got involved in LGBTQ politics at all?

All that being said, I am not aggressive in communicating any political opinions I have that might diverge from the church’s political efforts. I want to keep good relationships with my church friends. So while I will be vocal (including on social media), I will not be combative because I love my fellow Latter-day Saints. Plus, I don’t want to be part of stoking any flames that would prompt church leaders to harden their positions doctrinally. I believe church leaders started to double down over the pulpit like never before against gay marriage in the fall of 2019 in response to pressure from general church membership to reverse the Exclusion Policy.

If I’m right in that supposition, it wouldn’t be the first time doctrinal “tightening” has happened to try to change the sentiments of church members. Our health code, which was initially revealed in 1833 as just a recommendation (i.e., a “word of wisdom”), became a rigid rule in 1921 in part because the prophet at the time didn’t want alcohol consumption to be legal. When most church members in Utah voted to repeal Prohibition more than 10 years later, the prophet expressed his disappointment in them (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints_and _politics_in_the_ United_States ). So to avoid the risk of even further doctrinal “tightening” on LGBTQ issues, I think pro-LGBTQ church members might need to be circumspect in how loudly we object to the church’s political endeavors when speaking within church circles.

There is a fine balance we need to strike to lovingly educate church members about the harm we feel is being caused by the church’s position on LGBTQ issues, without arguing so forcefully that church leaders feel they need to act with haste doctrinally to tamp down any growing sympathies. At the same time, I do speak up about political issues affecting LGBTQ people, because it is abundantly clear to me that not granting them equal rights in all areas of life is harmful (https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/12/19/anti-lgbt-discrimination-has-huge-human-toll-research-proves-it/ ) and not justified by any sort of religious liberty arguments.