Chapter 5- Is doctrinal change still possible?

• Is it possible for me to stop hoping for doctrinal change?

• Do the scriptures prohibit doctrinal marriage equality?

• Does the Proclamation on the Family prohibit marriage equality?

• What does the situation with race and the priesthood/temple ban teach us?

• Would allowing marriage equality in our doctrine mean God has changed?

• Would it speed up change if we truly accepted our own belief that prophets aren’t perfect?

Chapter synopsis: I can’t abandon my hope for doctrinal change, even though recent church teachings make change now unlikely, or at least push it much further off into the future. This is painful because I find no scripture or church proclamation that explicitly forbids marriage equality; significant doctrinal change has happened before; and we believe church teachings can be improved upon because prophets aren’t perfect.

To continue to have a positive relationship with the church, I have decided I have to find the strength to still hope for change, even in the face of the church’s recently expanded and newly entrenched teachings against marriage equality in our doctrine. Even though such teachings render doctrinal change less likely or push it off further into the future, I cannot stop hoping for change because I know these two things: 1) Wes is on the path that God wants for him; and 2) full fellowship in the church can be a good thing for people in this life.

If I stop hoping for change, I inevitably feel like an unloving parent – because that means I know there is something that would be good for my son (i.e., his future husband and family, on the one hand, and/or full fellowship in the church in this life, on the other hand) but I don’t want him to have that good thing. So I am committed to never letting anyone, even our highest church leaders, discourage my hope for doctrinal change ever again. I am also committed to never again keep quiet about my pain and hope for change. While I will speak up, I won’t protest for change, because only God knows when that will happen for the whole church – and I respect that He’ll only tell that to the prophet, not me. But, because of profound personal revelation I have received, I will always hold hope for doctrinal change in my heart and I will always discuss the pain I feel in not seeing the church treat LGBTQ people with full equality. As President Nelson has taught:

“Regardless of what others may say or do, no one can ever take away a witness borne to your heart and mind about what is true.” (Russell M. Nelson, Prophet, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2018/04/revelation-for-the-church-revelation-for-our-lives?lang=eng , 2018)

I have to always believe in the personal revelation I have received that I should never stop hoping for change in the church. Not hoping for change is impossible for me if I want to feel like a good father. Just trusting that the Savior will work things out in the next life is insufficient hope for me because I want the best for my son in this life too. So to be genuine, both as a kind father and as a believing Latter-day Saint, the only thing I can do is hope for change.

Some hope that God doesn’t actually view it as sin when a gay child leaves the church – because there’s an exception for them somehow (which is essentially what we’re told to believe by just trusting that the Savior will work things out somehow in the afterlife). I don’t believe that is sufficient as the only hope a kind parent of a gay child is allowed to have. Because the parents’ stewardship over their gay child is for mortality, I think loving parents also need to hope that their child can be in the church at some point in this life while simultaneously being in a loving marriage with someone of their same gender. If parents are supposed to stop hoping for that, church leaders are basically asking them to give up the hope that their child can one day concurrently have both a happy marriage and the positive effects of the church as a faith community.

How can I do that as a mortal parent of Wes when I know that the church’s faith community is the most effective and natural spiritual home he can have, because of his upbringing and his family background on both sides? But church leadership is telling me I shouldn’t hope for him to ever have that in this life unless he gives up the dream of a naturally affectionate, loving, committed marriage in this life too. As a parent, I can’t stop hoping that he can have both things in this life.

Any other straight kids a family may have are likely to feel that same disingenuousness. Those straight kids may be more apt to leave the church because staying feels like a betrayal of their love for their sibling (i.e., it feels mean and selfish to not be allowed to hope that their gay sibling can have both a romantic marriage and the church, as they do). For that reason, the only way I was able to keep my other kids active and believing in the church was to reassure them it’s okay to hope that eventually Wes will be able to enjoy the benefits of our faith community in this life again while married to a man – and to explore doctrinally with them how change might happen.

Because of what’s best for Wes’ mental health, I can’t believe that the church is good for everyone in this mortal life - because, in this life, the church is not good for gays and lesbians who, like him, can’t maintain good mental health while choosing deliberate lifelong celibacy (which is different than being a straight single who hasn’t happened to find their spouse yet). That is a fact for gay people whose mental health suffers when they can’t engage in a lifelong pursuit of avoiding falling in love and thinking of the darkness that heaven has in store for them - the church is bad for them in this life. So I find it incredibly painful and frustrating that church leadership is asking me (over the pulpit in the talks by President Nelson and President Oaks, and in person in my meeting with the General Authority described in Chapter 9) to abandon hope that that could ever change - to abandon hope that church involvement could ever become a positive thing for Wes again in mortality if he’s married.

I cannot stop hoping that church leaders provide direction about what gay church members SHOULD do to maintain healthy and happy lives, instead of only basing their guidance on what gay people should NOT do. Decades ago, church leaders used to regularly advise gay church members to marry people of the opposite gender. But they now acknowledge that is not a good course of action (see Chapter 3). And church leaders teach that intentional, lifelong celibacy is not what God wants for straight people. So we are currently in a situation where church leaders’ advice about what gay people should do (pursue lifelong celibacy) is exactly what they tell straight people not to do. I hope for the day when church leaders can give positive advice, not negative proscriptions, to gay Latter-day Saints that will improve their mental health and well-being.

While the changes to doctrine that have already occurred to acknowledge that just being gay is not a sin have been helpful for the mental health of many gay church members, those changes do not go far enough. The current message of “It’s okay to be gay, just don’t act on it” is still one that causes tremendous psychological harm for the vast majority of church members. And that message also contradicts Jesus’ teaching that we should avoid not only sinful acts, but also the desires for those acts (i.e., we should avoid lust in addition to adultery and unhealthy anger in addition to murder – see Matthew 5:21-30). Saying there is nothing wrong with being gay as long as you aren’t in a gay relationship makes no more sense than saying “it’s okay to feel greedy as long as you don’t steal” (https://wheatandtares.org/2021/02/14/it-is-ok-to-be-gay-just-dont/ ). And that’s just one example where scripture contradicts church policy. Another one is God’s observation in the garden of Eden, at the very beginning of earth's history: “It is not good that the man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18). Yet modern-day church policy teaches that it *is* good to be alone if you’re queer. So further doctrinal change needs to happen in the church not only because the harmful fruit of psychological trauma should not be attributed to Christ, but also because current church doctrine actually contradicts Christ’s teachings and other scriptures.

However, many church members just don’t see how it’s even possible for church doctrine to change. So I would like to discuss in this chapter some common-sense ideas about how our doctrine could naturally evolve to reflect a more logical and, more importantly, a more kind, inclusive, and loving theology. I can’t ignore the call to hope that these ideas scream out to me.

The first place to start for the “change-is-impossible” camp is the scriptures that seem to prohibit gay sexual behavior. But all such scriptures can very easily be interpreted as just prohibiting selfishness, rape, pederasty/pedophilia, sex slavery, fornication, and/or prostitution, not marriage to someone of the same gender.

[Side note: Dr. Robert K. Gnuse has explained that there are seven specific passages often cited to condemn gay sexual behavior: Noah and Ham (Genesis 9:20–27), Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:1–11), Levitical laws condemning same-sex relationships (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), two words in two New Testament vice lists (1 Corinthians 6:9–10; 1 Timothy 1:10), and Paul’s letter to the Romans (Romans 1:26–27). But, when the original language of those passages and the historical context in which they were written are examined, it can clearly be seen that those passages do not refer to gay relationships between two free, adult, and loving individuals. Rather, they describe rape or attempted rape (Genesis 9:20–27, 19:1–11), cultic prostitution (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), male prostitution and pederasty (1 Corinthians 6:9–10; 1 Timothy 1:10), and the Isis cult in Rome (Romans 1:26–27) (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146107915577097 ). Dr. Gnuse’s biography of professional credentials and training is impressive: http://cas.loyno.edu/religious-studies/bios/robert-k-gnuse-phd .]

How could ancient writers of the scriptures even be thinking about monogamous gay marriage when almost all societies prohibited that concept until modern times? Sure, they were apostles and prophets, so perhaps they could see our day. But the church interprets a LOT of other ancient scriptural teachings to not apply to our day (like the apostle Paul prohibiting women from speaking in church in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35; instructions that slaves need to obey their masters in Ephesians 6:5 and 1 Peter 2:18-25; and Mormon saying that women lose their virtue when they are raped in Moroni 9:9).

In any event, the Bible is the only book of scripture that Latter-day Saints believe in that might possibly reference gay sexual activity at all. I say “possibly” because the only translations of the Bible that include the word “homosexual” are modern versions. The King James Version does not contain that word. Those other versions have since been shown to have incorrectly used that word rather than translate the pertinent verses to more appropriately communicate sexual abuse (https://www.facebook.com/stan.mitchell.58/posts/3135281313206974 ; https://www.forgeonline.org/blog/2019/3/8/what-about-romans-124-27). And many Christian churches affirm marriage equality as being consistent with Biblical teachings. Whole books have been written about how all the Biblical scriptures that seem to reference gay sexual behavior, including those found in the New Testament, have been misused to condemn marriage between same-gender partners (https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/christian-pastor-reframes-scripture-used-against-lgbtq-community-n673471 ).

In addition to Catholic and Protestant authors, some faithful, active Latter-day Saint scholars have opined that there are no scriptures anywhere in the Bible that prohibit marriage equality. I love this podcast episode on that topic that is co-hosted by Derek Knox, an active gay convert to the church who is a Bible scholar/theologian by training: https://beyondtheblockpodcast.com/episodes/the-longest-clobber-passage-s1!0cdef (read more about Derek and his cohost James Jones in the Preface).

Another example is the famous church scholar, Hugh Nibley, who negated the idea that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is focused on gay sexual activity by teaching that the primary sin of those cities was actually that their people lacked compassion, hospitality, and care for the poor: https://www.reddit.com/r/latterdaysaints/comments/1zdsbd/the_old_testament_doesnt_prohibit_ homosexuality/. That explanation is also consistent with what the Bible itself says was the sin of Sodom:

“Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.” (Ezekiel 16:49)

In short, context matters. Scriptural interpretations that prohibit marriage between same-gender partners don’t hold up under honest, contextual scrutiny. Again, many faithful Christians of other denominations also take this approach to the Bible.

Aside from the Bible, other Latter-day Saint books of scripture extol the virtues of heterosexual marriage and of its necessity to enter the highest degree of heaven. But they don’t actually say anywhere that gay sexual behavior is prohibited. They don’t even mention gay sexual behavior atall – anywhere. Even the Book of Mormon, which Joseph Smith called “the most correct book,” doesn’t mention gay sexual behavior at all.

A core Latter-day Saint doctrine asserts: “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” (Article of Faith 9). Could our scriptures be added to in the future to expand upon what they teach currently? Allowing for gay marriage doesn’t diminish anything the scriptures have said about heterosexual marriage. Could the omission of a specific prohibition on gay sexual behavior in our modern-day scriptures have been something God actually inspired? That way, we wouldn’t have to re-interpret any non-Biblical scripture to allow for gay marriage, making it even easier for marriage equality to be affirmed in our doctrine later.

Even though the scriptures don’t actually prohibit marriage equality, many people view the Church’s document “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” as an impenetrable roadblock to doctrinal change (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world?lang=eng ). Issued in 1995, it is widely treated as doctrine in the church (even though it has not been canonized into the scriptures) and is generally thought to explicitly condemn gay marriage.

However, under a close reading, the closest the document comes to prohibiting gay sexual behavior is this: “[T]he sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.” Since two people of the same sex cannot procreate, this statement actually only condemns straight sexual activity outside marriage, not gay sexual activity at all.

Clearer language about procreation is found on the church’s website under the topic “birth control” (another area where church doctrine has changed dramatically over the years):

“Sexual relations within marriage are not only for the purpose of procreation, but also a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual ties between husband and wife.” (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/birth-control )

Here church leaders acknowledge that sexual relations can have the purpose of both procreation and expressing love. Unless the church reverses its modern allowance for birth control or forbids infertile straight married couples from having sex, it will always be the case that the church considers non-procreative sex within marriage to be a good thing. Is it possible then that God guided church leaders to use language in the family proclamation that referenced procreation specifically rather than sexual relations in general? Maybe so that, when God finally deems us ready to understand how gay marriage fits into the gospel picture, future church leaders can more easily clarify that the family proclamation doesn’t actually prohibit gay sex within marriage?

Elsewhere in the family proclamation, other concepts are presented to support that heterosexual marriage and parenthood are essential to God’s plan for His children. But, just like our scriptures, nowhere does it say that gay marriage can’t be something “extra” or also “essential” for different reasons. To me, it’s like saying trees are essential for a forest - but that doesn’t mean other plants and animals can’t be important or essential parts of it also, to provide variety and make the whole forest healthier and more beautiful, right? Diversity is a wonderful thing and helps people learn to love more open-mindedly. Perhaps God wants us to have diversity in married couples both here and in heaven, so we can learn to better appreciate one another and all of His creations equally. Could God have inspired the wording of the proclamation to still be flexible for a future, more open-minded interpretation?

This might also explain why this document on the family took the form of a proclamation instead of a new revelation in the canonized book, the Doctrine & Covenants. Could God have been guiding the process to help keep the door open for change to happen more easily when the time is right? As mentioned above, gay folks are written out of the family proclamation. Perhaps the current iteration of the family proclamation may come to be known as “The Heterosexual Family: A Proclamation to the World.” Then, when we are ready to receive it, God might reveal something like “The Human Family: A Proclamation to the World,” inclusive of our LGBTQ siblings.

In the meantime, we should all refrain from using the family proclamation to negatively judge any LGBTQ church member who chooses to date or marry someone of their same gender, or who transitions genders. The proclamation helps us remember to refrain from judging by saying, after discussing gender roles of husband and wife: “other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.” That simple and direct statement can be a precedent for exceptions to other statements made throughout the proclamation. So we should not use the family proclamation to condemn anyone for their chosen family or gender.

But I think it is appropriate to use the family proclamation to chastise parents who put their LGBTQ kids into conversion therapy programs to try to change their sexual orientation or gender identity or who exclude them in any way from their personal lives. The proclamation says “parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love” and warns that “individuals who…abuse…offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God.” Parents should try to eradicate homophobia and transphobia from their hearts. We should remind parents who subject their LGBTQ children to abusive therapy programs or who reject them in any way, that they are in danger of harsh divine judgment under the proclamation’s warnings.

Another argument from the change-is-impossible camp is that change is out of church leaders’ hands – only God can make a change. I understand that sentiment, but I wonder if God is sometimes disappointed in having to wait to reveal change until church leaders and members are ready to receive it. I have to assume God sometimes wishes we didn’t need as much time to grow and learn lessons about love on our own. But I also believe God is pleased when those lessons result in the prophet praying with more fervor about change. In that vein, I find hope for an end to the church’s ban on gay marriage by looking at the numerous examples of doctrinal change that have occurred in the church. The church has changed its positions on abortion, birth control, polygamy, slavery, suicide and many other serious issues. Perhaps the most pertinent example of doctrinal change is how the church’s racial priesthood/temple ban came to an end. Both that ban and the church’s prohibition against gay marriage involve(d) unchosen biological traits, justification by scriptural interpretation, suffering by church members, and statements by church leaders that change was/is out of their control.

The history of the racial priesthood/temple ban is complex. In short, a few Black men were ordained to the priesthood with the approval of Joseph Smith. But following Joseph’s death in 1844, Brigham Young declared in 1849 that no men of Black African descent could hold the priesthood. So, unlike people of any other ancestry, Black men could not perform baptisms, administer the sacrament (i.e., the Lord’s supper), or serve as missionaries or leaders in the church. Black men and women were prohibited from receiving sacred temple rites that are necessary to enter the highest degree of heaven and to bind families together for eternity, and they were also restricted from performing any such temple rites on behalf of their ancestors.

During the 129 years of the ban’s existence, many church leaders taught that those restrictions were inspired by God, and gave several race-based explanations for the ban. The ban was declared to be a “doctrine” in a letter distributed by the First Presidency in 1949, justified by the notion that Black people were less righteous as spirits before being born. The First Presidency sent a similar letter in 1969

(https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements ).

Just nine years later in 1978, the ban was reversed when President Spencer W. Kimball received a revelation known as Official Declaration 2. This was 10-30 years after the civil rights movement in the United States (which occurred during the late 1940s to late 1960s, according to history.com) . By 1978, the majority of people in the United States had already gotten comfortable with civil rights for African Americans. Now the church stance is this:

“Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a pre-mortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form” (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood ).

I’m deeply grateful the church has denounced the racist teachings of its past. But it took until 2013 (yes, that’s right, 2013!) for the church to release that formal denunciation of the former justifications for the racial ban that ended in 1978. We have a history in our church of being so worried about contradicting prior leaders, that positive changes God reveals seem to have been significantly delayed by prejudices engendered through prophetic statements of the past.

Some people argue that comparing the pre-1978 situation with Black church members to that of LGBTQ church members today is a false equivalency. And I agree that the two situations are very different (see Chapter 2 for a fuller comparison). But despite the differences, I also believe there are some similarities that I think can be instructive. For example, both contexts involve church leaders’ interpretation of scripture to discriminate. When a reporter asked President David O. McKay in 1961 about the basis for the policy of restricting Black people from the priesthood, “he replied that it rested solely on the Book of Abraham. 'That is the only reason,' he said. 'It is founded on that.'” (“David O. McKay and Blacks,” by Gregory A. Prince, Dialogue, Spring 2002, p. 146). Some pertinent scriptures from Abraham are:

“The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus...; When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.” (Abraham 1:23-24)

“Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry.” (Abraham 1:27)

Latter-day Saint author Stephen Taggart has also observed:

“With the publication of The Book of Abraham all of the elements for the Church's policy of denying the priesthood to Negroes were present. The curse of Canaan motif borrowed from Southern fundamentalism was being supported with the Church by a foundation of proslavery statements and attitudes which had emerged during the years of crisis in Missouri. . .” (Mormonism's Negro Policy: Social and Historical Origins, by Stephen G. Taggart, University of Utah Press, 1970, pp. 62‑63).

Other scriptures were also used for over a hundred years to justify racism by many prophets, apostles and other General Authorities of the church, bolstering a view that change was not possible, no matter what church leaders or members desired concerning the racial priesthood/temple ban (http://www.mormonhandbook.com/home/racism.html#top ).

I find it interesting to compare this line of thought (that change is out of church leaders’ hands) with the following statements that the First Presidency said in that formal letter in 1969 (just 9 years before the church changed its position):

“The position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affecting those of the Negro race who choose to join the Church falls wholly within the category of religion. It has no bearing upon matters of civil rights. In no case or degree does it deny to the Negro his full privileges as a citizen of the nation…The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God…Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state…Until God reveals His will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will. Priesthood, when it is conferred on any man comes as a blessing from God, not of men…We feel nothing but love, compassion, and the deepest appreciation for the rich talents, endowments, and the earnest strivings of our Negro brothers and sisters… Were we the leaders of an enterprise created by ourselves and operated only according to our own earthly wisdom, it would be a simple thing to act according to popular will. But we believe that this work is directed by God and that the conferring of the priesthood must await His revelation. To do otherwise would be to deny the very premise on which the Church is established.” (First Presidency letter, https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements#1969 , 1969)

The prophetic rhetoric today sounds very much the same as it did back then: that change is not possible because God hasn’t said it can happen. But change did happen for Black people regardless back then. So I wonder if it can happen for LGBTQ people in the future too – once the prophet is ready to pray with a more sincere desire for change because the general membership of the church is as prepared to embrace our LGBTQ siblings with full equality as church members were in 1978 for Black Latter-day Saints to have full privileges of the priesthood and temple.

Despite the ending of the racial priesthood/temple ban in 1978, and the denouncement by the church of the racist teachings by church leaders that justified its existence in 2013, racism is still a problem in the church today:

“To this day, churchgoing Mormons report that they hear from their fellow congregants in Sunday meetings that African-Americans are the accursed descendants of Cain whose spirits--due to their lack of spiritual mettle in a premortal existence--were destined to come to earth with a "curse" of black skin. This claim can be made in many Mormon Sunday Schools without fear of contradiction. You are more likely to encounter opposition if you argue that the ban on the ordination of Black Mormons was a product of human racism. Like most difficult subjects in Mormon history and practice, the priesthood and temple ban on Blacks has been managed carefully in LDS institutional settings with a combination of avoidance, denial, selective truth-telling, and determined silence.” Joanna Brooks, Mormonism and White Supremacy: American Religion and The Problem of Racial Innocence (https://www.amazon.com/Mormonism-White-Supremacy-American-Innocence-ebook/dp/B08761ZHCP )

Church leaders need to do more to stamp out racism in the church today. Acknowledging that the priesthood/temple ban itself (and not just the teachings that justified it) was a mistake – that it did not come from God – would be an important step. Another step would be for church leaders to apologize, on behalf of the church, to Black church members for the ban. No apology for it has ever been given by the church. Many church members (including several apostles) and other prominent individuals over the course of the ban’s existence let church leaders know of the injustices and sufferings being caused by the ban. The ban was not just a product of its times. But for far too long, the church’s position did not respond to those cries and align itself with the truth that “all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33). So I believe an apology needs to be made for that failure.

I also pray that church leaders respond to the cries of LGBTQ suffering sooner than later, so our showing of God’s love for all, and the true equality that the scriptures teach He desires us to embrace, are not frustrated any longer than they have been already.

Another argument from the change-is -impossible camp is that no change can happen because God is the same yesterday, today and forever. Yet one of the ways God has consistently stayed the same is that He has always revealed change to prophets for the benefit of His children. From Old Testament times to modern times, the constant element in God’s dealings with His children is that He changes certain rules or commandments for us based on the circumstances and times in which we live. For example, animal sacrifice and the Mosaic Law had their time and place in ancient history. And completely abstaining from tobacco, alcohol, coffee and tea is a law that only applies in our modern times. In fact, even within just the history of the modern church, a complete prohibition on such substances was not required for a person to be in good standing in the church until 1921, which was 88 years after Joseph Smith received the revelation in 1833 (https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Word_of_Wisdom/History_and_implementation ). So, rather than suggest that God changes, I believe the idea of God expanding the law of chastity to allow for marriage between same-gender spouses ironically affirms Him staying the same because He has always revealed era-appropriate adjustments.

As I see it, one reason God needs to make changes little by little (line upon line) over time, rather than just reveal everything to us all at once, is because we are not ready as a people to accept concepts that challenge our prejudices. We have to learn to overcome our biases, become more loving, and open our hearts and minds before He will reveal further light and knowledge.

Ironically, one of the reasons we are often prejudiced is because we think our prophets are not capable of making mistakes. When prophets make racist, sexist, or anti-LGBTQ statements, we let their statements enter our hearts as God’s will. But there are many examples of statements made by past prophets that today we find offensive (for example, Brigham Young made many blatantly racist statements:

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Offensive_statements ;

https://www.ldsdiscussions.com/priesthood-ban-quotes ).

At the time such statements were made,however, many (if not most) people listening to them did not consider them to be offensive at all.

And because a prophet made them, people held on to them with a religious fervor that made it harder for God to eventually reveal a change that contradicted such statements. Could that be what is happening currently with the many anti-LGBTQ statements and teachings we keep hearing from our living prophets and apostles?

To diminish the harm being caused by some prophetic statements, I wish more church members would take a minute to think about the following joke that is sometimes told among Latter-day Saints:

“Catholic doctrine is that the Pope is infallible, but they don’t believe it; Latter-day Saint doctrine is that the Prophet is fallible, but they don’t believe it.” (https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2014/11/25/living-fallibility ).

That saying is amusing to us because it seems to be a true reflection of the doctrine of both churches and of the mentalities of their respective church members as well. But I think the damage caused by Latter-day Saints placing too much weight on prophetic statements that are discriminatory in nature is not a laughing matter at all. I wish more church members could get comfortable with the idea that our prophets are human, so we don’t get stuck in a paradigm where we think it’s bad for prophets to declare doctrinal change.

Many prophets in the Bible exhibited personal failings, including prejudice. As one Bible commentator noted, the Biblical authors were not perfect, and they made errors of expression even in the Biblical record:

“Though purified and ennobled by the influence of His Holy Spirit; men each with his own peculiarities of manner and disposition—each with his own education or want of education - each with his own way of looking at things - each influenced differently from another by the different experiences and disciplines of his life. Their inspiration did not involve a suspension of their natural faculties; it did not even make them free from earthly passion; it did not make them into machines—it left them men. Therefore we find their knowledge sometimes no higher than that of their contemporaries.” (James R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible: Complete in One Volume, with General Articles and Maps (New York : Macmillan, 1984 [1904]), p. cxxxv.)

Why do we expect our modern-day prophets to be more perfect than scriptural prophets? A helpful chart comparing the flaws of Biblical prophets to those of our latter-day prophets is found under the section “How do Biblical prophets compare to modern prophets?” here: https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Prophets_are_not_infallible#Question:_Were_Biblical_prophets_infallible.3F .

I wish more church members could acknowledge that sometimes, even in the prophet’s official capacity as the presiding authority, he just teaches according to his own discretion, not divine revelation:

“If I do not know the will of my Father, and what he requires of me in a certain transaction, if I ask him to give me wisdom concerning any requirement in life or in regard to my own course, or that of my friends, my family, my children, or those that I preside over, and get no answer from him, and then do the very best that my judgment will teach me, he is bound to own and honor that transaction, and he will do so to all intents and purposes.” (Brigham Young, Prophet, https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/171150-if-i-do-not-know-the-will-of-my-father )

“Question: Do you believe that the President of the Church, when speaking to the Church in his official capacity is infallible?
Answer: We do not believe in the infallibility of man. When God reveals anything it is truth, and truth is infallible. No President of the Church has claimed infallibility. (Charles W. Penrose, Apostle, https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Prophets_are_not_infallible , 1912)

Consistent with that quote, I think God can sometimes make alternative arrangements to ensure His plan for the church doesn’t go off the rails when His prophets act according to their own desires rather than His wishes. The story of the lost 116 pages of the Book of Mormon is a great example of God having a back-up plan already in place, centuries before a future misstep by Joseph Smith (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_116_pages ). I think there are individual lives that may be hurt by a prophet’s mistakes, which God has to allow because He can’t take away a prophet’s agency, but He can still take steps to inspire people in other ways to protect the overall trajectory of the church nonetheless.

“Even with the best of intentions, [Church government] does not always work the way it should. Human nature may express itself on occasion, but not to the permanent injury of the work.” (Elder Boyd K. Packer, https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Prophets_are_not_infallible , 1991)

“Revelations from God…are not constant. We believe in continuing revelation, not continuous revelation. We are often left to work out problems without the dictation or specific direction of the Spirit. That is part of the experience we must have in mortality. Fortunately, we are never out of our Savior's sight, and if our judgment leads us to actions beyond the limits of what is permissible and if we are listening,…the Lord will restrain us by the promptings of his Spirit.” (Elder Dallin H. Oaks, https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Prophets_are_not_infallible , 1997)

All that said, a lot of my fellow Latter-day Saints think that a change to existing doctrine somehow suggests that a prior prophet was wrong. Would it be better if more of us would instead just view the prior prophet to be as correct as he thought the people of his day would allow? That perspective might help more church members be willing to accept future changes without their testimonies of prophets being negatively affected. We cannot expect our prophets to always be as willing to disrupt the status quo as Christ was during His mortal ministry. I think acknowledging that our prophets can sometimes fall short might help more church members remain strong in their testimonies of the gospel, rather than get upset when they learn of the imperfections of our church leaders.

I believe it’s good for us to think that as people become more open -minded and more like God over time, then the prophet becomes more confident in asking God to reveal additional information. In that way, I think God’s truth can at times be less available to one generation and then expanded and made more accessible when a new generation comes along that is ready to embrace further light. I also assume that sometimes a prophet might fail to get an answer from God about something, and therefore be left to his own devices, because he fears (even if just subconsciously) the people of the church aren’t ready for God to reveal the answer. That makes me wonder if revelation might break through any prejudice that a prophet has in his mind if the membership of the church was more ready to welcome (not just nervously accept) change. I wonder if that was maybe why the change with Black church members didn’t happen until 1978– because it took decades after the civil rights movement for most church members to affirmatively desire change, rather than just being tacitly okay with it. And that desire of the church members led the prophet to ask about change with more urgency.

Maybe that line of thought could explain why some prophets and apostles actually do directly contradict each other, like when Paul argued with Peter in the second chapter of Galatians. Or in modern times, it might explain why contradictions arise even within relatively short periods of time (for example, whether we should be okay with the nickname “the Mormon Church,” instead of the full name of the church: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lKQrYUE3yc ). And it could help explain why official church policies often change to contradict prior positions of the church. As just one of many examples, consider the church’s position on interracial marriage. While no longer viewed as a sin today, the church banned white church members who married Black individuals from entering a temple into at least the 1960s, and recommended against interracial marriage in official publications into the 2000s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints . Perhaps this stemmed from Brigham Young’s teachings that gruesome death was better than interracial marriages

(https://books.google.com/books?id=LkRZGQ8oO8IC&lpg=PA44&ots=30VXmz65se&pg=PA44#v=onepage&q&f=false ). Maybe prophets can be wrong sometimes about important things, not because they’re bad individuals, but perhaps because God didn’t reveal certain truths to them when people of their time were not ready for them.

In any event, it seems like today we’re content with our prophets just revealing mostly administrative changes (like ceasing to support the Boy Scout program, changing the mechanics of ministering programs to support each other outside of church services, reorganizing Sunday classes, shortening the length of time we spend at church, etc.). But given how quickly the world is changing nowadays, shouldn’t we desire, not fear, changes in doctrine as well that appropriately address our times? When a doctrine just doesn’t seem rational (based on new scientific discoveries), fair (discriminating based on innate biology), or loving (causing poor mental health and self-loathing), can that be an indication that it’s not of Christ? Instead of defending the status quo that produces such darkness and despair, perhaps there is space for us to desire that the prophet might deem us ready for change, which would allow him to more easily receive additional light and knowledge from God to allow gay marriage in the church. Perhaps God could more easily reveal that change because the prophet feels we’ve progressed in our learning as a society, and because church members have matured generally as well.

My longing is similar to the sentiments recently expressed by Matthew Gong, the gay son of one of our current apostles:

“The monolithic rigidity of the religion today makes me super sad. The old school doctrine [in the early years of the church in the 1800s] was…radical. The idea that everyone was an embryonic god? Wild. When they said everyone was worth saving and actually meant it? Unapologetically universalist. The beliefs were molten— shifting and evolving—in fascinating and weird ways. The possibility of change was exciting and hopeful. But the inertia of tradition quenched the radical spirit as each generation left a patina on the Church. The religion calcified—rigidity replaced flexibility—and the organization became anchored in its conservative position.” (https://m.facebook.com/notes/matthew-gong/birthday-letters-27-28/10158377175735021/ , 2019)

I suspect one reason many Latter-day Saints want our prophets, past and present, to be perfect is so we don’t feel lost. I think a lot of people are often looking for someone who knows more and has things more figured out so they can just follow along and not figure things out for themselves. We feel safe and secure in that construct. Ironically, our own prophets and apostles have repeatedly taught that we should figure things out for ourselves, not just accept their teachings blindly:

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him.” (Brigham Young, Prophet, https://www.sixteensmallstones.org/debunking-that-quote-about-brigham-youngs-greatest-fear/ , 1862)

“You may know for yourself what is true and what is not by learning to discern the whisperings of the Spirit… Ask your Heavenly Father if we truly are the Lord’s apostles and prophets. Ask if we have received revelation on this and other matters.” (Russell M. Nelson, Prophet, https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/russell-m-nelson/love-laws-god/ , 2019)

I think the fallibility of our prophets, and the weakness of the general membership of the church in being unable to love past existing prejudices, are the primary reasons why the restoration of Christ’s true gospel is not yet complete. To me, those things explain why we can’t just have the fullness of all truth all at once now. So I love what our leaders have taught about the restoration being ongoing – because it gives me hope that change will always continue to happen in the church:

“Sometimes we think of the Restoration of the gospel as something that is complete, already behind us - Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, he received priesthood keys, the Church was organized. In reality, the Restoration is an ongoing process; we are living in it right now. It includes ‘all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal,’ and the ‘many great and important things’ that ‘He will yet reveal.’ (Dieter Uchtdorf, Apostle, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2014/04/are-you-sleeping-through-the-restoration , 2014)

“‘We believe all that God has revealed’— that’s often the easy part. It takes a special kind of faith to: ‘believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom,’ and then to be ready to accept them, whatever they are. If we are willing, God will lead us to places we’ve never dreamed we could go—as lofty as our dreams might already be. His thoughts and His ways are certainly much higher than ours. In a sense, I suppose we’re not unlike those in Kirtland to whom the Prophet Joseph Smith said, ‘You know no more concerning the destinies of this Church and kingdom than a babe upon its mother’s lap.’” (Jeffrey R. Holland, Apostle, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2018/12/making-your-life-a-soul-stirring-journey-of-personal-growth , 2018)

I think that quote from Elder Holland is amazing. It makes me wonder if we could still see as much change occur in the church in future years as there has been from the 1830s to now -- which would mean some doctrinal refinements, for sure. To be ready, it’s good to remember that one of the ways God actually stays the same is by consistently revealing through His prophets doctrine upon doctrine, line upon line, as we, His children, slowly become ready and willing over time to accept further guidance and light. I hope and pray every day that church members will be more accepting so that the prophet will see that and then pray more sincerely about whether it is God’s will to allow marriage equality to exist in the church.