Chapter 7- Could existing beliefs help justify change?

• Is it appropriate to compare being gay to anything other than being straight?

• Do current doctrinal gaps provide an example for a possible solution?

• Should we prioritize healthy relationships here and now over heavenly unknowns?

• Could gay marriage be seen as an exception to the commandment to marry straight?

• Can we learn something from the church’s approach to abortion?

• Can we sustain our leaders if we disagree with them and empathize with LGBTQs?

Chapter synopsis: It hurts to hear people compare gay sexual orientation to addictions, disabilities or anything other than straight sexual orientation. Our doctrine and practices allow for compassion and mercy in other difficult circumstances but not for our LGBTQ siblings. Looking at such other circumstances might be a way the church could find a merciful solution in the future.

If God ever decides that church leaders and church membership as a whole are ready for doctrinal change regarding marriage equality, I have often wondered what the details of such change might look like. I readily admit that my doctrinal imagination is worth even less than two cents, as I am not a theologian or an apostle. But, as I have already written, my mind has still tried to reconcile the idea of gay temple marriage with our existing teachings about eternity. I wonder if the key to any new doctrinal construct allowing gay couples to be sealed in the temple for eternity might be as simple as focusing on the example of Christ. Even if we don’t get a new revelation that provides specific details about what all relationships in heaven will look like, perhaps we could still allow for gay temple sealings by simply focusing on His example of going against societal conventions to treat marginalized people with equality – and then just let Him figure out later exactly how things will look for everyone in heaven.

The crucial difference between that hopeful version of a trust-in-the-Lord approach vs. the harmful version that I talked about in Chapter 4 is looking at the nature of what needs to be resolved. The harmful version expects LGBTQ church members to trust that the Lord will redefine trauma here as joy in heaven. But the hopeful version of trust-in-the-Lord simply expects that spousal and familial happiness will continue there somehow. In the hopeful version, ambiguity about heaven allows equality to exist in this life, consistent with scriptural declarations that “all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33) and that God is “no respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34-35). It asks us to trust that church policy based on those scriptures will not result in a “sad heaven” later for anyone. But in the harmful version of trust-in-the-Lord, a uniform and rigid notion of heaven based on unnecessary theological assumptions, rather than clear scriptural assertions, forces LGBTQ church members to live with inequality in this life – and to look forward to disparity and pain somehow becoming good things in heaven. Under the harmful version, many LGBTQ church members struggle with psychological trauma as they try to look to the Lord to reconcile their innate, God-given desires for love and intimacy with a contradictory concept of heaven. But under the hopeful version, an increased willingness by the church to allow ambiguity about heaven helps LGBTQ church members maintain optimism and good mental health in this life, as they place the burden on God to reconcile how He created them with what He has in store for them in eternity.

I would be happy (even if not completely satisfied) to see the church simply modify its stance about being sure gay couples won’t exist in heaven, so that a trust-in-the-Lord approach might be able to provide comfort for LGBTQ church members like it does for many other people in challenging circumstances. This idea of treating people fairly and lovingly now and just letting God sort out whatever difficulties that might suggest about the afterlife later is not a new notion under church teachings. We already do this in several contexts in the church; I have often thought of these as possible precedents that could be used to provide a path towards acceptance of marriage equality within the church.

First I want to spend some time discussing the inadequacies of analogies made in an effort to justify the church’s prohibition of gay marriage. When I discuss contexts that I believe offer precedential value in this chapter, I don’t intend to suggest that any of the situations I’ll examine are analogous to gay sexual orientation. Rather, I am only suggesting that doctrinal or policy approaches that the church has already adopted to deal with certain other situations might also be helpful in finding a more compassionate approach to our LGBTQ siblings as well.

I want to make sure no one confuses any of the comparisons I’ll be drawing in later sections of this chapter to any comparison with gay sexual orientation itself - because I feel it is very important for everyone to understand that there is only one analogy that is appropriate for being gay - and that is being straight. When someone tries to compare being gay to anything other than being straight, the comparison inevitably fails when it is closely scrutinized.

Is alcoholism or any other addiction appropriately analogous?

A common comparison sounds like this: asking gay people to refrain from gay sex is like asking someone born with a predisposition to alcoholism to avoid drinking. Other comparisons are often made to other addictions as well – with the general theme being that keeping gospel commandments may be harder for some because of predispositions that they are born with.

I think any comparison to addiction is wrong for many reasons, including because alcohol, drugs, gambling, and pornography can all lead to disconnection from self and others – whereas LGBTQ identities are about seeking connection with self and others. I believe most comparisons to addiction originate from disproven psychological understandings of gay sexual orientation which were developed decades or even centuries ago, when gay sexual orientation was regarded as psychologically abnormal or unhealthy. In the 1970s, the American Medical Association removed “homosexuality” from its list of mental disorders. That was a long time ago! Nevertheless, comparing gay sexual orientation to addiction is still a common occurrence, even though being gay is not considered a disease any longer by any reasonable therapist, counselor or doctor, yet addiction has been categorized as a disease by the American Medical Association since 1956 (https://www.hazeldenbettyford.org/articles/why-is-alcoholism-classified-as-a-mental-illness ).

Because comparing gay sexual orientation to addiction is so common, I have seen many comments in social media groups for Latter-day Saint allies of LGBTQ individuals where people debunk the comparison. I thought the following three comments were particularly good (included anonymously to protect privacy):

Comment #1:

“Of course, there’s truth to the idea that we are all responsible for our decisions no matter what our predispositions are. But one minor but important difference is the avoid-ability factor. Alcoholism and drug addiction are hard to beat, but pretty avoidable if you never partake of either. To develop the addiction, you have to make an initial choice that’s already against the Church’s teachings. True, this may be coerced, but such coerced cases are rare. In contrast, homosexual desires, gender dysphoria, etc. seem to develop regardless of an initial catalyzing “sin,” making them much more difficult to avoid/resist.

To me, though, the more important difference is in the health effects. Even with all the tabloid studies saying that a little alcohol might be good for you, there aren’t many experts claiming that a little alcohol is better than no alcohol at all, especially when you factor in the risk of it developing into alcoholism, and there’s not really anyone arguing that excessive alcohol drinking isn’t bad for you. For drugs, the complete abstinence route is even more widely accepted. Even for more debatable Word of Wisdom substances like coffee and tea, it’s pretty clear that you can lead a very healthy life without them, even a much healthier life than one in which they’re overused. In these situations, the Church’s stance has generally gradually become backed by the science. And helping people overcome associated addictions is a legitimate, even laudable measure to preserve their overall health.

One of the biggest differences for queer people is that the opposite holds. There’s a growing consensus among health experts, particularly in the realm of psychology, that the Church’s stand on queer people is unhealthy. Lifelong celibacy, mixed-orientation marriage, retaining birth gender in spite of gender dysphoria, and so on—all of these Church-backed choices appear to be associated with significant mental health detriment, leading to increased levels of anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide. Whereas in so many other respects following the Church’s counsel is seen to lead to greater health and happiness, for queer members following Church guidance, it appears to lead to an overall deterioration of health. Who, then, can blame a queer person who starts to feel that for them in the Church, righteousness never was happiness?

I believe that we’re fortunate to live in a time when the Church can take a more nuanced view than saying that a person who takes their own life has condemned themselves to lesser post-life glory, acknowledging instead that such individuals have fallen prey to issues of mental health often not completely in their control. Unfortunately, however, I feel that we still don’t live in a time when the leading voices in the Church fully acknowledge their role in such issues. I feel that there is still some introspection to be done among the Church’s leadership, some epiphanies to be had about the uniquely difficult positions into which they put a small percentage of the Church’s membership. I still pray that the time will come, and hopefully in the not too distant future, when the people in high-up Church positions will gain real understanding of the plight of these downtrodden within their fold, and the extent to which they have had a hand in that suffering.

Until then, I hope you never just yield yourself to those who would paint you as no more than a recovering addict. For many reasons, including but not limited to the ones mentioned here, you are in a unique and a difficult position. You are a child of God, and I think it’s fair to hope that He loves and understands you to a degree not accurately emulated by any of the detracting voices you hear, even those through whom God ostensibly directly reveals His will. I hope that all of us who find ourselves falling victim to people preaching with preconceived prejudices such as these can stand strong. Perhaps we can eventually change some of the hardened hearts that may still cling to these preconceptions.”

Comment #2:

“First, the comparisons are categorically not equal. Being LGBTQ is biologically determined and not chosen. This point is not contested by the LDS Church.

Second, the stereotypes displayed here are that being LGBTQ is directly compared to things LDS members consider evil. This is the root of the hate-speech most LDS people aren't even aware is hate-speech. You are classifying a group of people as evil and it is embedded at a theological level.

This doesn’t mean there isn't a morality to sexuality or chastity. It just looks the same as a heterosexual person: infidelity, fornication, pornography, adultery, etc.... But it is compounded by not allowing same-sex marriage or disrespecting same -sex relationships. LGBTQ people living in committed, monogamous relationships are as moral and rewarding as straight relationships.

Denying that [choice] to them pushes their relationships into the shadows and has more to do with causing the “gay lifestyle” that straight people criticize than anything else. You can’t on the one-hand criticize a loose-moral culture while simultaneously denying legitimate marriages to same-sex people. If you truly wanted to reduce the “gay lifestyle” (i.e., homosexual promiscuity), you would be rushing to support same-sex marriages.”

Comment #3:

“When I have had these conversations, the person’s argument is typically rooted in the “it’s not a sin to be gay, just to act on it” mindset. So basically, they’re thinking just because you want something, doesn't mean you need to partake, which for some reason gets extrapolated to addiction and incredibly unhealthy pursuits. So, my question back to them is usually to consider the fruits. What are the fruits of pornography? What are the fruits of drugs or alcohol? Or any addiction? And then consider: what are the fruits of a healthy, committed relationship? They absolutely cannot be compared if you consider the fruits. I have had some people say the fruits of a same-sex relationship are that it puts you outside of God's laws. Well...so do a lot of things [like] civil (rather than temple) marriage. There are a lot of things people do every day that are outside the bounds of what we’ve been taught - do we compare their actions to pornography or addiction? I think we'd be making a lot more enemies if we did (which is why it's easier to look at LGBT people - who tend to already be an “other” to most - this way).”

All of those comments resonate with me. It seems plain to me that comparing gay sexual orientation to any addiction is not only faulty reasoning, but also very insulting to gay people in general.

Is physical or mental disability appropriately analogous?

Another comparison is that gay sexual orientation is like a mental or physical disability. I think the main problem with that analogy is that the vast majority of gay people don’t feel they are disabled. And rightly so. The definition of “disability” is “a physical or mental condition that limits a person’s movements, senses, or activities” (https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/disability ). Nothing about being attracted to someone of the same sex limits anyone’s movements, senses, or activities. And gay people are able to love and connect physically and emotionally just as meaningfully in their gay relationships as straight people are in theirs.

I have heard some people say that is not true because gay couples cannot reproduce. Therefore, that biological inability to procreate between them can be loosely viewed as a disability. But that means we must also call infertile heterosexual couples disabled as well. I don’t think it’s accurate, intellectually or emotionally, to say that a heterosexual couple who doesn’t have kids, or one that adopts kids, has a marriage relationship that is limited or not as full or rich as a couple that has reproduced and has biological offspring. There are many examples of couples who have reproduced biologically who are not as closely bonded as other couples who have not done so. And it’s also not accurate to say that adoptive parents are limited in comparison to biological parents either. My sister and her husband have adopted three children and I think they are way better parents, and have closer relationships with their kids, than many other couples I know who have biologically reproduced. So I don’t think it’s right to view gay couples as disabled just because they can’t have kids. Their parenting skills are not lacking in any way (and in some situations are clearly better in comparison to heterosexual couples; see Chapter 8).

It’s also inappropriate to view gay sexual orientation as similar to a disability from a doctrinal/eternal perspective as well. Some believe that a gay person having their sexuality switched in the afterlife shouldn’t be thought of more negatively than how we view the removal of a physical or mental disability in the afterlife. But the significant problem with that comparison is that it fails to consider whether the disabled person wants to be changed after this life. In most cases, they are looking forward to not being disabled (or, for a person with insufficient mental capacity to understand the concept of such a change, we assume they would look forward to being healed of their disability if they could understand the idea of it). That is not true for all gay people though, especially for those who are in loving relationships with a same-gender spouse. While some individuals who experience gay sexual desires, perhaps especially those in mixed-orientation marriages, may want to be changed after this life, many gay people do not want to be changed. This is especially true for those who are in loving relationships and are learning how to connect intimately and express affection and devotion in ways that are strongly connected to their sexuality. Those are all good things, especially the bond they share with their spouse. Can those of us in loving heterosexual marriages understand how painful it is to imagine being asked to think of our closeness and affection with our spouse as something that doesn’t fit anywhere in heaven? Or that it’s something we should have faith will be a good thing to lose in the afterlife? For that reason, it is incredibly painful and inappropriate to suggest that a gay person being “fixed” after this life is similar to a disabled person being healed of their disability.

In short, I believe that the resurrection will only “fix” negative things – not take away something positive. And diversity is a positive thing. We should teach that all the things that bring us deep and lasting joy in this life should remain, not be removed. If we start accepting the belief that the resurrection will physically change us in ways that will result in us no longer being able to maintain the loving relationships that bring us the most joy in this life, then our theology becomes quite dark and depressing, not full of the Spirit.

Is the ability to speak a language appropriately analogous?

Perhaps because comparing gay sexual orientation to a disease like addiction or to a physical or mental disability is harmful, some Latter-day Saint thinkers and therapists have tried to compare it to other human behaviors or capacities that do not have negative connotations. Dr. Jeff Robinson, a Utah psychotherapist, espouses a notion that gay sexual orientation is like being able to speak a native language. He argues that having a gay sexual orientation is something someone just “knows how to do” without remembering having learned it. Like native-language acquisition, he teaches that sexual orientations are acquired, not inborn. I first came across Dr. Robinson’s teachings in 2018, after he gave a speech at a church apologist conference: https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2018/thinking-differently-about-same-sex-attraction ). A few well-intentioned people I know asked me to read Dr. Robinson’s lecture, to help me view Wes’ sexuality from a different perspective. Unless hearing a presentation that justifies harmful conversion therapy will be emotionally traumatizing for you, I encourage you to take a break from reading here and spend some time to review in full that speech by Dr. Robinson, so you can understand his viewpoint better before you read my thoughts on his teachings.

-- Okay. Are you done reading his presentation? Great. ☺

My first reaction when I read Dr. Robinson’s speech was that it was harmful to gay individuals because it implies that it is just as possible to learn a different sexual orientation as it is to learn a foreign language. But I have never heard of anyone killing themselves over not being able to learn to speak a different language – yet there are many, many cases where gay people have killed themselves because therapies to help them become straight haven’t worked (see Chapter 8). I think his views nonetheless seem to resonate with many of my fellow Latter-day Saints who are trying to understand gay sexual orientation because his ideas allow them to take the position that even though gay sexual desire is not a choice (as the church acknowledges now), it still doesn’t have to be something someone is born with. I think that allows church members to feel less bad about the fact that our doctrine treats gay people differently than everyone else.

My main substantive criticism is that Dr. Robinson’s notions don’t give proper weight to ongoing scientific discovery. Numerous scientific studies have confirmed that genetics and epigenetics play a central role in why people experience gay sexual attraction (see Chapter 3). For each person who experiences gay sexual desire, the primary cause of such attraction (or of any sexual orientation really) is likely a combination of both inherited genetics and epigenetics.

With that in mind, here are some related criticisms I have of Dr. Robinson’s notions:

1. Someone being able to speak a particular language has nothing to do with the physiological responses of their body. That is, someone’s biological processes don’t work differently than another person’s just because they speak a different language. But with sexual orientation, physiological response is triggered by different stimuli – which is an unchosen chemical reaction, not just something the mind “knows how to do.” The epigenetic factors that affect sexual orientation actually do something physically to someone’s body: they hardwire genes chemically to be expressed differently. That is not true with language acquisition - speaking Russian vs. English doesn’t correlate to varying changed chemical and physiological response.

2. Language deals with the expression of concepts. But sexuality deals with the instinctive drive to mate. Yes, both involve communication I suppose, but they are fundamentally different kinds of communication. One is focused on understanding as the primary goal and the other is focused on innate biological bonding as the primary goal. (Note I didn’t say “reproduction” – it is possible to mate biologically without the two lovers being able to reproduce.)

3. Relatedly, if someone tries but finds they are unable to learn how to speak another language, their psychological and emotional pain is limited to just frustration at people not understanding them. But if a gay person wants to “learn” how to feel sexually attracted to the opposite sex but is unable to do so, their frustration cuts to the core of how they mate with another human. Then they end up confirming their fears: that their sexuality is an unchangeable part of them, not just something they unknowingly learned how to do.

4. Speaking another language is not deemed a sin by the church, but acting on gay sexual desires is. There is an element of shame brought into one but not the other, at least for church members.

5. I don’t think Dr. Robinson’s analogy reflects how most people feel about their sexuality. For example, I wonder if straight church members who find his analogy useful are willing to apply it to themselves, but in reverse. After all, Dr. Robinson says that: “[W]hat I have said about homosexuality, or same-sex attraction, also applies to heterosexuality. I believe that no specific sexual arousal pattern is hardwired at birth.” Since most people are presumably able to learn to speak another language, then straight church members should be okay learning to be gay too, right? If they really think hard about that prospect, I believe most of those straight church members will abandon their support for Dr. Robinson’s analogy because they’ll realize their sexual orientation has more to do with their body’s physiology than it does the heteronormative culture in which they were raised. I imagine they’d agree with what I have already noted from Dr. William Bradshaw, a BYU microbiologist (and former mission president): “I don’t think I have tried to hide my conclusion about [the cause of gay sexual orientation]. It isn’t nurture. It’s nature.”

I think all of those points make Dr. Robinson’s analogy dangerous. I believe he is giving church members a basis on which they can treat gay people in harmful ways by telling them their sexuality isn’t a part of them; it’s just something they know how to do. When our gay siblings learn that, contrary to Dr. Robinson’s views, their sexual orientations are innate, not acquired, their feelings of depression and darkness might become more acute if they are emotionally close to family or church members who believe in his misguided teachings. Many church leaders are aware of FairMormon, the apologetic group that put on the conference at which Dr. Robinson spoke, and they rely on it for church-friendly information about difficult issues. I think it’s a shame that some church leaders will rely on this man’s well-intentioned but false (and harmful, even dangerous) ideas.

Is pedophilia appropriately analogous?

I unfortunately feel it is necessary to address one final type of false comparison to gay sexual orientation that I’ve heard people raise: pedophilia. I really want to just type “NO, being gay is NOT like being a pedophile!!” and move on, because I still have a hard time believing someone would ever think pedophilia could be analogous to gay sexual orientation. But, believe it or not, several people have told me they consider the two desires to be comparable. So I feel like I have to at least briefly address this insulting and hurtful comparison.

The argument of those who make this analogy is that, assuming both gay sexual orientation and pedophilia are things people are born with, asking a gay person to refrain from having sex with someone of their same gender is no different than asking a pedophile to refrain from having sex with a child. But the obvious reason why those situations are vastly different is that one involves a request to refrain from engaging in intimacy and companionship with a consenting adult (which are things that have been shown in multiple studies can reduce depression and suicidality among LGBTQ people). The other is a request to refrain from preying on a child who cannot provide consent. Requiring that pedophiles not have sex with minors protects children from harm. But requiring consenting gay adults to avoid intimate relationships with each other causes harm.

Okay, so to reiterate before proceeding: sexual orientation is only analogous to itself; meaning, the ONLY analogy that works for someone having gay sexual desires is someone else having straight sexual desires. The only appropriate analogy to being gay is being straight. Is that clear enough? Okay. Good. I wish more church members would realize (and really think about) that.

Now, back to the idea that the church might be able to look at ways it already treats some difficult mortal or post-mortal situations as a model for how it could better handle gay sexual orientation. There are already many situations where we basically just rely on hope without getting too specific on eternal details – where we are comfortable with ambiguity and just letting God eventually fill in any doctrinal gaps:

1. We don’t define rigidly when someone has had the chance to accept the gospel in this life; we just say God is the judge of whether they would have accepted it if they could. We perform temple ceremonies (including eternal marriage) for them by proxy so they can be saved just like everyone else.

2. Similarly, we don’t tend to hear in General Conference repeatedly (like we do with LGBTQ issues) that non-church member spouses will be left single for eternity, so that their believing member spouse can be married to someone else for eternity. Rather, we tend to mostly acknowledge that we don’t know what will happen with that non-member spouse. We just trust God to work things out in a way that will make everyone happy.

3. When a straight person doesn’t have the opportunity to get married in this life, we teach that God will work it out so they will find someone to marry after this life.

4. When a widow who has been sealed in the temple remarries, and her second husband is a man who has not yet been sealed in the temple, we don’t condemn that man to a lesser degree of heaven just because he cannot also be sealed to her. We just trust God to work things out.

5. For Latter-day Saints like me who believe polygamy will not exist in heaven for anyone (which I believe reflects the strongest doctrinal position on eternal polygamy, based on scripture anyway), we just trust that God will somehow make those plural wives happy with someone else in heaven (which, based on many of their journal entries, might be exactly what they’re hoping for now anyway).

6. When a woman is worried about having to live in polygamy for eternity because her widower fiancé has already been sealed to a prior (deceased) wife, we tell her to just trust God to work things out. This specific example was something President Oaks encouraged in another General Conference talk in October 2019 - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2019/10/17oaks ).

7. We don’t say someone will inherit a lower kingdom of heaven when they die by suicide. The doctrine of the church used to say that, but it no longer does. Now church doctrine just leaves it up to the judgment of God where a person who has committed suicide will end up in eternity.

I could go on and on, listing “work-it-out” scenarios like those. Whenever we bump into a situation in mortality where our theology doesn’t seem kind, we just put a pin in things and leave it to God to sort everything out in the afterlife with His perfect mercy – which I think is great. I know of no religion whose theology doesn’t have some “mysteries” that need to be handled in that way.

But in order to do that in the context of the difficult situations facing LGBTQ individuals in the church, I think we actually need to have a change in doctrine first – because our current doctrine just doesn’t allow for God to work anything out for LGBTQ individuals without them still suffering in eternity. In each of the above examples (and in all other “work-it-out” situations I can think of), current doctrinal constructs allow for us to just leave it to God to judge someone’s heart and make appropriate arrangements accordingly, so they can be happy in heaven. But the doctrinal paradigm that heterosexual marriage is the only kind of marriage that can exist in heaven makes the idea of eternal happiness there actually seem miserable to gay people and causes more heartache than what trusting in the Lord to work things out would mean in any other context.

For example, consider scenarios 1 and 2 above: what constitutes a chance to hear the gospel in this life, and non-church member spouses. In those situations, the only difficulty someone might need to face to have things worked out for them is that the non-church members involved will need to change their minds and finally accept the gospel after this life. For scenario 3, the lifelong single straight person, the difficulty is that a single person has to trust that, at some point in the afterlife, they’ll find someone they’ll love to marry. Similarly, in scenario 4 about the sealed widow who remarries, and scenario 5 about polygamy, spouses here in mortality will need to find someone else to marry after this life. But none of those situations will need to have their sexuality switched also. And, in scenario 6, if polygamy will exist in the afterlife (which I don’t believe it will, for anyone – but again, I digress), I feel that sharing the love of your life for eternity in polygamy is not as bleak a prospect as it is to lose them entirely and then have to spend eternity with someone toward whom you had no natural affection. And finally, in scenario 7 about suicide, there is only peace found for everyone in the thought that God will judge someone mercifully and leniently if they take their own life.

Bottom line: in order for a “work -it-out” or “trust-in-the-Lord” approach to function in the context of LGBTQ individuals, I think our doctrine needs to allow at least the imagining of a heaven that offers something appealing to them, which currently, it does not. We need a doctrinal change to at least allow for ambiguity, so that the idea of just trusting God to make things right can really be a viable hope for all people.

Would it be possible to at least just say we don’t know if gay marriage can exist in heaven (as opposed to saying we’re sure it cannot exist there), allow for equal treatment here on earth, and then just let God sort it all out later? Could we just seal every loving couple who wants a temple marriage, straight or gay, and let God figure out if they can reach the highest degree of heaven and spiritually procreate there later?

The sealing ceremony in the temple currently quotes the Bible in instructing the man and woman to “multiply and replenish the earth” (Genesis 1:28). But I know several heterosexual couples who can’t follow that commandment because they are infertile or marry past childbearing years. If we’re comfortable thinking God is okay with us asking sealed couples in this life to obey a commandment they are not physically able to comply with, then why is it so hard for us to think God might also be alright with us sealing a gay couple even though they might or might not be able to reproduce in heaven?

Well, many church members might answer that question by emphasizing the difference between a mortal vs. eternal condition. Or they might worry that we could incorrectly be sealing here on earth something that God doesn’t want sealed in heaven. But, as I discussed in Chapter 6, that concern may not need to be viewed as a compelling reason to refrain from sealing gay couples when we recognize (i) that many unrelated men have already been sealed to one another (through the historical practice of the “law of adoption”), (ii) that deceased women are allowed to be sealed to more than one man, (iii) that Joseph Smith taught the doctrine of sealing in a much broader way than we currently practice it today, and (iv) that God may have already promised us in scripture that whatever we seal here will be respected by Him as something appropriate to remain sealed in heaven. In other words, we are already trusting God to work out a lot of unusual sealing situations, so why can’t we trust Him similarly with gay couples? A lot of deep thought on how the sealing doctrine might be expanded to include gay couples has been written about more extensively here. (This is an article I already shared previously; I’m just providing the link here again because I think it’s really great: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V44N04_420.pdf .)

Perhaps ensuring that our religious practices here match what we think we know about the order of heaven results in “putting the cart before the horse,” theologically speaking. Jesus didn’t teach that a true focus on heaven involved strict rules of procedure in religious worship and a constant obsession with what our station will be in the afterlife. He actually condemned that tendency among the Pharisees repeatedly. Instead, Jesus and his disciples taught that to make it to heaven, we need to believe in Him and care most about the people around us here and now (Matthew 7:21; Matthew 22:37-39; John 6:40; 1 John 3:23).

This concept is also taught beautifully through an introspective question posed by a popular Buddhist teacher and author:

“Rather than speculating about what happens when we die, what if we could anchor ourselves in the present moment. What would your world look like if you chose to believe in life before death?” (Noah Rasheta, https://www.amazon.com/Secular-Buddhism-Noah-Rasheta/dp/1366922735 , 2016)

Similarly, what would our doctrine look like if we chose to believe in life before death? Could we focus on just letting gay people find happiness and fulfillment here (and avoid self -loathing and poor mental health), through monogamous, moral, and committed gay marriages, and through full church fellowship as well, and then just trust in God to work out what happens in eternity later somehow? We focus a lot on future events in our theology, like Christ’s eventual return and sacred ordinances we perform to allow for a better existence in the afterlife. But during His mortal ministry, Jesus seemed to focus most on how we should love each other in the present.

I believe God cares most that we show true charity to all people in this life, rather than telling them to just wait and hope for better things in the afterlife. Even though I don’t like the current doctrine that gay couples can’t be together forever in heaven, my soul could tolerate it much better if the church simply allowed married gay couples to maintain their membership in the church in this life. If the prophets and apostles of our church feel like their hands are tied doctrinally because God hasn’t revealed that gay couplehood can last in eternity, then perhaps they could at least just make a policy change applicable to this life only – to allow gay individuals to marry each other civilly and still stay in the church? Many straight members of the church worry about polygamy in heaven, but we tolerate that possibility (horrible to some) because we don’t have to actually live it here. The prophets and apostles may feel their hands are tied doctrinally about polygamy too, because God may not have revealed to them whether it will be required in heaven. Maybe the church could take a similar approach to gay people: let them have good and healthy marriages here, and worry about heaven later.

I don’t know for sure, but perhaps such an approach has not been implemented yet because some of our prophets and apostles believe that gay relationships are actually counterproductive to eternal progression. I have heard various religious leaders teach that because men and women are so different from one another, the way they learn to love each other requires more compromise, communication, and effort than what gay spouses do in their marriages. Therefore, the straight couple learns to become more loving and compassionate than the gay couple can. I don’t believe that is true though. From what I have gathered, gay spouses face unique challenges in dealing with bigotry from others, in trying to bring children into their family, and in affirming one another in their respective roles in their marriage. These challenges are equally (if not more) difficult than the challenges a husband and a wife face in learning to understand one another as opposite-sex persons.

Both types of couples provide opportunities for individuals to learn selflessness, compromise, loyalty, sacrifice, devotion, kindness, tenderness, and a million other amazing things that marriage can teach. But, sadly, because of the church’s teaching that gay sex is a sin worthy of loss of church membership, there is one wonderful thing a gay married couple cannot learn that a straight couple can: the exciting sense of discipleship and unity that can come from serving together as a family in our church. Different lessons of discipleship and unity can be learned outside of the church, for sure. But because gay couples are denied membership in the church, anything that straight couples can learn uniquely from being involved in church service are lessons that are, by default, denied to gay couples. I personally cherish each of the unique lessons I have learned from my years of church service. So it hurts my heart to know those lessons are withheld from anyone who is otherwise willing and ready to serve in the church simply because someone wants to have a uniform-orientation marriage and family.

At the very least, I hope our church leaders might someday allow married gay couples to stay in the church as a compassionate exception to church rules, even if they affirmatively say such exception has no implications for eternity (i.e., so even if only gay civil marriage is viewed as a tolerated exception by the church while gay temple marriage remains prohibited). I would consider that tolerable progress that is at least partially consistent with the Dalia Lama’s teaching:

“Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. If you can’t help them, at least don’t hurt them.” (https://www.inuth.com/india/happy-birthday-dalai-lama-11-quotes-from-the-tibetan-spiritual-leader-that-would-inspire-every-millennial/ )

In my heart of hearts, I don’t want to just hope for non-temple gay marriage to be viewed as tolerable. That would result in gay couples being treated as second -class members of the church (i.e., not as “good” as straight couples who have been sealed), just because they’re gay. So I aim my hope at the stars and keep dreaming that gay temple marriage will someday be allowed.

However, many church leaders have stated their belief that even just gay civil marriage (let alone gay temple marriage) goes against the family proclamation’s teaching that heterosexual marriage is “ordained of God” and against the scriptural teaching that heterosexual marriage is necessary to enter the highest degree of heaven (Doctrine & Covenants 132)

(https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/marriage ). But such teachings do not need to be diminished simply because gay temple marriage is added as something extra that could also work (see Chapter 5).

Even if that idea of gay marriage being an extra and harmless thing is accepted, another problem still arises to prevent gay marriage: apostles and prophets have interpreted scripture to teach that heterosexual marriage is actually an affirmative commandment:

“Scriptures declare that ‘it is lawful that [a man] should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation’ (Doctrine & Covenants 49:16). Another affirms that ‘the man [is not] without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord’ (1 Corinthians 11:11). Thus, marriage is not only an exalting principle of the gospel; it is a divine commandment.” (Russell M. Nelson, Apostle, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2008/10/celestial-marriage , 2008)

If heterosexual marriage is a commandment, some might wonder how the church could ever allow gay marriage, because that would seem to condone a choice that would close the door on a gay person obeying the commandment to enter into a straight marriage. Well, I think we might gain some insight by looking at a situation where this commandment is not deemed applicable: people with physical or mental disabilities are not expected to marry (nor do they even need to be baptized, for that matter: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1976/04/i-have-a-question/should-mentally-retarded-children-be-baptized ). Now, I want to make clear that I am not suggesting that having a gay sexual orientation should be considered a disability. I have already debunked that analogy at the outset of this chapter. Rather, I am just raising this example where an aspect of someone’s physical makeup or biology renders a commandment inapplicable to them. Can we imagine the problems that would arise if we tried to force everyone with a mental disability to get married? Well, while not as extreme a situation, the church’s doctrine currently seems to expect gays and lesbians to conform to rules that are not healthy for them mentally or emotionally either. Is it possible God might not expect the same rules to apply for gays and lesbians? Instead of commanding that they marry someone of the opposite sex or abstain from lifelong companionship altogether, could God be okay with them marrying someone of the same sex, especially now that society has progressed sufficiently that marriage equality is legally protected?

There may be scriptural support for the idea that different rules apply for gay people. In Matthew chapter 19, Jesus teaches about marriage and says divorce should not be allowed for “every cause” – that it shouldn’t be as easy to “put away” a wife under His gospel construct as it had been for a man to do so under the law of Moses. His disciples then wondered whether it would be better for a man to just not get married at all then, to which Jesus said:

“But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb, and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” (Matthew 19:12)

Based on the frequent usage of the term “born eunuch” in other ancient writings (including in the Talmud) to refer to gay males, many Bible scholars have said that the first class of eunuchs Jesus described in the above scripture were gay men. Such an interpretation results in the following understanding of this scripture (with some of my own commentary in brackets):

“Here Jesus identifies three classes of men who should not marry women. Taking his categories in reverse order, first, there are those who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven, i.e., those who foreswear marriage to better serve God [think of our young full-time missionaries, for example]. Second, he mentions those who have been made eunuchs by others, an apparent reference to castrated males [this was done to slaves in ancient times]. But Jesus mentions a third category: eunuchs who were born that way. Some might argue that Jesus was referring to males born without testicles, but this would be extremely rare. Moreover, this interpretation ignores how the term ‘born eunuchs’ was used in other literature of the time.”

(https://wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/born_gay.html )

So, Jesus seems to teach in Matthew 19 that being gay is a valid reason to not enter into a straight marriage.

Another scripture that might be interpreted to teach that the commandment to enter into straight marriage does not apply to gay people is in the Book of Mormon:

“I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.” (1 Nephi 3:7)

I have wondered if that scripture means that God doesn’t actually even give commandments in the first place to people who He knows won’t be able to keep them.

Most Latter-day Saints interpret that scripture to mean God will prepare a way for each one of us to follow all the commandments, no matter what they are. And I think that is a correct interpretation, applicable to the vast majority of people and situations. But I wonder if there is an additional way to read that verse too: maybe God doesn’t actually even give certain commandments in the first place at all to particular people because He knows there is no way for them to ever accomplish what He would command. Maybe God gives some commandments only according to someone’s individualized capacity to obey. For example, for those of us who are given a way to accomplish the command to marry heterosexually and multiply and replenish the earth, we are required to receive and obey – and trust that God will “prepare a way.” But for gay couples or infertile couples who do not have a way to comply with God’s command regarding procreation, can we assume that perhaps God has not actually even given them that commandment at all – and they are therefore not required to “receive” it (since it’s never even been offered to them)?

Another way of saying this could be that if God doesn’t prepare a way to accomplish something, then it shouldn’t be seen as a commandment. Joseph Smith seemed to favor such an interpretation:

“[T]he first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same; we feel ourselves bound by the laws of God, to observe and do strictly, with all our hearts, all things whatsoever is manifest unto us by the highest degree of testimony that God has committed us, as written in the old and new Testament, or any where else, by any manifestation, whereof we know that it has come from God: and has application to us, being adapted to our situation and circumstances; age, and generation of life; and that we have a perfect, and indefeasible right, to embrace all such commandments, and do them; knowing, that God will not command any thing, but what is peculiarly adapted in itself, to ameliorate the condition of every man under whatever circumstances it may find him, it matters not what kingdom or country he may be in. And again, we believe that it is our privilege to reject all things, whatsoever is clearly manifested to us that they do not have a bearing upon us. Such as, for instance, it is not binding on us to build an Ark, because God commanded Noah to build one.— It would not be applicable to our case; we are not looking for a flood. It is not binding on us to lead the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt, because God commanded Moses. The children of Israel are not in bondage to the Egyptians, as they were then; our circumstances are very different." (Joseph Smith, Prophet, Letter to Isaac Galland, 1839. Featured version published in Times and Seasons, Feb. 1840, p. 54., https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-isaac-galland-22-march-1839/4 )

With that expanded scriptural understanding, maybe we could transition from viewing gay couples as “disobedient” for marrying, to instead just reserving judgment – and give them the benefit of the doubt – presuming that they must have assessed the possibility of heterosexual marriage and determined that that particular commandment did not apply to them. I know many church members who just read that last sentence might worry about a slippery slope from such a construct: that anyone could just start justifying their way around commandments by saying they don’t apply to them personally. I don’t worry about that concern though. I think any exceptions could be limited to just circumstances that can’t be contrived, such as all the exceptional situations I describe in this chapter. So I’m not worried about that slippery slope - I don’t think anyone “fakes” their sexual orientation just to marry someone of the same sex.

With great caution and sensitivity, I would like to briefly discuss another context in which an unchosen biological condition can allow an exception to a commandment: abortion when the pregnancy results from rape. Now, before I go any further with this line of thought, I want to say upfront that I understand there is a HUGE and fundamental difference between someone having gay sexual desires they didn’t choose, and a woman becoming pregnant against her will. In the former case, a person is simply born that way; but in the latter case, a woman is violently assaulted. Someone being gay is a circumstance that I think represents beautiful biological diversity and something that can help other people learn to love more openly and be better humans. However, a woman being pregnant from rape is a circumstance resulting from horrific violence that causes physical, mental, and emotional pain. So I understand they are vastly different contexts. All that being said, my lawyer’s mind can’t help but still draw a narrow analogy between the two situations as follows: both circumstances represent someone having a biological condition that is not of their choosing, and yet the church allows an exception to a commandment in one case (abortion) but not the other (gay marriage).

As I write about that analogy here, I pray I have done so with the sensitivity and care that any rape victim reading this is owed. I in no way desire to belittle your suffering or, if you became pregnant as a result of rape and decided to have an abortion, draw any comparison that diminishes in any way the agony I’m sure you endured in making that decision. I know such a choice is completely different in its nature than the one that two people of the same sex make when they decide to get married. The abortion is a traumatic experience; whereas the marriage is joyful. So I hope I do not offend anyone by discussing abortion and marriage in an analogous way like I do here. My analogy is intentionally very limited in scope (just two unchosen biological conditions) because I know they are fundamentally different things.

The church’s position on abortion is as follows:

“Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.” (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/abortion )

The narrow parallel I have drawn above focuses on how the church’s position on abortion allows for a context-driven exception to a serious commandment. In the case of abortion, that commandment is: “Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it” (Doctrine & Covenants 59:6). The church teaches that killing is a more severe sin than breaking the law of chastity, which makes obvious sense. But I completely support the church’s position that abortion in the case of rape is not a sin at all. No one should feel guilt or shame for having an abortion in that context. One reason for this particular abortion exception seems based on the fact that the pregnant woman did not make a choice that resulted in her becoming pregnant. The circumstance was forced upon her.

Given that both science and the church agree that gay sexual desires are not chosen, I wonder if church leaders could view permitting abortion in the circumstance of rape as a conceptual precedent to allow for gay marriage – because both situations could view an unchosen biological condition as justification for an exception to a commandment. Could such an idea be used to help adopt a policy whereby gay church members are allowed to enter into a gay marriage after they have consulted with their local leaders and received confirmation through earnest prayer as well?

Again, I recognize it’s problematic to compare the feelings of despair felt by Latter-day Saint LGBTQ people with those of a woman who is pregnant with her attacker’s child. They are very different contexts and it’s meaningless to try to compare their respective pains. I definitely do not intend to do so here. I simply wish to point out that there seems to be a precedent where the church allows an exception to a serious commandment so that suffering can be relieved in a circumstance where someone’s biological condition is not of their choosing. Christ is all about hope, so I think it would be wonderful to see the church extend His mercy in all such situations, including allowing gays and lesbians to have uniform-orientation marriages and still stay in the church, whether or not the church allows them to be sealed. Even if no revelation is forthcoming on gay couples being allowed to exist in heaven, could an analogy to the church’s position on abortion be useful in providing relief to gay couples here and now at least?

Now, despite my musings here, I honestly have no idea where the church’s doctrine regarding marriage equality might go, or even if it will ever progress or change at all. But hopefully my doctrinal imaginings will at least help some people better understand LGBTQ church members and their supporters so that more love and understanding can be expressed to them.

I think asking introspective questions is the best way to engender understanding. That is what helped me change my mind the most - questions I would ask myself regarding how I would feel about things as a man who falls on the straight end of the sexual orientation spectrum. Church doctrine has a history of changing only when questions are asked; in fact, the whole restoration began with a question (see Joseph Smith History 1:10-20). I hope that if enough people learn to have sincere sympathy (or even empathy if possible), the prophet will ask more intently to receive revelation effecting a change. To really try to relate to gay church members, I would challenge each of us to ask questions like these ones I have asked myself:

• How would I feel about being told my sexual relationship with my spouse was sinful?

• How would I feel about my sexual desires for my spouse needing to be reversed or at least turned off in order for me to enter the highest degree of heaven?

• Would I be able to give up sex, intimacy, loving companionship, and never have children for my whole life so I could stay in the church?

• Straight singles in the church can embrace love if it comes their way. How would I feel about having to actively turn my back on love if it came my way?

• As a straight man, if my situation were reversed, how would I feel about the idea that marrying another man was the only “righteous” way I could have a sexual relationship?

When I answer all those questions honestly, despair is my universal response to each of them. I ache at the lack of hope for LGBTQ individuals in this life and the next, and the fact that First Presidency members dug in over the pulpit in the fall of 2019 with a stronger emphasis than ever before, to snuff out any spark of hope that applicable doctrine will ever change.

However, because I believe in Christ, I continue to have faith and hope, despite what any church leaders at any level are saying over the pulpit or to me in person, that love can bring further light to shine on our depressing LGBTQ doctrine – perhaps when a prophet believes most church members are ready for that to happen. And until that change comes (and I can’t help but imagine it will come someday), I’ll keep sustaining the prophet and other church leaders as good men who are trying sincerely to do what’s right, within their mental frameworks and given their respective backgrounds and implicit biases. I sustain them in the same way the scriptures teach that God sustains us: with love and hope for good decisions, while recognizing that sometimes poor use of agency results in disappointment for oneself and others. I believe sustaining is a public expression that is separate from personal opinion. In the words of Patrick Mason, head of Mormon studies at Utah State University, sustaining is “a public act, which is distinct from conscience which is personal” and respecting church leaders while holding a different perspective than they do “is a generous act, the epitome of sustaining” (https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/12/15/can-latter-day-saints/ ).

So even if I hold a different personal perspective than my church leaders, I can still sustain them by refusing to protest against them or besmirch their character. The only time the word “sustain” is used in any of our books of scripture is in reference to our belief that we are “bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which [we] reside” (Doctrine & Covenants 134:5). That verse cannot mean we are bound to publicly agree with everything our elected government leaders say and do. Rather, it seems to mean we are supposed to be respectful in how we interact with our systems of government. I think we should apply that same meaning of the word “sustain” to our relationships with the church and our church leaders: sustaining them is about respect, not a duty to publicly agree.

Accordingly, I will be respectful while I wait for them to declare that the time is right for change. In the meantime, I will refuse to believe any teachings that make me feel despair and darkness. Unless God’s spirit of love, peace, and hope testify to me of a difficult teaching I hear and pray about, I will not accept it. I don’t think that will render me apostate because, again, I can sustain my leaders and not believe everything they say. This is explained in the following excerpt from an article included on the church’s own website under the topic “What is Doctrine?” (with my commentary in brackets):

“The Prophet can add to the scriptures, but such new additions are presented by the First Presidency to the body of the Church and are accepted by common consent (by sustaining vote) as binding doctrine of the Church (See D&C 26:2; 107:27-31). Until such doctrines or opinions are sustained by vote in conference, however, they are ‘neither binding nor the official doctrine of the Church.’ [I believe it is noteworthy that the church’s position against gay marriage has never been submitted to a vote by the church.] How can we know if teachings, which have not been voted upon, are true? J. Reuben Clark explains that when ‘we, ourselves, are ‘moved by the Holy Ghost,’’ then we know that the speakers are teaching true doctrine. ‘In a way, this completely shifts the responsibility from them to us to determine when they so speak.’ It is likely that the Lord has allowed (and will continue to allow) his servants to make mistakes—it’s all part of progression and the growing process. We are not forced to accept teachings with which we disagree. We’re supposed to receive confirmation from the spirit if what is taught is the doctrine of God, and of course we’re the one who put ourselves in jeopardy if we fail to accept things which will bless us.”

(https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/si/questions/what-is-doctrine ;https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/What_is_Mormon_Doctrine.pdf )