As I Have Loved You, Part II

I wrote a blog post back in March about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and LGBTQ+ doctrine and policies. It’s one of my highest viewed posts – and I’m glad you guys liked it. This is a topic that I’ve been studying for several years now, trying to understand, because it’s helped me differentiate doctrine from culture and tradition. Which, I've said before but I'll keep saying, is the truth that saved my testimony.

This post is a little different than my last. I’ve had countless conversations this year with saints on every point of the traditional/progressive spectrum about this, and so I want to outline here some of the things I’ve learned about LGBTQ+ saints and Church doctrine that’s expanded my understanding. 

It's interesting -- lot of traditional members of the Church of Jesus Christ have told me, after reading my post or listening to me defend my position on LGBTQ+ relationships, that I’ve simply succumbed to progressive agendas. I find this feedback ironic, as I’ve only succumbed to my environment as much as traditional members have succumbed to theirs. To be a product of one’s social environment is to be human. Fortunately, if we wish, we each have the power to mold the way our social influence affects our perspective by earning a bit of knowledge and adopting a bit of grit.

The Church is, in fact, influenced by society.

The world is constantly changing.

We often tell ourselves that the Church of Jesus Christ isn’t influenced by “man” or the culture of the day, but that’s not entirely true. What is true is that our social environment has no influence to sway God’s doctrines; conversely, it’s not at all true that our social environment has no influence to sway Church policies.

In fact, that’s exactly the point.

The reason our Church has been able to survive the way it has, over centennials and continents, is because of our ability to adapt the policies as needed to fit the social construct wherein they exist, while still upholding the doctrine. True, men have no place to tell God to change His policies, but often, prophets who are intimately aware of their congregation’s needs and challenges approach God seeking guidance – and receive revelation about changes to policy as their response.

And that’s what we’re talking about here, with LGBTQ+ members and the Church. The doctrine is steady, though perhaps a bit misunderstood, and Church policies are changing because our leaders are seeking guidance from God about how to navigate our dynamic social environment.

If we are to understand these changes, we must understand the difference between doctrine and tradition; and continuing to insist “homosexuality” means “all romantic gay relationships” seems to be one of our deepest-held traditions.

So, what do we know about God’s laws regarding “homosexuality”?

“Sodom and Gomorrah fell because of homosexuality.”

One of the main sticking points I’ve found in members’ understanding of LGBTQ+ saints and the Church is what we mean when we refer to “homosexuality.” The Church used to teach that it meant being homosexual (i.e., being attracted to a person of the same sex); but, of course, they have since updated that teaching and now teach that it’s not a sin to be homosexual, it’s just a sin to act on it.

The next question, then, is what does it mean to “act on homosexuality"? The Church and its saints have been teaching that it means fostering any kind of romantic relationship with the opposite sex, but we don’t really have any concrete evidence in our cannon to back up that interpretation.

Take, for example, most saints’ first line of defense when confronted with the uncomfortable perspective that “homosexuality” might not actually be a blanket statement for “gay romance”:

“Sodom and Gomorrah fell because of homosexuality.”

Interestingly, the scriptures don’t actually say that (and even if they did, it would still leave the question what does “homosexuality” mean to be desired).

The only reason the scriptures give for the demise of Sodom and Gomorrah is in Genesis 18:20 when the Lord tells Abraham He’s planning to destroy the cities “Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous.”

That’s it. That’s all we get.

So why is this story the poster child for the deeply held, anti-gay tradition we cling to so tightly in Church culture?

We condemn gays in the Church because our social environment taught us to.

In 1981, under the direction of President Spencer W. Kimball, the Church made significant revisions to the four standard works (King James Version of the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price). These revisions included “new or expanded chapter summaries, expanded footnotes cross-referencing all the Church’s standard works, and additional study aids at the end of the scripture text: a Bible dictionary; a topical guide; an index integrating the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price; maps and gazetteers; and select passages from Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible” (churchofjesuschrist.org, History of the Scriptures).

As part of those revisions, a footnote was added to the word “sin” in Genesis 18:20 – the simple phrase “homosexual behavior.”

Worth noting here is that although the AIDS epidemic is thought to have found its way to the United States in the 1960s, the first cases were officially and publicly reported decades later when doctors discovered gay men suffering from the disease in Los Angeles, New York City, and San Francisco. These first confirmed cases of AIDS in the United States were reported in 1981—the same year the footnote “homosexual behavior” was added to Genesis 18:20 (Wikipedia, HIV/AIDS in the United States, edited 1 Dec. 2020).

I don’t mean to suggest that the footnote “homosexual behavior” was added to the account of the fall of Sodom and Gomorrah because doctors reported gay men with AIDS in the United States that same year. Those two events likely had nothing to do with each other effectively. What I do mean to suggest is that these two happenings are related affectively: the social environment in which Church leaders and members lived when this footnote was added to Genesis more than likely influenced the way Church members interpreted the account in the scriptures.

The social discomfort of the greater American society toward the LGBTQ+ community in the 1980s paints a helpful picture for us today about how the saints of the day probably came to assume that “homosexual behavior” meant “gay romance,” despite little scriptural basis to defend the belief. In fact, recently, it seems we may be coming to understand as a Church that a more accurate interpretation of “homosexual behavior” may instead be “same-sex sex.”

“Homosexuality is an abomination.”

When you follow the footnote “homosexual behavior” on the word “sin” in Genesis 18:20, you come to a short list of scriptures in the Topical Guide. With the exception of a handful of generic references to “sin,” “lust,” and “wickedness,” these scriptures are dominated by references to sex: “know,” “lay with,” “whore,” “adulterers,” “whoremongers,” “fornication,” and “flesh,” as in my personal favorite, “walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanliness” (2 Peter 2:10).

Among that list is another scripture saints will often use to defend their belief that God prohibits LGBTQ+ romance: “homosexuality is an abomination.”

Again, this phrase doesn't appear anywhere in our scriptures. What saints are actually referring to when they say this is a scripture in the Old Testament about chastity: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” (Leviticus 18:22; see also Leviticus 20:13). Note the word “lie” in this scripture – Leviticus 18:22 teaches us that same-sex sex is prohibited under God’s laws, but we can’t necessarily infer from this reference that the “abomination” extends to include all romantic same-sex relationships.

Same with The Family Proclamation: we learn from The Family Proclamation that "Marriage between man and woman is essential to [God's] eternal plan," and that "The individuals who violate covenants of chastity...will one day stand accountable before God," but we learn nothing about the dating relationships that may or may not eventually lead to marriage in the first place (churchofjesuschrist.org, The Family Proclamation: A Proclamation to the World, 23 Sept. 1995).

In fact, the doctrine doesn’t teach much about gender or relationships at all. What it does teach about is chastity, sex, and procreation.

During a Face to Face with young single adults in 2016, Elder Holland responded with this profound truth after receiving a question about LGBTQ+ relationships:

“We have talked altogether too much about gender and too little about chastity. … What we do say is that we all must be chaste. ... We go with what the Lord has revealed about chastity.”

(Church News, Elder Holland speaks to young single adults during Face to Face event, 8 March 2016)

What has the Lord revealed about chastity? President Nelson taught during a BYU devotional in the fall of 2019 that chastity is chastity, whether you're gay or straight:

"[The First Presidency has] clarified that homosexual immorality [will] be treated in the eyes of the Church in the same manner as heterosexual immorality."

(BYU Speeches, The Love and Laws of God, 17 Sept. 2019)

If anything, these teachings suggest that under current Church policy, as long as a LGBTQ+ dating relationships maintain the same level of chastity as straight dating relationships, there is no reason to prohibit them in our church congregations.

Homosexual behavior isn't the only thing the Lord taught was abominable.

Furthermore, guess what else the Lord taught was “abominable”? Not only in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 7, 2 Samuel 5, 1 Kings 11, Nehemiah 13), but also in the Book of Mormon (Jacob 2:24)?

Taking multiple wives.

“Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord” (Jacob 2:24).

But then, the Lord allows early saints to take multiple wives at the beginning of the restoration: “If any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then he is justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him” (D&C 132:63).

If “homosexuality” and polygamy are both abominations in the eyes of the Lord, why is it we believe “abominable” means “absolutely not, under no circumstance” in the case of “homosexual behavior,” but “sometimes, under specific circumstances” in the case of polygamy?

I don’t mean to suggest that “homosexuality” and polygamy are in the same doctrinal boat, necessarily. I only mean to suggest we should take care not to accept one teaching at face value and teach it as eternal truth while digging into the doctrine to explain and defend another.

President Dallin H. Oaks taught in the October 2019 General Conference (Trust in the Lord, 5 Oct. 2019), 

“Let us not teach or use as official doctrine what does not meet the standards of official doctrine.” 

Indeed, we can only teach true doctrine if we understand what it is.

“The Church won’t ever allow LGBTQ+ relationships because they can’t lead to eternal marriage.”

The most interesting argument I hear saints use to justify their belief that “homosexual behavior” means “gay romance,” is “The Church won’t ever allow LGBTQ+ relationships because they can’t lead to eternal marriage.” Before we really get into this one, though, I want to note that Church policy actually already does allow LGBTQ+ relationships, following the updates to the Church handbook over the last few years. It seems now that tradition and culture are largely what continue to prevent these relationships in our congregations.

You can check out my March post for details, but the Church has been updating their resources about LGBTQ+ saints and relationships for the last several years to remove all verbiage about "homosexuality" being an abomination. Today, teachings focus on chastity and individual circumstance. 

In fact, some bishops and stake presidents currently allow their young single adults to maintain their church membership and temple worthiness while engaged in LGBTQ+ dating relationships, as long as they maintain the same standards of chastity as their straight peers. (I’ve heard of this only through word-of-mouth sources, and these congregation leaders are somewhat unobtrusive about this because, I imagine, they recognize Church culture doesn’t yet approve.)

As always, culture will take time to adapt. In some demographics, despite the updates to Church handbook and policy, priesthood leaders have released statements for their area of authority prohibiting LGBTQ+ relationships in their congregations (CES, for example). And in those cases, of course, we defer to the authority of our immediate priesthood leadership.

Notwithstanding, the direction the Church seems to be moving regarding LGBTQ+ saints and their relationships is promising. And although it’ll take some time for the greater culture to adjust, like it did with blacks and the priesthood, I’m confident we’re moving in a more inclusive direction for our LGBTQ+ brothers and sisters (and, more importantly, a direction that more accurately reflects the true doctrine).

If the "potential for eternal marriage" is the determining factor for which relationships are allowed in the Church, can a lesbian date a transwoman?

Still, the argument that the Church won’t allow LGBTQ+ dating relationships because they can’t lead to eternal marriage under the laws of God is a deeply-held belief for many saints. An interesting one, because a lot of dating relationships can’t lead to eternal marriage under the laws of God but members are allowed to participate in those. Like the time I dated an ex-member. He and I couldn’t be married in the temple, yet our relationship was fulfilling and productive. Dating isn’t always about marriage – a lot of the time, dating relationships help us learn about ourselves, grow into better versions of ourselves, and learn to develop intimate relationships with those who are close to us.

While I received some feedback from members in my social circle warning me against dating a non-member, my status and membership in the Church were never called into question by my priesthood leaders while I was in that relationship, despite its inability to lead me to an eternal marriage.

“But there’s potential in that relationship for it to end in an eternal marriage – he could have chosen to rejoin the Church and you could have been sealed in the temple. That’s why it was allowed.”

If “the potential to end in eternal marriage” is the key here, what of a dating relationship between a lesbian and a transwoman? Is that relationship allowed as well? If the transwoman is biologically a man, that relationship also has the potential to end in an eternal marriage under the laws of God. (Before you say it, I promise you, the likelihood that a transwoman would decide to identify as a man in this scenario is just as likely as my non-member ex deciding to re-join the Church. In both cases, the potential is there, no matter how unlikely.)

"But why would the Church ever allow LGBTQ+ relationships?” 

This is a good question. 

This is the question I believe we should be asking ourselves, and genuinely seeking to answer. In my experience, the answer best comes from putting yourself in the shoes of a LGBTQ+ person, rather than trying to understand the significance of this cultural shift from a heteronormative perspective.

"Why would Church policy allow LGBTQ+ relationships?"

BYU-Hawaii professor and mediator Chad Ford recently said, 

“We aren’t good yet at talking about these issues in a healthy way. So we leave young people with two choices: to either shut up and accommodate, even though it hurts, or to leave and become a fierce critic of the church. Those outcomes to me are both tragic outcomes.” 

(Religion News, How do Mormons deal withconflict and faith crises? Avoidance doesn’t work, expert says, 25 Nov. 2020)

Say, for example, I’m a bisexual member. Up until very recently in the Church (and, perhaps, even still), I’ve had to make a decision between being true to myself or maintaining my membership in the Church. Either I abandon myself, or I abandon the Church. When faced with this decision, the potential to leave the Church in favor of being true to myself is likely to prevail. Moreover, if I feel I must choose between two things I hold very dearly, and I choose myself, I’m at great risk of leaving with bitter emotions toward the Church.

But, if I wasn’t forced to make an either/or decision – if I was allowed to date whomever I liked, while maintaining the standard of chastity expected of an active member in the Church – it’s possible, perhaps even likely, that I would end up married and sealed to a man in the temple so that I could receive those blessings in heaven.

Importantly, in that case, it would be my decision to do so and not my bishop’s forcing my hand to stay true to the strait and narrow. It’s not the bishop’s job – the Church's job – to force me to make correct choices. The Church doesn’t disfellowship a member for hanging out in bars because it may lead to that member losing their temple recommend by taking a drink of alcohol. I wasn’t excommunicated for dating an ex-member, even though being in that relationship put me at risk for losing my chance at a temple marriage and sealing and the blessings that come after.

The Church doesn’t gate-keep the actions we may choose to make that could possibly lead us down incorrect paths. It teaches against and discourages those decisions, of course; but we don’t lose our membership status or eternal blessings because of our proximity to sin. We only miss out on those blessings if we engage in the sin itself. And with the evidence we have to date, it seems that it’s not a sin for LGBTQ+ saints to be romantically engaged with each other, as long as they're chaste. 

The Church doesn’t need to police who we date. We’re each responsible for our own salvation. If I’m a bisexual member, and I know and understand the blessings that await me in a temple marriage, and I choose to marry a woman regardless – that’s my decision. The church doesn’t need to try to prevent me from making that decision by preemptively disfellowshipping me for making a decision that may (or may not) eventually lead me off the path.

We do not teach them correct principles and then force them to obey.

When asked how he was able to govern such a large group of saints in a religion with such specific rules, Joseph Smith responded, 

“I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.” 

(John Taylor, “The Organization of the Church,” Millennial Star, Nov. 15, 1851, p. 339.) 

Notably, Joseph Smith didn’t say, “I teach them correct principles, and then force them to comply so they each achieve their exaltation.” That is, in fact, Satan’s plan.

No, we as saints in the Church are taught the correct doctrines and principles, and we choose for ourselves whether we will make decisions that lead us toward or away from the promised blessings of the gospel. Our dating relationships are the same.

During a 2015 interview, Elder Christofferson was asked whether members of the Church of Jesus Christ were allowed to “hold those beliefs [that support gay marriage] even though they are different from what [Church leaders] teach from the pulpit?”

Elder Christofferson’s reply was yes. He then continued, 

“Our approach in all of this, as Joseph Smith said, is persuasion. You can’t use the priesthood and the authority of the church to dictate. You can’t compel, you can’t coerce. It has to be persuasion, gentleness and love unfeigned, as the words in the scriptures. … There hasn’t been any litmus test or standard imposed that you couldn’t support [gay marriage] if you want to support it, if that’s your belief and you think it’s right.” 

(The Salt Lake Tribune, Mormons free to back gay marriage on social media, LDS apostle reiterates, 17 March 2015)

And so, I will continue to support my LGBTQ+ brothers and sisters. I invite you to join me as I push back against our tradition that suggests “homosexuality” means “gay romance.” The doctrine doesn’t seem to support that interpretation. In the book of Genesis, Sodom and Gomorrah fell because of their sin, including their engaging in “homosexual behavior,” but our cannon doesn’t specify this means “romantic relationships between LGBTQ+ people.” In Leviticus, we learn that “homosexual behavior” means “same-sex sex,” but we have little evidence to conclude that meaning extends beyond sex. In The Family Proclamation, we learn that marriage between a man and woman is essential to receiving the highest blessings of heaven, and that we'll be accountable to God if we break the Law of Chastity, but we have no evidence at this time to suggest that the Law of Chastity prohibits romantic LGBTQ+ relationships outside of marriage.

The condemnation of LGBTQ+ people and their relationships among members of the Church of Jesus Christ seems to actually have stemmed from the societal influence in America during the AIDS pandemic in the 1980s, which strongly disapproved of (and feared) the LGBTQ+ lifestyle. This condemnation seems to have much less to do with members' understanding of Church teachings and doctrine, and much more to do with the way they were influenced by their social environment. 

If it so happens, at some future date, that the Lord reveals through His prophets that the Law of Chastity prohibits LGBTQ+ relationships, of course we should adjust our attitudes and behavior to follow those teachings. Until that day, we should fight fiercely against the social expectation in the Church that condemns those who are different than we are. This behavior needlessly hurts God’s children.

If I came to this perspective because I've succumbed to the influence of my social environment, which encourages me to be the change I wish to see in my community, so be it. The Lord teaches us time and time again that we can know the mysteries of God by studying His teachings and prayerfully seeking answers. Don't take my word for it. If you're not sure how I came to have this perspective about LGBTQ+ saints and their relationship with the Church, I implore you to seek understanding as well. I bet you'll be surprised what you learn.