1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 47710 [post_author] => 4102 [post_date] => 2025-02-03 08:01:51 [post_date_gmt] => 2025-02-03 08:01:51 [post_content] =>

Listen to an interview about this article here.

In August 2017, I had just returned home from a Fulbright year in Bulgaria and Romania to an email from a Romanian friend I had met in the small congregation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Constanta, Romania. They wrote to say: “Early this morning, I was going through Facebook and there was this article”—I could sense a fear and frustration in the message—“they were presenting a few facts about what it was like to be gay in Romania. . . . There is this whole movement by several associations and organizations who want to redefine family . . . in the Romanian Constitution and they want a referendum.”[1] This was the first time the Romanian Referendum was brought to my attention. They continued, “My heart was heavy. And then there are these people whom I admire and love who fully support Coaliția pentru Familie.” Coaliția pentru Familie (Coalition for the Family) was the Romanian organization leading the charge for the referendum, designed to erect further barriers to same-sex marriage in that country. My correspondent was speaking about both Romanian and non-Romanian members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supporting the cause. Same-sex marriage was not permitted in Romania, despite Romania’s European Union (EU) membership, so the referendum on its face might seem preemptive, but to the legal strategists, it was a layering of defenses. Article 48 of the Romanian Constitution reads that family is based upon spouses freely agreeing to marry.[2] The 2018 referendum sought to change the language of the constitution to say that marriage is between a man and a woman.[3] As a closeted queer person, the referendum caught my attention for its hostility toward queer people.[4] As a Latter-day Saint, it caught my attention because it felt much too familiar.

The end of the Cold War led to power struggles in Eastern Europe that American conservatives and Latter-day Saints saw as an opportunity to intervene in the creation of a new world order. Mormon history scholars K. Mohrman and Taylor Petrey have both described a new global order at the end of World War II, which brought with it globalized racialized imperialist politics disguised as American exceptionalism where Latter-day Saints epitomized that racialized exceptionalism in popular media.[5] These imperialist political machinations intertwined with sexual politics as part of an anticommunist religious revival. They challenged and were challenged by USSR critiques of race and religion in the United States. With the demise of the USSR, that new global order no longer had competition. American organizations, individuals, and religions capitalized on a defeated foe by spreading American religious and imperialist agendas without impediment and with the help of Eastern European ideologues who had been suppressed in and by the former Soviet Union.

This post-Soviet floodgate opening a new global far-right religious movement has been recounted by scholars; however, few have focused on the influence of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in that process. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints took advantage of the expansionist global atmosphere in two important ways. First, lawyers from the J. Reuben Clark Law School at Brigham Young University (BYU) and former Utah Supreme Court Justice Dallin Oaks worked to create legal, legislative, and constitutional changes in Eastern Europe toward “religious freedom.”[6] Second, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Latter-day Saint political think tanks, academic organizations, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and top Church leadership, including Dallin Oaks here as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, worked to fund and campaign for anti-LGBTQI+ legislation in the United States and Eastern Europe simultaneously at the end of the Cold War.[7] This article argues that Latter-day Saint leaders, representatives, and lawyers helped to shape a global order at the end of the Cold War and at the same time were active participants in and perpetrators of a climate of legislative violence against people belonging to the LGBTQI+ community in Eastern Europe (including Russia) and the United States.

Over the past decade, a growing and exciting body of scholarship in Mormon studies has applied critical theory to Mormon history, specifically queer and race critical theory. This is leading to important critiques of US nationalism and imperialism and thoughtful analyses of the social constructions of gender, sexuality, race, and assimilation. This work, however, centers Mormonism in the United States and neglects the global impacts of a proselytizing religion. Conversely, Eastern European historians, sociologists, and political scientists have been writing extensively on gender and anti-LGBTQI+ legislation and organizations in Eastern Europe. Because Mormon studies scholarship overemphasizes the United States—with good reason since Church authorities consistently reiterate that it is an American religion—the international networks of power are overlooked.[8] And because the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accounts for such a small percentage of the global population, and an especially small percentage in Eastern Europe, the Church goes unnoticed in the extensive Eastern European scholarship on gender and anti-LGBTQI+ organizations and legislation. This article seeks to highlight the widespread political and legal entanglements the Church has quietly inserted itself in throughout Eastern Europe.

Latter-day Saint representatives, like other religious groups and networks, shaped their political motivations around “religious liberty.” However, this religious liberty has been constructed around orthodox visions of established religions, not individual liberty to pursue individual faith in whatever form, inclusive of atheism. This construction of “religious liberty” consistently does not include the religious freedom of gender and sexual minorities. Second, they rely on undefined language like “pro-family” and, more specifically, “pro-traditional family” and assume a strict orthodox religious definition, one that does not exist across all historical time and space. They restrict the definition of family to only include constructions that are patriarchal and nuclear.[9]

While Latter-day Saint members and representatives have influenced right-wing politics for much of the twentieth century, this article focuses on the international projects and collaborations between Latter-day Saint representatives and political, religious, and wealthy leaders in the former Soviet Union and its satellite countries after the fall of communism in joint efforts to squash LGBTQI+ movements in the region through the subtle and inexact language of “religious freedom” and “pro-family.” Much scholarship has been and is currently being produced concerning right-wing international networks organizing and funding the anti-LGBTQI+ legislation in Eastern Europe and especially in Russia, but so far none of that scholarship has incorporated how influential the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its representatives and law school have been on these movements.[10]

Latter-day Saint representatives collaborated, wrote, and designed constitutions in nations where constitutions were rewritten after 1991 to reflect neoliberal language. Through this process, Latter-day Saint legal experts designed constitutions where adherents could develop legal arguments similar to those they were utilizing in United States’ law, including—and especially—laws concerning “religious freedom” to include legal discrimination against same-sex marriage and gender and sexual minorities. While legal experts worked in the United States and Eastern Europe to develop religion-favorable constitutions, Latter-day Saint members and representatives helped to create and sustain organizations such as the World Congress of Families (WCF), which actively funds and campaigns on anti-LGBTQI+ platforms throughout the world. In some cases, the law professors at BYU created and otherwise supported these anti-LGBTQI+ organizations, such as the World Family Policy Center (WFPC). These organizations supported and networked with Russian neo-imperialist politicians and oligarchs to create a web of international actors who worked to create a global anti-LGBTQI+ climate in attempts to legalize discrimination against LGBTQI+ people in countries throughout the world.

Anticommunism, Mormon Paleoconservatives, and Russian Neo-Imperialists

In 1995, Allan Carlson, the president of the American paleoconservative think tank the Rockford Institute, visited Moscow on a mission to meet Russian right-wing academics interested in “reviving” traditionalist politics in Russia. Carlson has many ties with Latter-day Saints (though not a Latter-day Saint himself) and would eventually cofound the World Congress of Families (WCF) through the help and support of Latter-day Saints and Russian neo-imperialists alike. His initial point of contact in Moscow was Anatoly Antonov, the other cofounder of the WCF and a professor of family sociology and demography at Moscow State University. Antonov introduced Carlson to many Russian “academics, intellectuals, and politicians,”[11] and the trip resulted in the creation of the WCF by Antonov and Carlson.

The post-Soviet anti-LGBTQI+ political and legislative targeting began with sociologists at Moscow State University and within the Russian Academy of Sciences. Historian Kevin Moss shows that “one of the key producers of anti-LGBTQI+ ideology in Russia is Moscow State University,” and particularly the faculty of sociology.[12] This was largely due to the work of early twentieth-century Russian sociologist Pitirim Sorokin. In fact, Antonov and Carlson connected over Sorokin, and the late sociologist is now often deployed to rally the Christian right.[13] Sorokin was responsible for introducing sociology to Russian academic institutions and then only afterward did sociology take hold in the United States.

During the 1920s, Sorokin was outwardly anticommunist, for which he was sentenced to death, then pardoned by Lenin. Soon after, he escaped to Czechoslovakia where he taught at the University of Prague. Then he emigrated to the United States where he ultimately founded the Department of Sociology at Harvard University. In opposition to the Bolshevik policies and theories, Sorokin theorized that emphasis needed to be placed on the rural perspective and agricultural way of life. He believed that the “traditional” model of the family, focusing on manual labor and home-based business, was “sociologically, demographically and economically sustainable.”[14] Clearly, Sorokin saw the failure of the Bolsheviks as a failure in maintaining the family as well as overestimating urban production and underestimating rural production. Russian scholars after 1990, then, had a better grasp of the historical context that Sorokin referenced in his works than their American counterparts did. The turn by Russian scholars and sociologists toward Sorokin was a deliberate move away from Soviet policies in post-Soviet Russia, and it included a specific concept of the family, an emphasis on rural populations and life, and faith in a God as the only universal force to stop the “age of chaos.”[15] Even though Sorokin’s works were banned during the Soviet period, Russian intellectuals, including those at Moscow State University, read them. Kristina Stoeckl wrote that “Sorokin’s ideas were largely unknown in the Soviet Union, but Antonov recalls clandestinely reading his works during Soviet times.”[16]

Russian and American sociologists, lawyers, and religious and policy leaders have revived Sorokin as an opposition figure to the failed Soviet family policies. While Russian and American scholars speak directly against Soviet family policies, more often they speak to the benevolent patriarchal family model constructed by Sorokin, and it is implied that these views are antithetical to Lenin’s policies. Lenin’s treatment of Sorokin also lends well to a mythmaking of Sorokin in both post-Soviet Russia and the United States, where his oppression parallels the oppression of the “traditional” family in Russia. Where Lenin failed, Sorokin triumphed, twenty-first-century “pro-family” scholars say. Christian right leaders, including Latter-day Saints, turned to Sorokin and dialogues about civilization decline being tied to declines in sexual morality and traditional family and turned to what they saw as the cure, Christian nationalism.[17] Carlson and Antonov, therefore, found the basis of their new anti-LGBTQI+ political work through Russian sociology, and particularly the work of Sorokin, and a continued anticommunism push.

Latter-day Saint leaders and academics took a hard anticommunist stance during the twentieth century. Particularly, Latter-day Saint President Ezra Taft Benson, former secretary of agriculture under President Eisenhower, was awarded the Presidential Citizens Medal by President George H. W. Bush in 1989 for his fiery anticommunist dogma.[18] The collapse of the Soviet Union, then, fit well in the Latter-day Saint millenarian worldview. The United States, through the eyes of Latter-day Saints and their leaders, won the Cold War not simply because of neoliberalism, but because of a divine trajectory toward a global Christian millennium. Atheist communism offered Latter-day Saints a foe in the divine battle toward a Second Coming. Though, this view was not restricted to Latter-day Saints. In 1983, President Ronald Reagan delivered his now famous “Evil Empire Speech” given at the National Association of Evangelicals in which he repeated again and again the anticommunist propaganda that the godless Soviet Union could only bow to a nation and people led by God.[19] The slaying of the Soviet Union by the Divine, therefore, offered insight into the failures of the Marxist millenarian ideology.[20]

These ideas continued to influence Latter-day Saint intellectuals and activists. BYU law professor Lynn Wardle concluded in his 2004 article for the Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy concerning the Bolshevik family law reforms of Russia between 1917–1926 that “American lawmakers would be wise to consider carefully the Russian experience. If they will learn the lessons of history, of the Russian Bolshevik family law reforms, they will seek to avoid the terrible human and social tragedies that resulted from that failed experiment, and they will avoid and eliminate family laws and policies that directly or indirectly promote the ‘withering away’ of marriage.”[21] Wardle fueled the anticommunist fears of Latter-day Saints that Marxist ideology destroyed the family and marriage and warned that Americans needed to protect “traditional marriage” or otherwise succumb to the same tragedies of the Soviet Union.

One Latter-day Saint leader and scholar, Dallin Oaks, was particularly persuaded by Sorokin’s ideology. Oaks is currently the next in line to lead the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He also was a justice for the Utah Supreme Court and president of BYU. Much like Benson, his political, social, religious, and professional convictions overlapped in ways that influenced the future of Church doctrine. As recently as 2014 in a speech delivered at Utah Valley University, Oaks was asked to address the audience in his capacity as a prominent legal expert, not only as one of the foremost authorities in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[22] He invoked Sorokin in that speech, one that focused on religious freedom and specifically the religious freedom to discriminate against same-sex marriage. In the speech, he focused on only this one solitary “religious freedom” impediment, arguing for free speech, saying, “I could comment further on these attempted incursions on religious freedom, but for the reasons stated at the outset I believe I should forgo comment on all such arguments except one. As it happens, the argument I have chosen for comment has figured in various recent court decisions on same-sex marriage . . .”[23] In this same speech, Oaks then calls upon another BYU professor, W. Cole Durham, specifically for his work with the “EU Guidelines on the Promotion and Protection of Freedom of Religion.” Immediately following that, Oaks offers two Sorokin quotes. Oaks summons Sorokin’s prediction that the world will turn toward religion and spirituality as a result of great catastrophes, calamities that “can strengthen instead of destroy.”[24]

Sorokin’s ideas acted as the link between American paleoconservatives, including Latter-day Saints and Oaks, and Russian neo-imperialists. Sorokin’s work buttressed the Cold War anticommunism of American Latter-day Saints and the repressed anticommunism of Russian academic outsiders who gained academic clout and power with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The failure of the Soviet experiment married those anticommunist forces who mourned the loss of religious liberty and traditional marriage in the United States and in Russia, and ultimately political and academic actors in other Soviet satellite countries.

The interest in postsocialist Eastern European constitutions by Oaks and other Latter-day Saints did not always include interest in same-sex marriage law and legislation. Initially, Latter-day Saints were merely invested in missionary work being open in those countries, since under the Soviet arm they were not. However, the fall of the Soviet Union did coincide with Latter-day Saint legal battles against same-sex marriage in the United States, as will be discussed in the following section. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was set to send its first missionaries to Russia in 1989. Church leadership tasked Oaks with hosting the delegations from Soviet Russia that year to make amendments to the Soviet Constitution.[25] Later that year, he met with Mikhail Gorbachev, whom he called a “very impressive man.”[26] At the time, Russell Nelson was overseeing the Church’s expansion into Eastern Europe. He also met with delegations from the Soviet Union, including vice president of the Republic of Russia, Alexander Rutskoy, and Gorbachev. He met with ministers in Hungary, Romania, and Czechoslovakia.[27] The intentions of these meetings, no doubt, were to open missionary work in these countries.

The Family: A Proclamation to the World

In 1991, as the Church of Latter-day Saints was entering into the global battle for power in Eastern Europe, Church leaders were simultaneously beginning legal work in the United States against same-sex marriage. On May 1 of that year, six plaintiffs filed a complaint in Hawai‘i Circuit Court. They challenged the state’s marriage statute that said that marriage was between “man and woman.”[28] The trial court ruled in favor of the state. The plaintiffs appealed to the Hawai‘i Supreme Court, saying that denying same-sex marriage violated the right to privacy. The court ruled, using Loving v. Virginia as a legal precedent, that denial of marriage between same-sex partners was a matter of determining and discriminating based on sex. In May 1993, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court sent the matter back to the lower court. At that point, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Catholic Church took notice and became increasingly involved in the matter.[29]

The Church was ready to use its legal might to crush the Hawai‘i issue. In September and October 1993, the Hawai‘i legislature held public hearings about the case. The legislature then passed Act 217. This act did a number of things, one of which was to create a Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law. The Commission was comprised of eleven members. In December 1994, a federal lawsuit was issued against the governor regarding certain members who were appointed to the Act 217 Commission, saying there was a violation of church and state. A judge sided with the plaintiffs and removed four members of the commission who represented the Catholic Diocese and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the commission was left with seven members.[30]

On February 1, 1994, the Church’s highest authoritative body, the First Presidency, issued a public statement: “The principles of the gospel and the sacred responsibilities given us require that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints oppose any efforts to give legal authorization to marriages between persons of the same gender,” concluding that “we encourage members to appeal to legislators, judges and other government officials to preserve the purposes and sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman and to reject all efforts to give legal authorization or other official approval or support to marriages between persons of the same gender.”[31] Deseret News, owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, reported on the matter on March 4, 1995, saying that “under Hawaii law, an entity may intervene in a legal action by proving that it has substantial interests in the outcome of the case,” which was to say that the Church was putting together a legal argument to say that it had “substantial interests” in the matter.[32] A month later, the publication reported on the Hawai‘i trial again, saying, “In its original petition filed in February, the LDS Church said it could offer Attorney General Margery Bronster additional legal manpower, expert witnesses and research results as she prepares the case, which goes to trial Sept. 25.”[33] Just as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints offered legal experts, including Oaks, to become involved in Eastern European legal and constitutional matters, they also offered legal experts domestically. These legal experts had a vested interest in the perpetuation of Church positions.

The highest Church authorities were creating their own religious committee prepared to combat the Hawai‘ian measure in 1994 and 1995. Oaks was dealing with “a property matter” in Hawai‘i when he wrote in his journal: “My legal skills and public policy (and Church communications) skills seem to be most in demand.”[34] He was asked by the president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Boyd K. Packer, to help create a “scripture-based proclamation.”[35] The committee consisted of Oaks, Nelson—the person working in Eastern Europe to open missionary work there—and James E. Faust. It was not until the publication of the 2021 biography of Oaks that it was made public that Nelson headed the committee.[36] Oaks’s Church-sanctioned biographer, Richard Turley, admits—in rare transparency—that the proclamation was created in direct response to the Hawai‘i legal matter.[37] A draft of the proclamation “was completed over the Christmas holidays” and “submitted to the First Presidency on January 9, 1995.”[38] “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” was presented at the Church’s biannual General Conference during the Relief Society session on September 23, 1995.[39] It was a document celebrated among Latter-day Saints as supportive of “millennia of marriage law and tradition,” according to Oaks (despite the Church’s own deviation from this “traditional” marriage that operated less than a century previous).[40]

Homosexuality had been a major concern of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the second half of the twentieth century.[41] During the Cold War, Latter-day Saints purged their institutions of homosexuality during the US anticommunist Lavender Scare.[42] Starting in 1967, seventy-two students were expelled, and security files were created for every student suspected of being gay.[43] BYU police also conducted secret surveillance of gay students, which received national condemnation.[44] In the 1970s and 1980s, a BYU psychology program administered aversion and electroshock therapy to homosexual men in the basement of the Smith Family Living Center.[45] Oaks, president of BYU from 1971–1980, came under scrutiny in November 2021 when he publicly denied that these practices took place under his tenure as president. However, though Oaks was not personally involved, the evidence is definitive that the aversion therapy research was conducted, and those involved published the results of its studies during those years.[46] Oaks from 1971 to today has been a leader in the legal and institutional charge in anti-LGBTQI+ Church, US, and global policies. He and other Church leaders gained their legal and political footing in Hawai‘i and found ways to export those lessons learned on a global scale.[47]

The first instance for “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” to enter the global discussion was in 1996 when BYU law professor Richard G. Wilkins used it at the Habitat II United Nations (UN) conference in Istanbul when the conference organizers mistook Wilkins for a Harvard law professor and put his speech in a prominent spot. Wilkins used the time to talk about “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” In some instances, Wilkins and other Latter-day Saints have touted this as the “miracle at Istanbul.”[48] The conference talk and results gave BYU law professors influence on the UN. Wilkins shortly after created the NGO Family Voice to directly influence UN policy and law. Following the talk, Wilkins and the dean of BYU’s law school, H. Reese Hansen, spent ten days in 1997 “in Romania to meet with government officials about ways BYU can help families in Eastern Europe. Possibilities include scholarly exchanges, seminars and a family training and law center.”[49] Through these contacts with the UN and with other globally connected organizations, BYU law professors and Latter-day Saint leaders and representatives worked to export “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

World Congress of Families

Much scholarship has been devoted to the influence of the WCF on Eastern European politics, legislation, and LGBTQI+ lives. To date, no scholarship has focused on the widespread role Latter-day Saint representatives, leaders, and law professors played in organizing within the WCF and offering separate legal support to buttress the organization’s political and cultural agendas.[50] The WCF operates at the intersection of Latter-day Saint interest in curbing same-sex marriage and in developing the Church’s foothold in Eastern Europe. The WCF also operates at the intersection of Russian and Latter-day Saint interest in a post-Soviet global order that centers on a new twenty-first-century radical right traditionalism.

Russia had already begun its turn toward conservative neo-traditionalism by 1995. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, President Boris Yeltsin sought unsuccessfully to build a Russian liberal democracy on a capitalist foundation. Between 1992–1994, Russia underwent a massive privatization effort. According to Bernard Black, Reinier Kraakman, and Anna Tarassova, “The Russian government lacked the capacity to force privatization on unwilling managers. The political solution was to bribe them with cheap shares so they would pursue privatization voluntarily.”[51] Rapid privatization of major Russian industries led to pyramid schemes and a lack of confidence and transparency in the privatization process through auctions of corporations and companies. Managers were able to obtain vast wealth through purchasing companies at much lower auction rates. The rigged auctions over the course of the 1990s in Russia created a group of Russian oligarchs who acquired massive wealth gains through this process.[52]

This happened alongside a renewed interest in and power of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) after the notoriously atheist Soviet period. After the dismantling of Soviet power, the Orthodox Church began acquiring wealth and networks of power. This led to a fractioning of the ROC into member groups, some vying for liberal policies, some vying for anti-Western Russian culture and religion, and other groups aligning themselves with American conservatives on policy issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. This struggle within the ROC continued into Vladimir Putin’s presidency after 2000 when Putin began to provide the conservative factions political support and Russian oligarchs began to work with clergy and fund conservative projects within the ROC.[53]

This was the political milieu American paleoconservative Allan Carlson entered in 1995 when he visited Anatoly Antonov and the sociologists at Moscow State University. It was then that he introduced the idea of starting a so-called pro-family organization with Antonov. By the end of their meeting, the first WCF conference was scheduled for Prague in 1997.[54]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was well represented at the first WCF conference in Prague. In an article from February 15, 1997, the Deseret News reported that the Church had official delegates appointed to speak at the first congress, including Bruce Hafen and Lynn Wardle (who had critiqued Soviet marriage policies in the quote above), professors at BYU’s J. Reuben Clark School of Law.[55] Hafen was a member of the original team to plan the event in Prague and said that he was invited to participate by Carlson because of his legal background. When he arrived to plan for the congress, he distributed copies of the proclamation on the family to the committee members. The Deseret News article additionally quoted Oaks saying, “The Church is anxious to have official representation to show support for an effort that is itself supportive of wholesome values.”[56] The article stated that copies of “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” “will be distributed in Prague in the official languages of the World Congress of Families: Czech, English, French, Spanish, German and Russian.”[57]

The following year in 1998, Carlson, in his role as president of the Howard Center for the Family, Religion and Society and as the founder of the first successful conference of the WCF, was invited to Salt Lake City to meet with several members of Latter-day Saint leadership: Boyd K. Packer, Oaks, Relief Society General President Mary Ellen Smoot, and BYU President Merrill J. Bateman. The Deseret News reported on the dinner event and included important information about the WCF: “BYU and the Howard Center are the sponsors and co-conveners of the congress, with support from NGO . . . Family Voice, a BYU group that participates in the formulation of United Nations policy.”[58] Oaks was a member of the board for the Howard Center for twenty-five years and is currently listed as one of fifteen honorary board members of the WCF.[59]

After the success of the 1997 congress at Prague, organizers began planning a second congress. BYU and the Howard Center would together sponsor the second WCF.[60] In 1999, NGO Family Voice transformed from an NGO to a branch of the BYU law school and changed its title to the World Family Policy Center (WFPC). Wilkins was the WFPC’s only director in its eight years of existence. BYU’s website about the WFPC states that the “primary goals” of the center “were designed to strengthen the family as the basic unit of society and to guide the United Nations in moral lawmaking practices.”[61] Carlson would later note in Wilkins’s obituary that Wilkins was “one of the greatest and most energetic advocates of the natural family. He was particularly effective on legal matters involving the family and the United Nations.”[62]

Through these pathways, professors at BYU’s law school weighed in on major international negotiations concerning the family. In the same period, BYU law professors began to take notice concerning the antidemocratic situation developing in Eastern Europe more broadly. While they worked to undermine LGBTQI+ rights across the globe and namely in Eastern Europe, the professors were concerned with what they viewed as religious liberty being stifled in the same region. The situation in Russia grabbed the attention of BYU’s law professors in 2000 when Vladimir Putin was elected. Putin caused concern from BYU law professors since he called for a “dictatorship of law.” At the same time, he also leaned into traditionalism, a useful platform for Latter-day Saints in their global fight against LGBTQI+ rights.[63]

BYU’s law school founded their International Center for Law and Religion Studies in 2000. Delegations from the center contribute annually to UN side events in New York and Geneva, and the center “pursues law reform by . . . frequently providing expert review of draft legislation and constitutional proposals at the invitation of government and civil society leaders.”[64] The center’s director was W. Cole Durham, whom Oaks had praised in his speech in 2014 just before introducing the ideas of Sorokin. Durham, a Harvard law graduate, has taught courses across Europe. Since 1994, he has been a recurring visiting professor of law at Central European University in Budapest. He also has taught at Ovidius University in Constanta, Romania. His prominent role has been to draft constitutional law in Eastern Europe. The associate director of the new center was Elizabeth Clark. Clark is a particularly talented international law professor, fluent in Czech and Russian, and has working knowledge of German and French. She has published multiple books and articles on law and religion in postcommunist Europe and participated in organizations in Ukraine and Slovakia.[65]

In 2001, Clark addressed the US Senate—in her position as associate director of the center—concerning religious freedom in Europe. With her testimony, she provided a written statement that she and Durham drafted (she excused Durham for having conflicting obligations).[66] She raised concerns that fear and prejudice in Western Europe around small religious sects—which, she said, Europeans inaccurately called “cults”—was spreading dangerously into Eastern Europe, and she called on Congress to intervene.[67] In the written statement provided, Durham and Clark provide background to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, according to which religion was listed as a protected human right and sexual orientation was not. The statement also asked for NGOs to be established in Eastern and Central European countries especially to “make it easier for national centres to exchange information.”[68] She asked the US government to work with NGOs and said that “dialog can also be encouraged through existing multilateral organizations,” but she did not indicate what organizations she meant.[69]

WCF had held its Third World Congress in Mexico City in 2004 which was coconvened by the WFPC through BYU’s law school.[70] By 2007, BYU law professor Hafen had advanced to a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ third-ranking leadership body, the Seventy, and was president of the Europe Central Area, highlighting how BYU law professors who fought against same-sex marriage were rewarded with positions of power in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While in that Church position, he oversaw the Fourth World Congress in 2007 in Warsaw. In his speech, he commented that “the current debate about same-gender marriage is potentially a good thing, because the debate will force us to clarify what marriage is, and should be.” This point would come to fruition in the United States the following year and throughout Eastern Europe over the course of the next decade and into the current one.[71]

2008: Russians go to the United States, Latter-day Saints go to California

Russian political interest in the WCF was bubbling up within institutions that had been shut out of political power during the Soviet period, namely the ROC, just as representatives of the ROC were coordinating with the Russian military. Several historians, including Kristina Stoeckl, have uncovered the points of introduction of the WCF into the orbit of the ROC by 2008.[72] Through a series of connections starting with Antonov, the WCF began networking with people with close connections to both the Moscow Patriarchate and the Kremlin. Stoeckl and others show that through the network of connections starting with Moscow State University professor Antonov, Archpriest Dmitrii Smirnov was introduced to the WCF team. He was able to develop the relationships between the WCF, the Moscow Patriarchate, and the Russian military. Stoeckl said that without Smirnov, the WCF “would not have become part of the ROC’s strategy on family.”[73] Smirnov introduced business consultant Alexei Komov to the WCF. Komov flew to Colorado Springs, Colorado, for a meeting with the WCF. Stoeckl reports that Komov said to the group in Colorado: “Hello, I’m Alexei Komov from Russia. I’m a business consultant and let us become friends and do a big World Congress of Families in the future in the Kremlin.”[74] Smirnov and Komov were the pieces of the puzzle linking Russian military efforts, the ROC, the WCF, and, ultimately, the American Christian right, including high-profile members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This created a bond moving all these political forces in the same direction at once, which created a strong alliance.

Though others may have dismissed Smirnov’s plans in Colorado in 2008, he was ultimately able to secure a WCF conference in Moscow set for 2014. He did so not only by recruiting support from the Moscow Patriarchate but also through support of Russian oligarchs. Vladimir Yakunin was the former head of the Russian railways and married to Natalia Yakunina, who founded the organization Sanctity of Motherhood in 2006. By 2014, Sanctity of Motherhood would sponsor the WCF conference. Smirnov also recruited Konstantin Malofeev, who founded the Saint Basil the Great Charitable Foundation in 2007, which operated an Orthodox private school and TV station tsargrad.tv, “which promotes Russian Orthodox statehood.”[75] In 2019, Malofeev became vice director of the World Russian People’s Congress, which is directed by Patriarch Kirill himself.[76]

While Komov was winning over WCF representatives in Colorado, Latter-day Saints ramped up political interference in same-sex marriage legislation. On June 20, 2008, all Latter-day Saint congregations in California began Sunday service by reading a statement by the First Presidency, the top three leaders of the Church, which urged: “We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.”[77] The First Presidency was speaking about an initiative they quite literally helped to put on the California ballot. Proposition 8 (Prop 8) was a response to a Supreme Court ruling in California, In re Marriage Cases, which deemed discrimination against same-sex marriages to be unconstitutional. Prop 8 was a response that would change the constitutional definition of marriage in California as between a man and a woman, which was exactly what Hafen had called for in Warsaw. Discrimination against same-sex couples, proponents of Prop 8 said, would not apply to marriage if the legal definition of marriage included this stipulation.

Much research has gone into how much the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contributed financially and in volunteer hours to try to pass Prop 8. One investigation found that, while Latter-day Saints made up 2 percent of California’s population, they amassed 48 percent of the total contributions for Prop 8.[78] A Church official also held a conference call for forty to sixty Latter-day Saint donors asking them to contribute $25,000 each to fight for the California proposition.[79] On the podcast, Called to Queer, my cohost and I interviewed two queer Latter-day Saints who have spoken about their experience as BYU students during the 2007 and 2008 political movement for Prop 8.[80] These queer students were asked to join phone banks calling Californians initially asking them to sign to get Prop 8 on the ballot, and then, later, asking them to vote for the measure. BYU students who were California residents were asked to collect signatures.[81] Historian Gregory Prince wrote that “there is no question that California members believed [voting ‘yes’ for Proposition 8] was a loyalty test. The prophet had spoken; if you didn’t follow the counsel of the prophet, your loyalty was suspect.”[82] Though Prop 8 passed, it was later found to be unconstitutional and was not implemented.

In 2013, BYU law professors Clark and Durham submitted an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court of the United States trying to offer reasoning for why Prop 8 should stand in California.[83] The curiae consisted of a counsel of three—Clark, Durham, and Robert T. Smith—filed on behalf of the J. Reuben Clark Law School at BYU and sixteen other international scholars who focus on international and comparative law. Of these sixteen, three came from Slovakia, one from Bulgaria, one from Hungary, three from Italy, one from the Vatican, and one from the University of Notre Dame. Clark and Durham seemed to include many of their colleagues in the countries where they had influence and also with the Catholic Church whom the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had been partnering with on same-sex marriage legislation since 1991 in Hawai‘i.

The authors used international precedent to “protect the institution of heterosexual marriage” (worth noting here is that heterosexual marriage was not under threat anywhere in the world, including the United States, only same-sex marriage).[84] The BYU law professors argued that “international authorities confirm that there are rational, non-invidious reasons based in secular public policy considerations for the choice that the people of California made when enacting Proposition 8.”[85] Of the many examples the legal experts introduced in their amicus curiae of international precedent for stopping same-sex marriage in the United States was that of a 2011 civil code in Romania that included a “statutory interpretation of the relevant constitutional provision” that marriage is a union between a man and a woman (not a constitutional amendment in Romania, but a civil code procedure).[86] The same year that Durham sent the brief to the US Supreme Court, the Theology Department at Ovidius University in Constanta, Romania, awarded him an honorary doctorate for his work teaching law at Ovidius and also for his work on international constitutions, including on Romania’s constitution.[87] Eastern European and Latter-day Saint collaboration during the decade of the 2000s was therefore multifaceted, including through organizations like WCF, legal collaboration on Eastern European laws, and constitutions and United States’ law, all of which placed anti-LGBTQI+ policies at the center of their attention.

From Moscow to Salt Lake City

In 2009, a year after Komov’s arrival in Colorado Springs and Prop 8 was voted on in California, Amsterdam hosted the WCF. Latter-day Saints were well represented at the Fifth World Congress. At the time, a member of the second-ranking leadership body in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Apostle Russell M. Nelson, spoke. Nelson had spent the 1990s opening up Russia and Eastern Europe to Latter-day Saint missionaries, headed the committee that wrote “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” and is the current president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. His wife, Wendy Nelson, also spoke at the 2009 Congress. Deseret News reported that Elder Nelson “read extensive excerpts from ‘The Family’ and encouraged conference attendees to procure a complimentary copy of the document at the WCF,” establishing a relationship between official Latter-day Saint legal and theological discourse and WCF.[88]

Mary Ellen Smoot, former general president of the Relief Society who had initially met with Oaks and Carlson in Salt Lake City in 1998, spoke at the 2012 WCF held in Madrid.[89] Latter-day Saint missionaries were also in attendance and managed a booth operated with the help of local members.[90] In 2013, the WCF was held in Sydney, Australia. It was the first WCF where the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints itself was listed as a sponsor.[91] Between 2009 and 2014, WCF and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints concerned themselves with planning two major congresses to be held in 2014 and 2015, the first in Moscow and the second in Salt Lake City, the headquarters of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The WCF was set to hold a conference in Moscow in 2014, but on February 27, 2014, Russia invaded the Ukrainian territory of Crimea. US President Barack Obama issued an executive order freezing the US assets of seven Russian government officials. According to a 2015 report by the Human Rights Campaign, the WCF had “deep ties to the Russian Orthodox Church and the Putin regime. It counts several members of the Russian government as allies, some of whom were sanctioned by the United States following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine [in 2014].”[92] The White House press release stated that sanctions were issued “to impose costs on named individuals who wield influence in the Russian government and those responsible for the deteriorating situation in Ukraine.”[93] One of those officials was Russian parliament member Yelena Mizulina, a “staunch ally of WCF.”[94]

At the time of the Crimean invasion, the WCF was associated with thirteen anti-LGBTQI+ laws in Russia.[95] Mizulina also introduced the so-called Gay Propaganda legislation, which outlawed LGBTQI+ public representation in Russia in 2012 and which continues to oppress and imprison LGBTQI+ Russian citizens and activists.[96]

In 2013, when the Gay Propaganda Law was passed, there was a significant surge in violent attacks on LGBTQI+ people. It led to an “emboldened . . . right-wing vigilante group” called Occupy Pedophilia, which filmed members assaulting LGBTQI+ people.[97] This violence led to the anti-LGBTQI+ purges in the Russian republic of Chechnya starting in 2017. Chechen forces detained, tortured, and imprisoned gay men in concentration camps. Despite international attention, outrage, and Chechen forces facing human rights violations, the purges began again in 2019. Russian President Putin denied that gay people were being detained, tortured, and killed. LGBTQI+ activists cite the Gay Propaganda Law as the initial source to bolster violence in Russia against LGBTQI+ people.[98]

Ahead of the Moscow conference, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Human Rights Campaign offered detailed accounts of the WCF’s association with Russian politicians, oligarchs, and anti-LGBTQI+ legislation. They also exposed the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ connections to the WCF and labeled the WCF as a hate group. This led to a 2014 op-ed piece published in the Salt Lake Tribune written by Latter-day Saint political operative Paul Mero. Mero wrote a manifesto on the “natural family” with Carlson and served as the vice president of the Howard Center, the supervisory organization for the WCF.[99] The op-ed was titled: “World Congress of Families Is Not a Hate Group.”[100] As an appeal to the Salt Lake Tribune’s dominant faith base, Mero mentions that the WCF has hosted leaders from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and that it “is about one thing and one thing only: A celebration that family is the fundamental unit of society,” while ignoring the ways in which LGBTQI+ families are not a part of that unit and the ways in which the WCF has organized anti-LGBTQI+ legislation across the globe, most especially in Russia.[101]

Due to economic pressures and sanctions from the United States, in July 2014, with the WCF Moscow conference set to begin just a few months later, the WCF “canceled” their conference, and in its place was a “Large Families” conference that included many of the participants and speakers from the WCF’s conference list, taking place in the same location and on the same dates.[102] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints made no public condemnation or statement on the invasion of Crimea. Mother Jones reported on those events just as the Large Families conference was getting underway in Moscow. The article ends with this: “Shortly after canceling its event in Moscow, [the WCF] announced that its 2015 international conference will be held in Salt Lake City.”[103]

Despite the negative publicity, Salt Lake City hosted the conference in 2015. The Church-owned Deseret News offered a glimpse of what to expect from the conference and its speakers, including BYU professor Wardle.[104] In the article, the Deseret News celebrated the anti-LGBTQI+ work of Wardle, especially that he “was instrumental in passing a 1995 law in Utah that allowed the state to not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states,” and noted that he is a “staunch opponent of legalizing same-sex marriage and has testified before congressional committees in support of Defense of Marriage Act.”[105] This was hardly, as Mero tried to argue in his op-ed, a stance that was only about celebrating the family. Elder M. Russell Ballard, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, addressed the conference as its keynote speaker. Ballard stated that Latter-day Saint theology is “completely linked” to the “traditional family” and that “society, law, and popular opinion may change, but we know that society’s version of the family cannot and will not substitute for God’s purpose and plan for his children.”[106]

The Human Rights Campaign also gathered in Salt Lake City to hold their own event called the Inclusive Families Conference at the University of Utah. Ahead of the WCF conference, Dmitry Chizhevsky spoke about his experience being shot by an air rifle in St. Petersburg in 2013, leaving him blind in his left eye. He was attacked for being gay. Reporter Hannah Levintova had asked Larry Jacobs, the director of the WCF, if the WCF played a role in the legislation and violence toward LGBTQI+ people in Russia. Levintova reports that Jacobs laughed before he said, “Yes, I think that is accurate.”[107] To date, the Salt Lake City WCF was the only one hosted in the United States. While the Howard Center in Illinois proudly boasts of its creation of the WCF, the 2015 conference location of Salt Lake City and its list of speakers show how deeply intertwined the WCF has been with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints over many decades.

Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges Decision

By 2015, though their efforts were thwarting same-sex marriage legislation internationally and their anti-LGBT organizations were thriving, Latter-day Saint leaders and BYU law professors were facing their biggest challenge. Just before the US Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationally, BYU law professors made one last attempt to squash it. Five law professors drafted an amicus brief for the US Supreme Court to hear before ruling on Obergefell v. Hodges in June 2015.[108] Although the Counsel of Record was listed as Wardle, the primary author of the brief was Clark with the help and support of Durham.

Given Clark’s and Durham’s backgrounds, the amicus brief had an international argument. The United States should not legalize same-sex marriage, the brief said, because only 6 percent of the world’s countries did, and only one by means of the judicial system. There was an international precedent—an “emerging global consensus” even—to not legalize same-sex marriage. The argument was careful and deliberate: the conversation about legalizing same-sex marriage should continue in the legislative branch, and a decision should not be made by the judicial branch. Their argument was not surprising. Latter-day Saints had successfully won a legislative attack on same-sex marriage in California and elsewhere, but they had often failed in the court system.

When the Obergefell v. Hodges decision was announced, Deseret News published an opinion piece by Michael Erickson beginning with: “In Obergefell v. Hodges, a bare majority of the Supreme Court upended the millennia-old meaning of marriage, invalidated the marriage laws of more than half the states, disenfranchised millions of American voters and sidestepped decades of constitutional law.”[109] Then in an ironic statement given the evidence provided by this article, Erickson says, “Rule of law should not be ‘rule of lawyers.’”[110] A Utah attorney himself, Erickson claimed that same-sex marriage is merely an entitlement, not a “freedom from governmental action.”[111]

Whether Latter-day Saints agreed with it or not, the Obergefell decision became the law of the land. Now they would focus on two things: continued push for international anti-LGBTQI+ legislation and eradicating same-sex married couples and their families from Latter-day Saint congregations. Just a few months later, in November 2015, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints clarified that they would not allow children of same-sex couples to be a part of the Church and declared a doctrinal change that anyone within a same-sex marriage was an apostate, someone who God will declare their rath upon, and subject to excommunication.[112] With the matter cleared up within their own house, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its leaders, representatives, and law professors could once again turn their attention back to their international anti-LGBTQI+ fight.

The Romanian Case

LGBTQI+ organizations and activists strategized what to do about the 2018 Romanian Referendum well before it was voted on. Surprisingly, their strategy was not to direct voters to the polls to vote against the initiative. They simply told people to stay home. The referendum could not proceed if less than 25 percent of the voting population voted. While many factors, from the unpopularity of the party advocating for the referendum to pure indifference, kept people home, it is also true that activists were successful in keeping people from the polls and the initiative failed with only 21 percent of registered Romanian voters participating. The Romanian Constitution would not be changed to say that marriage was between a man and a woman. It would remain as it was, saying that marriage is between spouses. Romanian marriage would also continue to prohibit same-sex marriage, despite pressure from the European Union.

The question I wanted answered when I first heard of the referendum remains: Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints influence Romanian politics in terms of same-sex marriage? The answer is, of course, yes through its influence in the WCF and the voices of prominent BYU legal scholars and other LDS activists. For years the Church had contributed to a global effort of religious paleoconservatives, especially in Russia and Eastern Europe, to make opposition to same-sex marriage one of their defining political goals. The alliances they had built were together decisive in bringing the referendum to a vote.

The referendum was not the first attempt by anti-LGBTQI+ activists to halt same-sex marriage in Romania. It had been a year’s long struggle to get the initiative in front of voters by Coaliția pentru Familie (CpF). But CpF was not the WCF. Who were they? Although Romanian Orthodox observers were the majority of those supporting CpF, CpF, like the other anti-LGBTQI+ organizations in Eastern Europe, had its roots in the United States. The founder of CpF was Peter Costea, a Romanian American whose permanent residence was in Houston, Texas. The efforts to change article 48 of the Romanian Constitution from “spouses” to “man and woman” began in 2006.[113] Costea found alliances in the United States and United Kingdom among religious institutions and organizations and modeled his crusade for the change in the Romanian Constitution off the lobbying and organizing efforts of American anti-LGBTQI+ organizations. His organization was called Alliance of Families in Romania and worked closely with the Alliance Defense Fund in the United States as well as other organizations.[114]

By 2008, the Alliance Defense Fund had its first success with support from the Romanian parliament to press the issue further. In 2009, discussions concerning the civil code were developing (as mentioned above in the US amicus brief submitted by Wardle, Durham, and Clark arguing for maintaining Prop 8). The civil code passed, and WCF co-ounder Carlson praised it: “Romania asserts itself through a strong position in favor of the natural family.”[115] The efforts eventually led to the leaders of the Alliance of Families in Romania to reorganize into the CpF in 2011, pushing toward the constitutional referendum.

Southern Poverty Law Center reported on the history of the referendum just before the vote took place, claiming that it “would not have been possible without the heavy involvement of at least four wealthy American anti-LGBTQI+ groups—ADF International, Liberty Counsel, the World Congress of Families (WCF) and the European Center for Law and Justice (ECLJ)—who filed legal briefs, lobbied or campaigned in favor of the change.”[116] The Alliance for Families in Romania asked the WCF to “gather support from pro-family groups around the world,” which they did and they also created a petition in support of the Romanian Referendum.[117] The petition was signed by 110 leaders who had founded their own organizations, including BYU law professor Wilkins and Latter-day Saint activist Sharon Slater, founder of Family Watch International.[118] Slater, a prominent Arizonan Latter-day Saint, works primarily in Africa and the UN and fought for legislation in Uganda known as the “Kill the Gays” bill and admits she was radicalized through attending the WCF conference in Geneva, Switzerland.[119]

Conclusion

In a series of hacked emails leaked from Russian hacker collective Shaltai Boltai (Humpty Dumpty), the WCF was exposed for their deep collaboration in Russian geopolitics, which gave Russian Orthodox oligarchs “access to the powerful American Christian evangelical political machine.”[120] The WCF, in fact, campaigned to keep Ukraine out of the EU.[121] On February 24, 2022, after months of warnings, Russian military forces entered Ukraine. At the time of this writing, Russian forces remain in Ukraine, though they have fled the capital, Kyiv, with the Latter-day Saint temple still intact. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was nebulous about the invasion, to considerable dismay of Latter-day Saints in Eastern Europe.[122] Latter-day Saint reporter and researcher Jana Riess wrote on February 28, 2022 that the statement the Church released on February 25, 2022, was “anemic,” “vague,” and “generic” to the point that “it wasn’t entirely clear whether it was supposed to be addressing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine the day before.”[123] In fact, the statement did not mention Ukraine or Russia and had seemingly deliberate obtuse writing: “We pray that this armed conflict will end quickly, that the controversies will end peacefully, and that peace will prevail among nations and within our own hearts.”[124] By April 2022, WCF funder and organizer Malofeev was indicted by the US Justice Department for evading sanctions. He had been sanctioned by the United States and the EU for funding the occupying forces in Ukraine.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint representatives and leaders saw a potential to expand their global reach at the conclusion of the Cold War in Eastern Europe building off their previous anticommunist statements and rhetoric. Just as the international dynamics of the Cold War shaped Latter-day Saint leaders’ domestic US strategies, their domestic US conflicts over same-sex marriage inspired legal and political interventions abroad, giving Latter-day Saints the opportunity to influence global politics in their favor. They saw potential in Russia and Eastern Europe to expand their religious and political influence. They sent missionaries and BYU law professors to the region while they concurrently worked domestically on a traditionalist and right-wing anti-LGBTQI+ movement. Eventually, Church leaders and BYU law professors overlapped their influence in US and international politics, legislative branches, and judiciaries with a push for anti-LGBTQI+ constitutions and legislation. These leaders and professors founded organizations such as the WFPC at BYU’s law school and participated in support for interfaith organizations such as the WCF. This network of organizational and legal support helped to create a global anti-LGBTQI+ legislative and cultural movement particularly impacting the United States, Russia, and Eastern Europe, leading to discrimination, and, both directly and indirectly, the deaths of LGBTQI+ people. Though their approaches and rhetoric have shifted since the Obergefell v. Hodges US Supreme Court decision in 2015 legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States, Latter-day Saint representatives and BYU lawyers have continued to perpetuate and ignite new anti-LGBTQI+ discriminatory legislation in Eastern Europe into the present.

---

^[1] Name withheld. Private email sent to author on Aug. 17, 2017.

^[2] The Romanian word soți is default masculine gendered and therefore translates to “spouses.” “Familia se întemeiază pe căsătoria liber consimțită între soți.” “Constituția României: Titlul II: Drepturile, Libertățile Și Îndatoririle Fundamentale,” n.d., http://www.cdep.ro/pls/dic/site.page?id=371&par1=2&idl=1.

^[3] As of this writing, the European Union is applying pressures on Romania and other EU countries who have not adopted measures to protect same-sex couples. Starting Jan. 1, 2024, EU officials will either sanction Romania for being noncompliant with EU law or it will prompt protests on behalf of LGBTQI+ groups. News Wires, “Romania Must Recognise Same-Sex Civil Unions, EU Top Rights Court Rules,” France 24, May 23, 2023, https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20230523-romania-must-recognise-same-sex-civil-unions-eu-top-court-rules.

^[4] Since 2018, scholars have dedicated much time and energy to uncovering the history and processes of the Romanian Referendum on the Family. Though not an exhaustive list, the following details the extent to which the Romanian Referendum has been covered so far. Oana Băluță, “Egalitatea de Gen. Politici Publice Sau Un Câmp de Luptă Discursiv Și Politico-Religios?,” Transilvania, December 15, 2020, 18–33, https://doi.org/10.51391/trva.2020.12.03; Radu Cinpoeș, “The Christian Orthodox Church and Illiberal Politics in Romania,” in Illiberal Politics and Religion in Europe and Beyond, edited by Anja Hennig and Mirjam Weiberg-Salzmann (Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 2021), 407–431; Georgeta Ghebrea, “Non-Voting as a Political Action: The Behaviour of Political Science Students Regarding the Referendum for the ‘Traditional Family’ in Romania, 2018,” Annals of the “Ovidius” University of Constanta, Political Science Series 8 (2019): 75–91; Sergiu Gherghina, Alexandru Racu, Aurelian Giugal, Alexandru Garvis, Nanuli Silagadze, and Ron Johnston, “Non-Voting in the 2018 Romanian Referendum: The Importance of Initiators, Campaigning and Issue Saliency,” Political Science 71, no. 3 (Sept. 2, 2019): 193–213, https://doi.org/10.1080/00323187.2020.1781541; Sergiu Gherghina, “Hijacked Direct Democracy: The Instrumental Use of Referendums in Romania,” East European Politics and Societies: And Cultures 33, no. 3 (Aug. 2019): 778–797, https://doi.org/10.1177/0888325418800553; Sergiu Gherghina and Nanuli Silagadze, “Selective Equality: Social Democratic Parties and the Referendums on Same-Sex Marriage in Eastern Europe,” SSRN Electronic Journal (2020), https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3539054; A. Maftei and A-C. Holman, “Predictors of Homophobia in a Sample of Romanian Young Adults: Age, Gender, Spirituality, Attachment Styles, and Moral Disengagement,” Psychology & Sexuality 12, no. 4 (Oct. 2, 2021): 305–316, https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2020.1726435; Diana Margarit, “LGBTQ Rights, Conservative Backlash and the Constitutional Definition of Marriage in Romania,” Gender, Place & Culture 26, no. 11 (Nov. 2, 2019): 1570–1587, https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2019.1567472; Martijn Mos, “The Anticipatory Politics of Homophobia: Explaining Constitutional Bans on Same-Sex Marriage in Post-Communist Europe,” East European Politics 36, no. 3 (July 2, 2020): 395–416, https://doi.org/10.1080/21599165.2020.1733983; Ov Cristian Norocel and Ionela Băluță, “Retrogressive Mobilization in the 2018 ‘Referendum for Family’ in Romania,” Problems of Post-Communism 70, no. 2 (Mar. 4, 2023): 153–162, https://doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2021.1987270; Sorina Soare and Claudiu D. Tufis, “Phoenix Populism: Radical Right Parties’ Mobilization in Romania after 2015,” Problems of Post-Communism 66, no. 1 (Jan. 2, 2019): 8–20, https://doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2018.1460158; Sorina Soare and Claudiu D. Tufis, “No Populism’s Land? Religion and Gender in Romanian Politics,” Identities 30, no. 1 (Jan. 2, 2023): 112–130, https://doi.org/10.1080/1070289X.2021.1953784; Iulian Stănescu, “The Curious Story of the 2018 Romanian Traditional Family Referendum: Buck-Passing and the Failure to Mobilise Voters,” Sociologie Romaneasca 18, no. 2 (Nov. 11, 2020): 74–111, https://doi.org/10.33788/sr.18.2.3; Sorina Voiculescu and Octavian Groza, “Legislating Political Space for LGBT Families: The 2018 Referendum on the Definition of Family in Romania,” Area 53, no. 4 (Dec. 2021): 679–690, https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12729.

^[5] Taylor G. Petrey, Tabernacles of Clay: Sexuality and Gender in Modern Mormonism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2020), 58; K. Mohrman, Exceptionally Queer: Mormon Peculiarity and U.S. Nationalism (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2022), 214.

^[6] This article expands on K. Mohrman’s astute argument that “legal claims to sexual and religious freedom in the United States inevitably require a willful erasure of the nation’s racial-colonial legacy and any acknowledgment of its racial-colonial present” and that “Mormonism remains a vital assemblage justifying U.S. colonialism and imperialism.” Mohrman, Exceptionally Queer, 274.

^[7] The official abbreviation for the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association is LGBTI. Many European organizations have chosen to use the abbreviation LGBTQI+ with acknowledgment of the “Q” for “queer,” though this is an English-centered term. I use LGBTQI+ in recognition of “queer” and of nonnative English-speaking Eastern European organizations here.

^[8] Mohrman does incorporate US imperialism in her analysis as a framework but focuses on the push for imperialism domestically through racialized politics. Mohrman, Exceptionally Queer.

^[9] Proponents of the religious right “pro-family” movement purposefully disparage feminist scholarship around patriarchy and family without engaging with it more than that. Extensive work has been done, particularly by feminist historians, to disrupt the notion that “traditional family” is a term that crosses all spatial and time boundaries. That scholarship is too extensive to list here, but I include some of the works on the construction of “traditional family” in Romania and Romanian Orthodoxy. See note 48 also. Maria Bucur and Mihaela Miroiu, eds., Patriarhat Și Emancipare În Istoria Gândirii Politice Românești, Studii de Gen (Iași, Romania: Polirom, 2002); Maria Bucur, “An Archipelago of Stories: Gender History in Eastern Europe,” The American Historical Review 113, no. 5 (Dec. 2008): 1375–1389, https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr.113.5.1375; Maria Bucur, “Gender and Religiosity in Communist Romania: Continuity and Change, 1945–1989,” in Women and Religiosity in Orthodox Christianity, edited by Ina Meerdjanova (New York: Fordham University Press, 2010), 155–175; Maria Bucur, “Gender and Religiosity among the Orthodox Christians in Romania: Continuity and Change, 1945–1989,” Aspasia 5, no. 1 (Jan. 1, 2011), https://doi.org/10.3167/asp.2011.050104; Maria Bucur and Mihaela Miroiu, Birth of Democratic Citizenship: Women and Power in Modern Romania (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2018); Maria Bucur, “Gender Analysis and Gender Ideology: Gender Studies in Romania,” Studia Politica XXI, no. 2 (2021): 385–408.

^[10] I include a handful of those works published since 2021 concerning Eastern Europe more broadly. See note 48 below for Russia specifically. Aswin A. Azis and Alifia N. Azarine, “Future and Challenges of LGBT in Eastern Europe: The Rise of Populism and Political Movement Analysis in Poland,” European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 3, no. 2 (Mar. 10, 2023): 21–30, https://doi.org/10.24018/ejsocial.2023.3.2.399; Barbara Grabowska-Moroz and Anna Wójcik, “Reframing LGBT Rights Advocacy in the Context of the Rule of Law Backsliding: The Case of Poland,” Intersections 7, no. 4 (2021): 85–103, https://doi.org/10.17356/ieejsp.v7i4.852; Petra Guasti and Lenka Bustikova, “In Europe’s Closet: The Rights of Sexual Minorities in the Czech Republic and Slovakia,” in The (Not So) Surprising Longevity of Identity Politics: Contemporary Challenges of the State-Society Compact in Central Eastern Europe, edited by Timofey Agarin (London: Routledge, 2022), 226–246; Eszter Neumann and Paweł Rudnicki, “Populist Radical-Right Governments in Central-Eastern Europe and Education Policy-Making: A Comparison of Hungary and Poland,” Journal of Contemporary European Studies, May 10, 2023, 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1080/14782804.2023.2211935; Michal Pitoňák, “LGBT+ Activism and Morality Politics in Central and Eastern Europe: Understanding the Dynamic Equilibrium in Czechia from a Broader Transnational Perspective,” in Activist Feminist Geographies, edited by Kate Boyer, LaToya E. Eaves, and Jennifer Fluri (Bristol, England: Bristol University Press, 2023), 94–119, https://doi.org/10.51952/9781529225129.ch005; K Slootmaeckers, “The Europeanization and Politicisation of LGBT Rights in Serbia,” in The Routledge Handbook of Gender in Central-Eastern Europe and Eurasia, edited by K. Fabian and J. E. Lazada (London: Routledge, 2021), 387–394.

^[11] Kristina Stoeckl, “The Rise of the Russian Christian Right: The Case of the World Congress of Families,” Religion, State and Society 48, no. 4 (2020): 225.

^[12] Kevin Moss, “Russia’s Queer Science, or How Anti-LGBT Scholarship Is Made,” The Russian Review 80, no. 1 (2021): 18, 27.

^[13] Dmitry Uzlaner and Kristina Stoeckl, “The Legacy of Pitirim Sorokin in the Transnational Alliances of Moral Conservatives,” Journal of Classical Sociology 18, no. 2 (2018): 133–153.

^[14] Uzlaner and Stoeckl, “Legacy of Pitirim Sorokin,” 136.

^[15] Uzlaner and Stoeckl, “Legacy of Pitirim Sorokin.”

^[16] Stoeckl, “Rise of the Russian Christian Right,” 227.

^[17] Taylor Petrey lists Sorokin specifically as one of the influences within twentieth-century Latter-day Saint dialogues concerning the decline of civilization. Petrey, Tabernacles of Clay, 58–59.

^[18] Matthew L. Harris, ed., Thunder from the Right: Ezra Taft Benson in Mormonism and Politics (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2019), 1; Petrey, Tabernacles of Clay, 29–30.

^[19] Ronald Reagan, “Evil Empire Speech,” Voices of Democracy, March 8, 1983, http://voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu/reagan-evil-empire-speech-text/.

^[20] Angela Lahr shows that Mormonism was part of a larger Evangelical millenarian movement and the ways in which millenarian religious ideology intertwined with political ideology. The official Church biography of Dallin Oaks by Richard Turley also highlights the ways in which the fall of the Soviet Union was seen as a divine act (Oaks “rejoiced with other leaders and saw the hand of God at work”) toward the millennium. Angela M. Lahr, Millennial Dreams and Apocalyptic Nightmares: The Cold War Origins of Political Evangelicalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007); Richard E. Turley, In the Hands of the Lord: The Life of Dallin H. Oaks (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2021), 252.

^[21] Lynn D. Wardle, “The Withering Away of Marriage: Some Lessons from the Bolshevik Family Law Reforms in Russia, 1917–1926,” Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy 2 (2004): 521.

^[22] Dallin H. Oaks, “Transcript: Hope for the Years Ahead,” Church Newsroom, Apr. 16, 2014, https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/transcript-elder-dallin-oaks-constitutional-symposium-religious-freedom.

^[23] Oaks, “Transcript.”

^[24] Oaks, “Transcript.”

^[25] Turley, In the Hands of the Lord, 252.

^[26] Turley, In the Hands of the Lord, 253.

^[27] Aubrey Eyre, “President Nelson’s 36 Years of Influencing World Leaders and Sharing the Gospel throughout the Globe,” Deseret News, Sept. 9, 2019, sec. Church News.

^[28] Jonathan Deitrich, “The Lessons of the Law: Same-Sex Marriage and Baehr v. Lewin,” Marquette Law Review 78, no. 1 (1994): 141.

^[29] Petrey also details the Hawai‘i events. Petrey, Tabernacles of Clay, 146–151.

^[30] Thomas Gill, “Report of the Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law,” State of Hawaii, Dec. 8, 1995, https://lrb.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/1995_ReportOfTheCommissionOnSexualOrientationAndTheLaw.pdf; Gregory A. Prince, Gay Rights and the Mormon Church: Intended Actions, Unintended Consequences (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2019), 44–57.

^[31] The First Presidency, “First Presidency Statement Opposing Same Gender Marriages,” Ensign, Feb. 1, 1994 (Apr. 1994 edition).

^[32] “Church Opposes Same-Sex Marriages,” Deseret News, Mar. 4, 1995, sec. Church News.

^[33] Douglas Palmer, “3 LDS Officials Seek to Join Hawaii Suit,” Deseret News, Apr. 13, 1995.

^[34] Turley, In the Hands of the Lord, 219.

^[35] Turley, In the Hands of the Lord, 219.

^[36] Oaks insisted on Turley to write his biography and oversaw the publication process. Turley, In the Hands of the Lord; Tad Walch, “New Biography of President Dallin H. Oaks Uses His Journals, Letters to Show Man behind the Talks,” Deseret News, 2021, sec. Faith, https://www.deseret.com/faith/2021/3/2/22310108/biography-of-president-dallin-oaks-provides-insight-into-latter-day-saints-leader-salt-lake-city.

^[37] “Church leaders grew concerned about the efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in the state of Hawaii. As the movement gained momentum, a group of Church authorities and Latter-day Saint legal scholars, including Oaks, recommended that the Church oppose the Hawaii efforts.” Turley, In the Hands of the Lord, 219.

^[38] Turley, In the Hands of the Lord, 219.

^[39] Petrey also details the relationship between this document and others created at the same time by the Religious Right. Petrey, Tabernacles of Clay, 145–146.

^[40] Turley, In the Hands of the Lord, 220.

^[41] Prince links the Cold War Lavender Scare and Latter-day Saint anticommunist practices on the BYU campus. Prince, Gay Rights and the Mormon Church, 15–17.

^[42] While this is a nontraditional source, it is well researched with a complete bibliography. The work of queer BYU students to make transparent BYU’s policies has been met with hostility. This work has been done at great risk to BYU students, and I thank them for their research and bravery in the face of expulsion and other religious, academic, and familial consequences. BYU USGA, “The History of BYU and LGBTQ Issues,” 2020, https://www.usgabyu.com/single-post/byuhistory.

^[43] BYU USGA, “History of BYU and LGBTQ Issues”; Mohrman, Exceptionally Queer, 224–225.

^[44] “Brigham Young U. Admits Stake Outs on Homosexuals,” New York Times, Sept. 27, 1979; “Homosexuals Level Charges at Mormon Church, Kokomo Tribune, Oct. 27, 1979; Robert McQueen, “BYU Inquisition,” Advocate, Aug. 13, 1975; Ben Williams, “This Week in Lambda History: October 16–31,” Metro (QSalt Lake Magazine), Oct. 27, 2005; Erin Alberty, “Longtime Utah LGBT Advocates Recount Brutal History,” Salt Lake Tribune, Oct. 7, 2014.

^[45] Psychology professor Allen Bergin, one researcher in the BYU field of change therapy, issued a public apology after activist Kyle Ashworth published a document called “On the Record” of the compiled instances of Church references to LGBTQ+ issues. An updated version of the document in 2020 included the public apology. Kyle Ashworth, “On the Record: A Chronology of LGBTQ+ Messaging Within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” Latter Gay Stories, 2019, updated 2022, 94, 95, https://lattergaystories.org/record/.

^[46] Peggy Fletcher Stack, “Dallin Oaks Says Shock Therapy of Gays Didn’t Happen at BYU While He Was President. Records Show Otherwise.,” Salt Lake Tribune, Nov. 16, 2021, https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/11/16/dallin-oaks-says-shock/; Gregory A. Prince, Gay Rights and the Mormon Church: Intended Actions, Unintended Consequences (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2019).

^[47] The dictatorial methods of Oaks and the Church mirror those of the Soviet Union with regard to homosexuals and dissidents. These methods were more alike in this matter than different when it came to dealing with those considered “deviants.”

^[48] Richard G. Wilkins, “Defending the Family,” Brigham Young University, July 6, 1999, https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/richard-g-wilkins/defending-family/; Staff, “Pro-Family Movement Began with ‘Miracle at Istanbul,’” Daily Universe, Nov. 11, 1999, https://universe.byu.edu/1999/11/11/profamily-movement-began-with-miracle-at-istanbul/.

^[49] Edward L. Carter, “New Family Voice Pushes Old Values,” Deseret News, Aug. 30, 1997.

^[50] By no means an exhaustive list, this shows how much scholarship has been devoted to the WCF, especially in Eastern European and international gender studies, and to date no link to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has yet been explored. K. Bluhm and M. Brand, “‘Traditional Values’ Unleashed: The Ultraconservative Influence on Russian Family Policy,” in New Conservatives in Russia and East Central Europe, edited by K. Bluhm and M. Varga (London: Routledge, 2018), 223–244; Jennifer Butler, Born Again: The Christian Right Globalized (London: Pluto Press, 2006); Bob Clifford, The Global Right Wing and the Clash of World Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012); Bob Clifford, “The Global Right Wing and Theories of Transnational Advocacy,” International Spectator 48, no. 4 (2013): 71–85; Sara Kalm and Anna Meeuwisse, “For Love and for Life: Emotional Dynamics at the World Congress of Families,” Global Discourse 10, no. 2 (2020): 303–320; Sara Kalm and Anna Meeuwisse, “Transcalar Activism Contesting the Liberal International Order: The Case of the World Congress of Families,” Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society (2023): 1–24; Andreas Kemper, Foundation of the Nation: How Political Parties and Movements Are Radicalising Others in Favour of Conservative Family Values and Against Tolerance, Diversity, and Progressive Gender Politics in Europe (Berlin: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung—Forum Politics and Society, 2016); Susanna Mancini and Kristina Stoeckl, “Transatlantic Conversations: The Emergence of Society-Protective Anti-Abortion Arguments in the United States, Europe and Russia,” in The Conscience Wars: Rethinking the Balance Between Religion and Equality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 220–257; Moss, “Russia’s Queer Science”; Kevin Moss, “Russia as the Savior of European Civilization: Gender and the Geo-Politics of Traditional Values,” in Anti-Gender Campaigns in Europe: Mobilizing Against Equality (Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield, 2017), 195–214; Roman Kuhar and David Paternotte, eds., Anti-Gender Campaign in Europe: Mobilizing Against Equality (London: Rowman and Littlefield, 2017); Cole Parke, “Natural Deception: Conned by the World Congress of Families,” Political Research Associates no. 22 (Jan. 2015); Stoeckl, “Rise of the Russian Christian Right”; Uzlaner and Stoeckl, “Legacy of Pitirim Sorokin.”

^[51] Bernard Black, Reinier Kraakman, and Anna Tarassova, “Russian Privatization and Corporate Governance: What Went Wrong?,” Stanford Law Review 52, no. 6 (2000): 1740.

^[52] Black, Kraakman, and Tarassova, “Russian Privatization and Corporate Governance,” 1740–1750.

^[53] Stoeckl, “Rise of the Russian Christian Right,” 228–229.

^[54] Stoeckl, “Rise of the Russian Christian Right,” 225–226.

^[55] “LDS to Be at World Congress of Families,” Deseret News, Feb. 15, 1997, sec. Church News, https://www.thechurchnews.com/archives/1997-02-15/lds-to-be-at-world-congress-of-families-131491.

^[56] “LDS to Be at World Congress of Families.”

^[57] “LDS to Be at World Congress of Families.”

^[58] R. Scott Lloyd, “Looking Forward to Congress of Families,” Deseret News, Nov. 27, 1998, https://www.deseret.com/1998/11/28/20774111/looking-forward-to-congress-of-families.

^[59] “Exposed: The World Congress of Families an American Organization Exporting Hate,” Human Rights Campaign, 2015, 9, https://assets2.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/WorldCongressOfFamilies.pdf.

^[60] Wilkins, “Defending the Family.”

^[61] “Brigham Young University. World Family Policy Center,” Brigham Young University, n.d., https://byuorg.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Brigham_Young_University. World_Family_Policy_Center.

^[62] “Pro-Family Leader Richard Wilkins Passes Away,” Illinois Review, Nov. 29, 2012, sec. Obituaries, https://www.illinoisreview.com/illinoisreview/2012/11/pro-family-leader-richard-wilkins-passes-away.html.

^[63] Richard Sakwa, “Putin’s Leadership: Character and Consequences,” in Power and Policy in Putin’s Russia, edited by Richard Sakwa (London: Routledge, 2009), 14.

^[64] BYU Law: International Center for Law and Religion Studies, “Our Mission,” n.d., https://www.iclrs.org/our-mission/

^[65] A condensed list of the works by Elizabeth A. Clark: Elizabeth Clark and Dmytro Vovk, eds., Religion During the Russian-Ukrainian Conflict (Abingdon, England: Routledge, 2019); “Civil Religion and Religious Freedom in the Russian-Ukrainian Conflict,” in Religion During the Russian-Ukrainian Conflict (Abingdon, England: Routledge, 2019); International and Comparative Law Protections of Collective Aspects of Religious Freedom, 75 S. Ct. L. Rev. (Canada, 2016); with W. Cole Durham Jr. and Silvio Ferrari, eds., Law and Religion in Post-Communist Europe (Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2003); “Religious Exceptionalism,” in SOVREMENNOM OBSHCHESTVE, edited by Ekaterina Elbakian (Moscow: ATISO, 2009); “Conscientious Objection in the United States,” in Vyhrada vo Svedomi: Conscientious Objection, edited by Michaela Moracvikova (Bratislava, Slovakia: Ustavu pre vzt;ahy statu a cirkvi, 2006); “A Comparative Perspective on Secular Governments and Equality of Religious Organizations,” in ПРЕДЕЛЫ СВЕТСКОСТИ. ОБЩЕСТВЕННАЯ ДИСКУССИЯ О ПРИНЦИПЕ СВЕТСКОСТИ ГОСУДАРСТВА И О ПУТЯХ РЕАЛИЗАЦИИ СВОБОДЫ СОВЕСТИ, edited by Alexander Verkhovsky (Moscow, 2005); “A Comparative Analysis of Religious Association Laws in Post-Communist Europe,” in Religious Registration Laws in Post-Communist Europe, edited by W. Cole Durham Jr. and Silvio Ferrari (Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2004); “Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief Through NGOs,” in Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief: A Deskbook, edited by Tore Lindholm, W. Cole Durham, Bahia G. Tahzib-Lie, Elizabeth A. Sewell, and Lena Larsen (Leiden, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff, 2004); “Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights on Freedom of Religion and Belief,” in Desyat’ let Po Puti Svobody Sovesti (Moscow: Institut religii I prava, 2002).

^[66] “Religious Freedom in Europe and Around the World,” US Government Printing Office, June 1, 2001, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-107shrg72558/html/CHRG-107shrg72558.htm.

^[67] “Religious Freedom in Europe and Around the World.”

^[68] “Religious Freedom in Europe and Around the World.”

^[69] “Religious Freedom in Europe and Around the World.”

^[70] Jordan Burke, “Congress of Families Lures Nearly 3,500,” Deseret News, Mar. 30, 2004.

^[71] Bruce Hafen, “World Congress of Families,” Deseret News, May 25, 2007, sec. The Church News.

^[72] Stoeckl, “Rise of the Russian Christian Right”; Bluhm and Brand, “‘Traditional Values’ Unleashed”

^[73] Stoeckl, “The Rise of the Russian Christian Right,” 228.

^[74] Stoeckl, “The Rise of the Russian Christian Right,” 228.

^[75] Stoeckl, “The Rise of the Russian Christian Right,” 229.

^[76] In Apr. 2022, Malofeev was sanctioned by the United States for his participation in the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 by Russia.

^[77] Prince, Gay Rights and the Mormon Church, 131.

^[78] Monica Youn, “Proposition 8 and the Mormon Church: A Case Study in Donor Disclosure,” George Washington Law Review 81, no. 1 (2013): 2120–2121.

^[79] Youn, “Proposition 8 and the Mormon Church,” 2121.

^[80] Colette Dalton and Kate Mower, Called to Queer, podcast, episode 2, “Colette Dalton (she/her),” n.d., https://calledtoqueer.com/index.php/episodes/; Colette Dalton and Kate Mower, Called to Queer, episode 22, “Chelsea Gibbs (she/her),” n.d., https://calledtoqueer.com/index.php/episodes/.

^[81] Prince, Gay Rights and the Mormon Church, 127.

^[82] Prince, Gay Rights and the Mormon Church, 131.

^[83] W. Cole Durham Jr., Amicus Curiae Brief of International Jurists and Academics in Support of Petitioner Hollingsworth and Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group Addressing the Merits and Supporting Reversal, No. 12–144, 12–307, Supreme Court of the United States, Jan. 28, 2013.

^[84] Durham, Amicus Curiae Brief, 1.

^[85] Durham, Amicus Curiae Brief, 4.

^[86] Durham, Amicus Curiae Brief, 9.

^[87] Sinziana Ionescu, “Americanul W. Cole Durham, Jr, Doctor Honoris Causa La Universitatea Ovidius,” Adevarul, June 15, 2013, https://adevarul.ro/stiri-locale/constanta/americanul-w-cole-durham-jr-doctor-honoris-causa-1446544.html.

^[88] Jamshid Askar, “Families the Hope of Nations, Mormon Apostle Says,” Deseret News, Aug. 12, 2009, sec. Faith.

^[89] “Elder Erich W. Kopischke Speaks at the World Congress of Families,” Church Newsroom, May 12, 2012, https://news-uk.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/elder-kopischke-world-congress-of-families.

^[90] “Elder Erich W. Kopischke Speaks at the World Congress of Families.”

^[91] “World Congress of Families Starts in Sydney: Why Society Needs Strong Families,” Church Newsroom, May 15, 2013, https://news-au.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/world-congress-families-sydney-society-needs-strong-families.

^[92] “Exposed,” 12.

^[93] Office of the Press Secretary, “Fact Sheet: Ukraine-Related Sanctions,” White House, Mar. 17, 2014, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/17/fact-sheet-ukraine-related-sanctions.

^[94] “Exposed,” 13.

^[95] “Exposed,” 13.

^[96] “Exposed.”

^[97] Parke, “Natural Deception.”

^[98] Tom Batchelor, “Russian Police Round up LGBT Activists Demonstrating against Persecution of Gay Men in Chechnya,” Independent, May 1, 2017.

^[99] Allan C. Carlson and Paul T. Mero, The Natural Family: A Manifesto (Dallas: Spence Publishing, 2007).

^[100] Paul Mero, “Op-Ed: World Congress of Families Is Not a Hate Group,” Salt Lake Tribune, July 7, 2014, https://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/opinion/58156858–82/WCF; Carlson and Mero, Natural Family.

^[101] Mero, “Op-Ed.”

^[102] Hannah Levintova, “Did Anti-Gay Evangelicals Skirt US Sanctions on Russia?,” Mother Jones, Sept. 8, 2014, sec. Politics.

^[103] Levintova, “Did Anti-Gay Evangelicals Skirt US Sanctions on Russia?”

^[104] Daphne Chen, “Whom to Watch at the World Congress of Families,” Deseret News, Oct. 25, 2015, https://www.deseret.com/2015/10/26/20575228/whom-to-watch-at-the-world-congress-of-families.

^[105] Chen, “Whom to Watch at the World Congress of Families.”

^[106] Jason Swensen, “Elder Ballard Defends Traditional Marriage at World Congress of Families,” Deseret News, Oct. 27, 2015, sec. Church News, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/elder-ballard-defends-traditional-marriage-at-world-congress-of-families-?lang=eng.

^[107] Hannah Levintova, “How US Evangelicals Helped Create Russia’s Anti-Gay Movement,” Mother Jones, Feb. 21, 2014, sec. Politics, https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/world-congress-families-russia-gay-rights/; “HRC Takes on The World Congress of Families in Salt Lake City,” Human Rights Campaign, June 27, 2015, sec. Press Releases, https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/hrc-takes-on-the-world-congress-of-families-in-salt-lake-city.

^[108] Lynn D. Wardle, Elizabeth A. Clark, W. Cole Durham Jr., Robert Smith, and Donlu Thayer, Brief for 54 International and Comparative Law Experts from 27 Countries and the Marriage and Family Law Research Project as Amici Curiae in Support of the Respondent, No. Nos. 14–556, 14–562, 14–571 14–574, United States Supreme Court, March 30, 2015.

^[109] Michael Erickson, “Supreme Court’s Obergefell Decision Threatens American Democracy,” Deseret News, June 20, 2015, https://www.deseret.com/2015/7/20/20568663/supreme-court-s-obergefell-decision-threatens-american-democracy.

^[110] Erickson, “Supreme Court’s Obergefell Decision Threatens.”

^[111] Erickson, “Supreme Court’s Obergefell Decision Threatens.”

^[112] Laurie Goodstein, “New Policy on Gay Couples and Their Children Roils Mormon Church,” New York Times, Nov. 13, 2015, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/14/us/mormons-set-to-quit-church-over-policy-on-gay-couples-and-their-children.html.

^[113] Vlad Levente Viski, “Istoria Coaliției Pentru Familie,” Adevărul, June 14, 2018, https://adevarul.ro/blogurile-adevarul/istoria-coalitiei-pentru-familie-1871243.html.

^[114] Clifford, Global Right Wing.

^[115] Viski, “Istoria Coaliției Pentru Familie.”

^[116] Hélène Barthélemy, “American Anti-LGBT Groups Battling Same-Sex Marriage in Romania,” Southern Poverty Law Center, Sept. 18, 2018, https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/09/27/american-anti-lgbt-groups-battling-same-sex-marriage-romania.

^[117] Barthélemy, “American Anti-LGBT Groups Battling Same-Sex Marriage”; Don Feder and Larry Jacobs, “Over 100 Pro-Family Leaders from 22 Countries Sign Petition in Support of Romania’s Defense of Marriage,” Christian News Wire, Apr. 7, 2017, https://archive.is/3uLdM.

^[118] Barthélemy, “American Anti-LGBT Groups Battling Same-Sex Marriage”; World Congress of Families, “Petition in Support of Romania’s Defense of Marriage,” n.d., http://web.archive.org/web/20120609010536/http:/worldcongress.org/WCF/wcf.leadership.romania.0804.htm/.

^[119] “Family Watch International,” Southern Poverty Law Center, n.d., https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/family-watch-international.

^[120] Hélène Barthélemy, “How the World Congress of Families Serves Russian Orthodox Political Interests,” Southern Poverty Law Center, May 10, 2018, https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/05/16/how-world-congress-families-serves-russian-orthodox-political-interests.

^[121] Barthélemy, “How the World Congress of Families Serves.”

^[122] At the time of the invasion and while writing this, I live in Constanta, Romania, approximately one hundred kilometers down the Black Sea coast from the Ukrainian border. Latter-day Saint missionaries were removed from Constanta shortly after the invasion, to the dismay of Romanian Latter-day Saints. Romanian Latter-day Saints wanted a swift and thorough dismissal of the invasion by leaders in Salt Lake City.

^[123] Jana Riess, “Amid Russian Invasion, LDS Church Issues Generic Denunciation of ‘Armed Conflict,’” Religion News Service, Feb. 28, 2022, https://religionnews.com/2022/02/28/amid-russian-invasion-lds-church-issues-generic-denunciation-of-armed-conflict/.

^[124] Riess, “Amid Russian Invasion.”

[post_title] => Rule of Lawyers: Latter-day Saint Entanglement in Eastern European Anti-LGBTQI+ Legislation [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 57:4 (Winter 2024) 33-66
Over the past decade, a growing and exciting body of scholarship in Mormon studies has applied critical theory to Mormon history, specifically queer and race critical theory. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => rule-of-lawyers-latter-day-saint-entanglement-in-eastern-european-anti-lgbtqi-legislation [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2025-02-15 20:03:31 [post_modified_gmt] => 2025-02-15 20:03:31 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=47710 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 47716 [post_author] => 4105 [post_date] => 2025-02-03 08:01:52 [post_date_gmt] => 2025-02-03 08:01:52 [post_content] =>

[1]Since joining the Church, I have been blessed with a number of revelations relating to my life as a gay Mormon. Perhaps more remarkable may be how few of these I actually understood correctly when I first received them. Time has provided them clarity.

Three of these I described in an essay published under the same pseudonym in Sunstone nearly thirty years ago.[2] Of these, the first was a private but crystal-clear spiritual prompting, as I first began to wrestle with my sexual orientation, that I had agreed in the preexistence to take this on. No elucidation as to why I would ever have done this having been provided (although I now know exactly why), I swiftly jumped to the conclusion that it was because I would, somehow, heroically triumph over it, perhaps (I flattered myself) becoming an exemplar of how this could be done. The reality proved almost catastrophically the opposite. None of prayer, serving a mission, attending the temple frequently, or professional counseling yielded the triumph over my orientation that I had believed would follow, and within a decade I was so sorely tempted and so dismally defeated in my aim that a caring bishop had to spend many months counseling and urging me not to go through with the suicide that I had already mapped out (revolver, late evening at the office), at first convincing me to remain alive for just one week, and then a second, and then yet another. Ultimately, I went back to the Lord, laid out in prayer that I couldn’t defeat this, couldn’t overcome this, couldn’t go on, and was given the second of the revelations: that if I lived my life with a man, with chastity before lifetime commitment and fidelity within it, I would not lose my salvation. It was hardly the answer, or the transformative miracle, for which I had hoped.

The third of those revelations becomes the focus of this essay. A year or two later, following an auto accident, I sought a blessing from my elder’s quorum president, a rather unbending, gay-unfriendly, “hold to the iron rod” type. To his profound shock and dismay, he blessed me not only that my physical injuries would heal but also that I would “meet the man who is to be your companion in this life.” He was visibly appalled, and speechless, following the blessing he had pronounced, but he was right. My injuries healed, and shortly after that, I met that man, although it took me nearly twenty years to figure out that I had.

It was in a doctor’s office waiting room. I’d finished my appointment and returned to the waiting room while the office personnel processed my paperwork and filled my prescription. His was the second appointment following mine, and he was early. I can still recall vividly, thirty years later, opening the waiting room door and seeing him, his lanky form sprawled across one of the chairs. He was breathtakingly handsome. Somehow, as I sat waiting to be called up to the payment desk, I mustered the courage to chat with him, my inveterate icy formality undermined by his Southern charm. Then I was summoned to the front, made my payment, and, still far too intimidated by him to be able to manage anything remotely more appropriate, turned to him with something like “it was very nice speaking with you,” and walked out the door.

A long hallway led to the parking lot. Halfway down it, I ducked into a restroom to regroup and to try to steel my nerve to go back. After ascertaining that no one else was there, I practiced aloud in front of the mirror, repeatedly, until I could muster the courage to walk back into the waiting room and proffer him my business card, but when I reentered the waiting room, he was gone. Downcast, cursing the shyness I felt around him but expecting that there was now no way I would ever see him again (I could hardly ask the women at the front desk to give him my phone number), I turned to trudge disconsolately down the hallway to the parking lot. Then I looked up. He was coming down the hallway toward me. He had tried to chase me out to the parking lot before I drove off but hadn’t seen me duck into the restroom.

He called me at the office later that day, eschewing the normal gay dating admonition to wait three days so that you don’t seem too interested, beginning, quite superfluously, by reminding me, in his Southern drawl, who he was (“Hah there, Aah’m that guy . . .”), as if there were a chance in the world I would have forgotten him in the intervening hours. “How often,” I wondered, “does he think this happens to me?”

We spoke on the phone several times, and our first date followed, although its beginning proved very rocky. My LDS moral standards for dating behavior (the gender of my date aside) were not exactly widely shared in our urban gay community, so I made it a point to make clear beforehand my no­sex­before­marriage rule so that there would be no awkward misunderstandings or disappointed expectations. It thus came as an unpleasant surprise when he arrived with a mattress tossed in the back of his pickup truck, suggesting that we drive up and park in the isolated hills far above our city’s gay ghetto. I was incensed. “Exactly which part of what I explained on the phone was not clear to you?” He raised both palms and said, “Aah promise.” It was probably unwise of me to rely on his promise, as he was a full six inches taller than I and powerfully built, but I flattered myself that I had excellent instincts for character (I was also a gym rat back then and quickly calculated that I could do serious damage if he tried anything), so I got into the pickup and off we went. He never broke that promise, not that evening, not ever. I don’t recall if we even held hands, but I do recall lying in the back of that pickup truck next to him, staring at the stars above the hills, speaking quietly with one another until an owl hooted, and he shushed me and said, “That’s Bob.” After a pause, I began to talk again until the owl’s mate hooted in response from the opposite direction, and I got shushed again. “That’s Bobette.” And I realized that this displaced Mississippi country boy had not brought me up into the hills hoping for sex. He wanted me to see with him the world he cared about, one so unlike the Wall Street and Mercedes life I led. I fell in love with him that evening, and I have never ceased to be deeply in love with him, even though as I write this he has been dead almost twenty-seven years.

I knew he would die from the day I met him. I was at that doctor’s office for some minor medical ailment. He was there, he told me upfront, because he had AIDS, which back then was a death sentence. He was completely asymptomatic outwardly but had fewer T cells left than I had fingers and toes. I calculated that he would live two years, based on what then was the typical trajectory. Peculiarly, it emerged, as we grew to be an item, that despite having so very little left of his own life, what he wanted to do with what he did have left of it was to be my protector, to spend his life making sure that I was OK. “Would it help,” he offered one evening as I complained about some nasty political problem at work, “if your six-foot-seven boyfriend showed up at the office?” I insisted that I was perfectly capable of handling it myself. Only later did I realize that the proper response to his offer really should have been “I love you too.” Fortunately, he was very patient with me.

It would have been hard to imagine a more outwardly mismatched couple, even aside from our divergent HIV statuses. A chasm gaped between our educational attainments, my Ivy League degrees (four of them) against his high school GED (he’d had to drop out of high school in his little town after confessing his gay inclinations to a counselor at his fundamentalist church, mistakenly thinking it would be kept private). To my friends, he looked like the closest thing they’d ever seen in the flesh to a character from The Dukes of Hazzard. My shocked best friend grasped valiantly for words following the double date at which I introduced Beau Duke[3] to him and his live-in girlfriend (now wife), eventually settling, with studied diplomacy, on “he’s too tall for you.” Few would spend enough time around him to see that, whatever Beau lacked in formal education, his IQ was actually far higher than mine. Only one Ivy League friend, with whom we had also double dated, afterward wrote me a gracious note—one I still have—telling me “it was nice to meet [Beau] and to see how happy you are to be with him.” I was. I’ve never been more happy in my life than when I was when with him. I did, however, demur when he wanted to take me back to visit his small hometown in Mississippi. A gay couple in Mississippi in the 1990s? “They’ll burn a cross on the lawn,” I insisted. “Yeah,” he deadpanned, “what wouldn’t they do if Aah ever came home with a Yankee?” He won these verbal sparring matches every time, somehow managing to do so without me ever feeling like I’d lost. We had only one fight ever. It was, ironically as it turned out, about buying a car.

Sex was a difference too, at least on paper. Beau had been very sexually active (a gross understatement); I never had been. His then-untreatable disease terrified me, although we could in theory have limited our sexual activities to the narrower menu of safer ones. However, it seemed crystal clear to me that he could not possibly be the man who was supposed to be my “companion in this life” from that blessing. After all, he was going to be dead in two years, so he couldn’t be “the one,” couldn’t be the man the Spirit had in mind when it prompted that horrified elder’s quorum president’s blessing, right? Right? Beau was just a random guy along the way whom I had somehow managed to love more deeply than I’d ever thought possible. Should I get myself excommunicated, booted from my community, for such a short-term (and potentially medically dangerous) relationship? Wall Street said no. Doesn’t pencil out. But there was another factor of paramount importance to me as well: my testimony, and in particular my testimony of the temple. Beau was going to die. I wished I could die in his stead. I would have done anything in the world to save him, but there was nothing I or anyone else could do—except, I grasped for straws, his temple work. No one else would ever do it. I doubted that I technically fell within the eligibility guidelines to submit his name, but, I thought, “I dare them to try to tell me he is not my family.” So I strove to keep myself from breaching the law of chastity so I could still go to the temple and surreptitiously recorded his personal information, and even committed his genealogy to memory as if I were some sort of Celtic bard, and wondered how on earth I was ever going to explain to Mr. Companion-in-This-Life, should he happen along inconveniently during the required one-year waiting period following Beau’s death, that he was just going to have to sit back and wait for a year until I could do the temple work for Beau. It was the only thing I could do to save him, all I could do to help him. And I never again regretted the choice to be gay I’d been told I made in the preexistence, the choice I’d fought against and revolted against with everything I had for all those years in the past, because if it was what put me in the position where I could help Beau in any way at all, I would choose the same again in a New York minute.

Beau never protested the lack of sex. He did make jokes about it. Seeing my stare of disbelief once when he ordered an enormous volume of food (in a restaurant in a straight part of town), he loudly remonstrated, “But honey, you know I’m eating for two,” and then, as the waitress walked away and I tried to calculate whether I could render myself invisible by simply sliding under the table, added sarcastically, “That would be an immaculate conception, now wouldn’t it?” He had other sexual outlets, with my knowledge. Very early in the relationship, I received, in error, a message from him trying to set up an anonymous sexual encounter with a man whose name he obviously didn’t even know. I couldn’t tell whether he was more surprised when I was the one who responded or that I quietly made it clear I did not care if he had anonymous sex. Had we been having sex, I would probably have cared a whole lot, but we weren’t, so to me this was, simply, the deal. It remained the deal. Later in the relationship, the only thing he ever said once, in a quiet moment together, was “This is different. Platonic.” He never once broke the promise he made to me on our first date, at the beginning of that evening up in the hills above the city with that mattress in the back of his pickup truck. In fact, the only one who ever started to break it was me, once, in a weak moment. He wordlessly declined to cooperate, just staring fixedly at me until I realized what this would mean and stopped in time, this man who saw himself as my protector, even from himself, even from myself, who was incapable of doing anything that he thought might hurt me. He never thereafter tried to coax or cajole or push me into sex, none of the usual “you know you really want to” (even though I had provided ample evidence that I really did). He never even mentioned it. Ever. He’s the closest I can come to understanding how a God who is omniscient can nonetheless promise to forget completely those sins I cannot help but recall in excruciating detail.

And then he died. It was actually closer to three years since the day we met, since the evening I fell deeply in love with him talking on a mattress in the back of his pickup truck, listening to the owls and gazing at the stars.

Grief proffers few comforts, but one is that it eventually leaves the bereaved person so emotionally seared that a strange kind of quiet sets in. One night following Beau’s death, as I left the office for home, bereft, alone, I vividly recall driving around a corner that I had otherwise turned thousands of times over the years in my daily commute, and thinking, in that strange, almost detached, quiet: “Now I understand the Taj Mahal. Now I understand how a man can spend the whole rest of his life building a monument to his grief.”

One year on, I did his temple work. I recall next to nothing of his baptism itself, only, oddly, noticing the sign in the men’s changing room afterward, admonishing me, ungrammatically, to “dry off good.” His initiatory work I recall more vividly. The aged temple worker, noting how very young he died and focusing on the similarity in our ages rather than the difference in our surnames, asked if this was my brother. Guessing that “no, he was my boyfriend” would likely get me tossed out of the temple, I went with a laconic “no.” There was only one other patron in the initiatory booth at the time, a Cambodian brother doing the work for members of his family slaughtered in the killing fields. I reminded myself “you have not been singled out for tragedy.” I maintained my composure through his initiatory and then through his endowment until the veil, where I lost it completely, racked by sobs so severe that I was nearly doubled over and almost howling, as the stunned temple workers stood by, frozen. By the time my long paroxysm of grief subsided, the veil worker had completely lost track of where we were, so I asked myself the next question and answered it, and he resumed and let me pass through the veil.

That was supposed to be the end. Certainly, Beau wasn’t supposed to be my eternal companion. I assumed that the mention in that blessing of a companion “in this life” was because I would be resurrected out of being gay and would be straight in the next life. He wasn’t even supposed to be my companion in this one. Just a random meeting that somehow resulted in a love that a straight friend once told me was of a depth many people never get to experience in their lives. Just an accident.

Still, I couldn’t help building that monument to my grief. Once it was no longer too painful, Beau’s photograph appeared on my desk at work, where it sat for decades, forever twenty-nine as I careened through—and beyond—middle age. (“Pretty soon people are going to stop asking if that’s your partner and start asking if it’s your son,” a colleague close enough to me personally to get away with saying that once joked.) At the peak of my career, when the annual bonus checks were enormous, I’d open them, look at Beau’s picture, and announce “we are in high cotton,” a Southernism he had favored. I left instructions that, when I died, his picture was to be placed in the coffin with me. (It was not clear how anyone was going to explain that to Mr. Companion-in-This-Life, assuming he outlived me, but I wouldn’t have to be the one to do the explaining, as I’d be dead.) I refused to get rid of my car (it’s a 1990; I still drive it) because I had squired Beau around in it. (“Park it in the driveway,” another colleague hissed through clenched teeth once it achieved a visibly embarrassing age, “and get another car.”) Passengers were not even allowed to touch Beau’s seat adjustments, which made things a bit uncomfortable for those not six foot seven (and even more so for anyone in the back seat), until I realized that my mechanic had been moving the seats regularly for years every time he serviced the car, which had grown to be quite frequently. No one was allowed to play “our song” in my presence. Indeed, no one was even allowed to play anything in my presence sung by our song’s artist (who obligingly soon fell out of fashion). When people asked how long I had been a widower, for that is how I described myself, I had an unnerving habit of answering with excessive precision how long it had been since I lost him (“thirteen years, three months, and twenty-seven days”) until I realized that, important as I thought this running count, others found it a little creepy. Once cell phones appeared, his picture went onto mine, and I began showing it to all and sundry, like some new grandparent indiscriminately imposing pictures of the grandchildren on reluctant audiences. (“You’ve shown us before,” people say, as they exchange embarrassed glances.) Having seen Man’s Search for Happiness too many times on my mission, I hoped, when I died, that it would be Beau who would come to take me home.

Notwithstanding all this, for some years I dated on and off, looking to find that companion in this life who was, after all, supposed to be showing up somewhere along the line. It was not half-hearted either, although Beau posed a pretty high bar. I got my heart broken once, and broke one once, and once was even engaged briefly, but none of the relationships ever went anywhere. “I’m not [Beau],” one of the more insightful ones told me. Meanwhile, the Lord kept dropping hints. I kept missing them.

The first came at perhaps the two-year mark after Beau’s death. I went to stake conference one Saturday night, exceptionally, as I usually regarded the Sunday morning portion as plenty. As I sat there, quietly and almost alone in our stake center’s beautifully historic chapel before the meeting began, a thought that felt remarkably like the Spirit passed through my mind: “He’s your guardian angel now.” Nothing further. “That’s not us. That’s the Catholics,” I helpfully corrected the Spirit, batting this away. Apparently the Spirit deals poorly with attempts to correct it, as I don’t recall receiving any significant revelations, on the gay subject or any other, for some time after that. Note to self.

Around year eleven after Beau’s death, I grew extremely angry with him for dying on me, as if his death had been intentional, as if he hadn’t warned me from day one. My life had begun to have bumps other than the gay issue, which had really been my lone albatross up until that time. “Life,” I told him angrily in my head, “this business of living, this is actually really hard. How can you have left me to do this alone?” That guardian angel prompting should have clued me in, but I’d dismissed that as just some stray thought, maybe something too good to be actually real, so I still refused to grasp what was going on. A psychologist once observed trenchantly, in an unrelated context, that I stubbornly refuse to accept anything that might provide comfort as I consider that a sign of weakness, of needing a crutch, whereas suffering to me evidences strength and character. It was a hard habit to get over.

Then, in what may have been year sixteen, I was walking home one beautiful, sunny Saturday afternoon from my home teacher’s house. (Visiting his home was easier than cleaning up mine, and I was on foot because the grief-mobile was in the shop yet again.) Suddenly, unexpectedly, I felt, with an extremely strong assurance, that Beau was walking behind me. The impression was so strong that I actually turned around to look, as if it had somehow slipped my mind that he was gone. I saw nothing, and heard nothing, but the feeling would not go away. That may not have surprised me so much in the temple, where we believe such things occur on occasion (although I was stunned and frankly rather frightened the first time it actually happened to me there, as I’d previously dismissed Church leaders’ remarks about the veil being very thin as just so much Church talk, sort of an LDS “stitch in time saves nine”). But this was on some sidewalk in broad daylight. I wasn’t even tired. I discussed the incident with that psychologist who, happening to be a Latter-day Saint, did not conclude that I was suddenly becoming psychotic but rather speculated that Beau was letting me know he’s got my back. I went home and played our song for the first time in sixteen years, over and over and over, had a very good long cry and got it out of my system, and finally admitted to myself that the Spirit might just have been right about this guardian angel business after all. It certainly was right about it a year later, the night my mother said goodbye to me (prematurely, it turned out; the doctors had underestimated how long she would survive), and I stood out in the cul-de-sac in front of the house staring at the sky above the prairies in order to process her words and compose myself. If I didn’t know better, I’d have sworn that I felt Beau put his hand on my shoulder. But again, I could see no one standing there.

Up until perhaps six months before that latter incident, I’d still stubbornly refused to draw any relationship significance from the “guardian angel” prompting (which by now I finally acknowledged as a revelation) other than that Beau was apparently not only not gone forever but was not even completely gone. Somehow, I still came up with a way to dismiss this as impersonal, hypothesizing that Beau was somehow stuck with being my guardian angel because I had done his temple work for him. Not that that made much sense. I’ve done the temple work for a lot of my ancestors, so if that was how it worked, I would be passing through life trailing a lengthy entourage of dead forbears. But it allowed me still to continue to feel very tragic about my life, so I went with it until one morning the Lord, interrupting my highly repetitious prayers in order to get a word in edgewise, decided I clearly wasn’t going to get it on my own. “He chose this, “ He said gently. “He loves you.” This was really starting to undermine that tragic-hero-Taj Mahal-monument-to-my-grief project.

That project came crashing down, suddenly and completely, through another revelation that followed not very long afterward. Mom’s most dramatic downturn, which initially made any recovery appear nearly hopeless, prompted me to seek a spiritual confirmation that I would be able to be with my parents again after death. Clearly, that is one of the fundamental tenets of our faith, but I had never actually prayed about it nor sought any confirmation. I’d joined the Church decades before because I’d prayed about the Book of Mormon and received an unmistakable spiritual confirmation of its truth, and everything else just sort of came with the package. Now, I felt that I really needed to know this. So I got on my knees and for the first time presented the Lord with a fervent prayer on this issue.

I was so surprised by His answer that I did something I had never done before: I asked Him to hold it right there while I got a pen and paper to write this one down word for word: “Oh yes, you can go see them. Primarily, you’ll be with [Beau], but”—and here, it sounded very much like He was smiling—“you can go visit.” This threw me for a loop. Aside from the fact that I was initially somewhat offended that He was being so ebulliently cheerful about this when the whole point of my prayer was that my mother was dying (or so I thought; she lasted several more years—it was a roller coaster), this didn’t make any sense from my worldview. As I mentioned, until this time, I’d assumed being gay was like a birth defect and that, in the resurrection, I’d be straight. Awkwardly, I’d even sort of lined up a female friend, a devout Church member who’d never married, as kind of my eternity fallback. Now I was being told that Beau was not only that promised companion in this life, in the guardian angel sort of way, but that I was going to spend eternity with him. I hadn’t even asked about Beau in that prayer, although the Lord had spoken of him to me in prayer a few days before. My world, or at least my understanding of the next one, tilted. However, having learned the hard way through that guardian angel revelation that telling a member of the Godhead that it had got it wrong didn’t really pan out well, I decided to take Him at His word, to trust that He knew what He was doing, and finally to allow myself to feel joy in the fact that the man I had loved more than anything would not be lost to me forever. I would, one day, get him back. It was growing ever harder to cast myself as a tragic hero.

Beau kept showing up, usually in the temple. In fact, the first time I returned to do an endowment after a long hiatus (I had gone inactive for several years in protest of Proposition 8 but eventually came back), he stood there next to me and went through the endowment session with me. Despite all else that had occurred, I somehow was still reluctant to believe this was actually happening, so rather than either enjoying his presence or paying attention to the ceremony, I spent the whole time trying to figure out whether this time I was really having a psychotic break. “OK, it was a bad day at the office, but it wasn’t this bad,” I thought. By the time we entered the celestial room, however, his presence had become so unmistakable that I turned and spoke aloud to where I knew he stood. But I did later check with a physician to make sure I hadn’t indeed had a psychotic break. You’re a little old for that, he told me, a bit undiplomatically.

Beau continued to make appearances at intervals that were irregular but frequent enough that, when a temple worker once asked me in the changing room “Is your spouse with you in the temple today?” (obviously fishing for a witness couple), I was flummoxed and stammered “I’m a widower, so I don’t actually know the answer to that question.” Another time, a night very near the end of December, when I’d arrived exhausted and sleep deprived from closing multiple complicated year-end deals (I tried to make sure I got to the temple each month at least once, and time was running out), I sat back in the endowment pretty much blissed out listening to the almost painfully beautiful trumpet concerto that in those days was the background music to the creation scenes—all the while feeling pretty amazingly holy just for being there at all—when Beau showed up and remonstrated: “You need to pay better attention. You’re supposed to be learning how to do this.” “Nagged from beyond the grave,” I retorted, but he was already gone. I did pay better attention after that, however, and was surprised to see what I learned. I now try to practice for the future by reminding myself that Beau was right more often than I was when he was alive and that he knows a lot more now. Little is so humbling as realizing that you will be spending eternity as the dumb one.

I finally internalized what all those revelations added up to. Eventually, for lack of any other ceremony, I stood in the office one day, alone, the door shut, figuring that if Beau was doing guardian angel duty he must be in earshot someplace (do they get breaks?) and solemnly promised him eternity. I’d never promised him that in life, as I’d thought he was just an accident, a mistake, a detour on the path to my companion in this life and then the woman with whom I’d spend eternity. I could sense that he was there and was moved by my promise, perhaps because I had finally made him a commitment. Few antidotes to commitment phobia are more powerful than missing someone fiercely, achingly, for twenty-five years. Beau also knew that, for all my myriad weaknesses and flaws, I never broke promises. We had shared that trait.

There was one more surprise in store. Beau wasn’t exactly omnipresent or available on call, so life could still become lonely, trial filled, and depressing. It was easy at times to wallow in my sorrows rather than steadfastly looking toward my more joyful (I now finally acknowledged) post-death future. One such morning, kneeling in a dowdy motel near the facility where my mother lay ill, I was saying my prayers, not about anything in particular that was wrong so much as juxtaposed against an extremely well-honed backdrop of self-pity because Beau was dead, Mom was dying, I’d be alone, blah blah blah. The Lord had had enough, evidently. In the closest tone to exasperation that I’ve ever heard in a revelatory experience, He interrupted my whining with a quiet but firm “Both of you wanted to rescue each other.” Just those eight words. Fleetingly, with my usual pedantry, I thought this couldn’t actually be a divine revelation because the grammar was off (shouldn’t it be “each of you wanted to rescue the other”? Surely God can speak English correctly), although upon a little reflection, I concluded that the grammar might actually be correct if what had happened was that Beau and I couldn’t agree on which of us got to rescue the other so told the Lord we both requested mutuality.[4] Given our personalities, this was actually not improbable. As the revelation sank in, though, I realized, shocked, that it meant we had asked for this. Well, maybe not exactly for this, which has proven very painful for both of us, but apparently the big picture here is what we chose. Only then did the revelation sink in further, and I finally saw, as my jaw hit the floor, that this also meant that I had known Beau, and that we’d apparently cared deeply about each other in some fashion, before. Back there. Back before we were born. Not once in the many years since I met Beau had it occurred to me, not a single time had it so much as crossed my mind, that this relationship began other than at the moment I walked into that doctor’s waiting room and saw him sprawled across that chair. Afterward, I finally switched from thanking the Lord in my daily prayers for sending me such a competent guardian angel—a portion of my prayer that somehow always felt like it bounced back off a leaden dome blocking heaven—and instead thanked Him one morning for putting Beau and me, like broken pieces, back together. And the Spirit just flowed.

It’s hard to feel self-pity when you know your situation is what you asked God for. It also gave form to the story of my life—the arc, as the screenwriters would call it. I had first tried to write it as a hero’s tale, with me as the hero, of course, showing the world how homosexuality could be overcome, lighting the way. When that failed miserably and then Beau died, I tried for years, for decades, to cast my life as high tragedy, with the pain, the sadness, the irretrievable loss, and me as the tragic hero. The Lord nixed that one. It turns out that it’s actually a love story, like those sappy romantic comedies in which impediments more apparent than real are overcome and the protagonists get to live (or in our case die) happily ever after. The difference is that ours plays out over sixty years (or very much longer indeed) instead of one hundred minutes. Just a love story. I don’t even get to be a hero. Well, except maybe to one man who somehow managed to believe that I was the greatest despite actually knowing me. It also explained a peculiar feature of my patriarchal blessing. Unusually from what my friends tell me of theirs, it admonishes me—repeatedly—that my life is “but a small moment” in light of what the Lord has in store. A blip. When the patriarch gave that blessing to me at nineteen, did he foresee that I would be a widower for forty or fifty or sixty years before I could be reunited with the love of my life? Of my eternity? The Lord obviously did. He plays a long game, but I’ve learned, belatedly, to repose trust in His plans and His revelations. He’s got this.

My newfound confidence regarding the future (and the blurring of the line between the living and the dead) has profoundly changed my approach to my own ultimate death. A good friend told me I am less afraid of dying than anyone he’s ever seen. He’s probably right. On a plane flight, when an engine exploded into flames and the other passengers degenerated into various species of panic, I said a quick prayer, gave Beau a heads up with a casual “Honey, it looks like I’m going to be home early tonight,” and sat there quietly reading. My concern now is more with not messing up before I die so that I can count on what has been promised.

After the events described in this piece, Beau started to make fewer and fewer appearances, in the temple or out. Perhaps I require less guarding now (or less prodding to pay attention in the temple), perhaps in the economy of heaven, as we call it, he’s taken on other tasks. Tempted by how much I miss him still, I’ve tried at times to force or conjure up his presence, but it never works, and I know when I’m cheating. But the Lord has stood ready to remind me of what I’ve been told, ready to provide comfort when the going gets rough, even if I myself am the one making it rough. Some months back, they changed the endowment ceremony, something I didn’t learn until, early that Tuesday morning, I was already seated, and it was almost ready to start. After decades as a gay man in the Church experiencing wounding statements—some perhaps imagined, many all too real—I panicked. What if there were some barbs in the new text? What if I couldn’t endure this? I was completely wound up when the endowment began, waiting for some blow to fall, sure one was coming, when words were spoken as part of the metaphor we use to describe our potential heavenly future, words that I interpreted as limited to straight people (although in fact they were really fairly vague). “Aha,” I thought, “there it is.” And then the Spirit intervened, quietly but with unmistakable firmness and clarity telling me “you can rule and reign with [Beau].”

So, the next question: is any of this real? For those who do not share LDS beliefs on the veil or how eternity works (and perhaps even some who do), the answer is obviously no. Here we have a man who, after over a quarter of a century, still is unable to deal with the death of his beloved. Someone who to this day drives a car barely a notch above having a wire hanger for an antenna (it’s so old you can no longer get parts) because of its connection to that man. Clearly, this is nothing but pathetic wish fulfillment on the part of someone who might even be borderline psychotic. They could be right, I suppose, although no one who knows me appears to think I’m psychotic, and people with major disconnects to reality typically are not highly respected and fairly prominent in their professional fields, financially successful, and (I wish Mom had lived to see this) listed in a national directory of prominent Americans. The wish fulfillment is harder to answer, and I can respect those who reject my experiences on that ground. I would wonder more often myself were it not for a dear friend in my ward, a “calling widow” with whom I typically sit in the balcony at church (her husband is in the stake presidency so is usually off somewhere else) and who has the gift of discerning spirits, as St. Paul called it,[5] in greater measure than I do. One week, the Lord had told me, unprompted as so often, during morning prayers that I could go out again rather than, as I was doing, basically just waiting to die so I could be back with Beau. I frankly had no desire whatsoever to do anything other than wait to be with Beau, so I told Him that was all very well and good but I wouldn’t even consider it unless I knew that Beau would be OK with it. I thought I had boxed the Lord in on that one. So come Sunday, sitting in the balcony, Beau showed up, leaving me perplexed because this was neither the temple nor a situation in which I was likely to need a guardian angel. (We’re in church. What could happen?) As I sat there, wondering what on earth he was doing there, my friend leaned over and asked, “Was your partner sarcastic?” My mind shot back to that immaculate conception remark. Big time, why? He just came up to me and told me “I have a life.” Later, after my mother died (this loyal friend served as the proxy for her temple work), my friend and I were speaking between meetings and, as I chattered on, she suddenly interrupted me with a firm “Pause.” I did, and thus sensed the presence of both Mom and Beau. “They’re here,” I said. “He’s teaching her the Gospel,” she responded. Of course, neither of these experiences would likely prove anything to the non-Saints, although the former one would need to posit some form of telepathy between my friend and me unless Beau in fact had actually been there. Anyway, for me personally, it’s enough to show that this is not all just wish fulfillment.

What of those who do share LDS beliefs? Here, I would expect the pushback to be even more vigorous, as, although they will believe in the mechanism, they will disbelieve the content because the idea that God could have reunited two men so that they could spend eternity together does not comport with current doctrine. (“Current” because one of our articles of faith, distilled to its essence, is that there are an awful lot of important things we don’t know but that will be revealed in the future. Plus, you can’t sit through the endowment ceremony very many times before figuring out that “this is how we’ve done it before” sometimes doesn’t jive with what God wants this time around. See, Beau? I’m paying attention.) At least one objection seems to be the assumption that spirit children are created via sexual reproduction, necessitating opposite sex partners for that portion of the plan of salvation to work, although that’s a subject about which we actually know very little. I do recall that it used to come up in elders quorum every several years. (I wondered whether it came up as much in Relief Society, where the prospect of being pregnant billions of times might seem less appealing.) However, all this involves projecting our human condition onto heaven’s, where a whole lot of things have not yet been revealed to us and where ancient and modern prophets are reduced to metaphors for something whose reality is apparently far beyond human ability to grasp or describe—angels with wings on fire and streets paved with gold and precious stones and (the LDS one) kings and queens, priests and priestesses, to the most high God. What’s coming we see almost only through a glass, darkly. Joseph F. Smith did see the hosts of the dead but mostly described things of religious significance—the aching for resurrection, the task of preaching the Gospel—not what family units the dead would be organized in or what would follow when the Lord delegated the creation of other worlds to them. So I have to content myself with my personal experiences, with what I know myself. What I know, since I am a convert to the Church, is that the nature of the revelatory experiences I described in this article is indistinguishable from the nature of the experiences that provided me a testimony of the Gospel in the first place and brought me into the Church and fortified my testimony of the temple. They’re one and the same, so stand or fall together. If I cannot believe that these revelations are actually divine, there is no reason to believe that the earlier, so very similar, revelations were divine either, and I’m left back on my own to figure out whose teachings, if anyone’s, are transcendently true. I choose to believe that the revelations are all true rather than that they are all false. I could be wrong, this all could have been wish fulfillment from inception, but I guess that is the role that faith plays.

I try to get to the temple twice a month now, wherever I am, so some weeks ago I stood in front of the temple in Manhattan—an unusual one in that it houses other Church functions on different floors. Its facade can thus have glass that is transparent, allowing one to see into at least several feet of the building, to the opaque bronze temple doors to the left and to the entry for other functions to the right. As I stood there, a woman in her early thirties, dressed less formally than most people attending the temple, stopped and stood in front of the building, gazing long and fixedly through the glass. I finally asked if she was looking for the Family History Center, which is hard to locate from outside. No, she hadn’t been to the temple in a very long time and just wanted to look in, she told me, as she stared into the building. The ceremony was recently changed, I encouraged her. It’s really quite beautiful now. She thought her temple recommend might no longer be good. How long ago did you get it? About ten years. Well, yes, you would have to get a new one then. She doubted she could. She was living now with her boyfriend and vouchsafed that, at the time she had served a mission some years previously, she had presented as a man. I had not recognized that she was transgender but reassured her that I was a member of the LGBTQ community too and was not judgmental. How did I reconcile this, how did I make this work, she asked. I told her that my partner, my beloved, had been dead for almost twenty-seven years, so there was no subsisting same-sex marriage for them to be concerned about, and I obviously wasn’t having sex with him, who was long dead, so there really wasn’t anything they could do to keep me out of the temple. But I know I can be with him for eternity, I told her. She seemed quite moved, but the endowment session would start shortly, so I handed her my business card in case she wished to speak further and excused myself to go upstairs and change into my white clothing to take my place in the endowment room and do my work for the dead.

Summer 2023

---

^[1] I’ve chosen to continue to use a pseudonym, after all these years, out of respect for the mother of the man about whom much of this essay revolves, who is still alive and may be hurt by the publication of details about him that might cause her pain or embarrassment. I have also altered small bits of my description of him to mask his identity. I have not altered any details about myself other than my name, and my identity will probably be easily ascertainable. I would ask, out of consideration for her feelings and her privacy, that those who do know it not post it on the internet.

^[2] “‘My God, My God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?’ Meditations of a Gay Mormon on the 22nd Psalm,” Sunstone, August 1995, 44–55, reprinted in Terryl L. Givens and Reid L. Neilson, eds., The Columbia Sourcebook of Mormons in the United States (New York: Columbia University Press, 2014).

^[3] When I pass through the veil and see him again, I am going to be in big trouble for this one.

^[4] Beau of course won this one too, as I only had to go to the temple for him once (although that was the single most important thing I’ve done in my life), whereas he’s had to do guardian angel duty for decades already.

^[5] 1 Corinthians 12:7–11.

[post_title] => Bringing the Yankee Home: A Gay Mormon, Three Decades On [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 57:4 (Winter 2024) 107-112
Since joining the Church, I have been blessed with a number of revelations relating to my life as a gay Mormon. Perhaps more remarkable may be how few of these I actually understood correctly when I first received them. Time has provided them clarity. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => bringing-the-yankee-home-a-gay-mormon-three-decades-on [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2025-02-15 20:01:12 [post_modified_gmt] => 2025-02-15 20:01:12 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=47716 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 33170 [post_author] => 4019 [post_date] => 2023-06-21 13:55:51 [post_date_gmt] => 2023-06-21 13:55:51 [post_content] =>

Content warning: This essay contains a reference to suicidal ideation.

It was a cold, bleak winter Saturday morning in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic. I was working at a psychiatric hospital over the weekend in my last year of training as a psychiatrist. I was expecting a quick day of seeing patients, checking on their safety, making some minor medication changes, and providing therapeutic support for individuals who were struggling.

I knocked on one of the patient’s doors and quietly walked into the dark room. Lying on the bed I saw a young man covered in blankets up to his neck. I could only see his head on the pillow and the outline of his still body underneath the blankets. He glanced at me, acknowledging my presence without saying a word. I introduced myself and asked, “How are you feeling today?”

With his eyes closed he responded, “I can’t get out of bed. What’s the point?”

A feeling of hopelessness exuded from him as he spoke. His mood matched the frigid, gloomy weather outside.

“Do you mind sharing what’s been going on lately?” I asked.

“I have demons in me,” he responded.

I was not sure if this was delusional or if he was speaking metaphorically, so I waited for him to continue.

“God has abandoned me. I have sinned beyond forgiveness. I am destined to be miserable and go to hell,” he continued. I wondered what he had done to feel so alienated from God.

“My wife has left me because I’m attracted to men. I can’t live with myself for hurting her. God has abandoned me for going against the teachings of the Bible. I don’t deserve to be alive.” His despair was overwhelming.

I had learned over the past several years how to hold compassion for hurting individuals without feeling overwhelmed by their pain. I considered it one of my hard-earned strengths to provide a safe space for others to share their deep personal pain without my own “stuff” getting in the way. But that day, I suddenly felt my own struggles crashing down on me. No amount of training had prepared me for this. My own feeling of brokenness left me wondering if I could help him.

During my training to become a psychiatrist, I decided to start going to therapy so I could understand myself better. After all, I recommended that my patients go to therapy, so why shouldn’t I? I had gone to therapy as a child after my parent’s divorce and for other “issues” that I felt confident were not a big deal anymore . . . until I went back to therapy.

As a child, I was socially anxious and struggled with low self-esteem. I continued to struggle forming meaningful connections with others in adulthood because of my anxiety. This was something I wanted to address as I started back in therapy. During our first session together, my therapist asked me what I thought might be contributing to my difficulty connecting with others. I took a moment to think. I had an idea. But there was no way I was going to say it out loud. I was convinced that it wasn’t the real answer. There had to be a more important reason that I was having trouble thinking of. I sat there frantically searching for other reasons I could possibly give him to explain my difficulty opening up to others. I gave up after what felt like several minutes of silence and finally said, “My sexuality.” What?! How did I let that out?

I had told a previous therapist and a Church leader about my attraction to men. I had been counseled that if I followed God’s teachings, he would help me overcome this “trial.” I felt so ashamed and disgusted with myself for admitting my attraction to boys that I vowed to never speak of this with anyone else. This would be my secret forever! No one would ever know, and it would silently disappear. That had not been working as well as I thought. Instead, I had now unleashed a monster: coming to terms with my sexuality.

Over the course of the following months, I was furious with myself. I wished I had never gone to therapy. I wished I had never talked about it. I desperately wanted to be attracted to my wife and live in accordance with cultural expectations I had for myself. I had been so faithful in the Church. I had gone on a mission, married my best friend in the temple, and we had a beautiful family together. I was at the end of my training as a psychiatrist and felt I had almost “made it.” I was following the plan that God had for me. Hadn’t I proven to God and myself that I wasn’t really gay? If God really loved me, wouldn’t he “heal me” after I had sacrificed so much for him?

Over the next several months, this secret weighed on me heavily. It consumed all my mental energy, and I had no idea who I was anymore. I felt guilty that I had kept this secret from my most trusted person, my wife. I held on to the hope that this was all a joke, just a phase, and I could pretend it never happened. But that wouldn’t really solve my problem. I had been doing that for over a decade and it was not working.

I was exhausted by that nagging feeling and finally got the courage to tell my wife that I am gay. After the kids had gone to bed, I told her I wanted to talk. I ended up sobbing for twenty minutes before I could even utter the words to her.

I wasn’t sure what would happen. I was absolutely terrified. What if she left me? Instead, she responded with love and support by listening to me and being there for me. I found out that she had been holding onto my secret after finding a half-written letter I had written to her several years earlier telling her I was gay. We had been keeping this secret from each other this whole time! My heart broke for her to carry that by herself, but I also felt loved after learning that she was willing to carry that burden with me unknowingly.

The next several months were awfully painful as we processed what this new information meant for us personally and as a couple. What did it mean for my relationship with the Church? Could I continue to be active in a church that had caused me so much pain? Would I feel accepted or welcomed at church if I were to accept myself as a gay man?

It was a little over one year after embarking on this journey of accepting my sexuality that I found myself sitting next to a patient who was going through a situation eerily similar to my current struggle. In some ways, I wondered if I should be there instead of him. I had felt many of those feelings as well. Could I really provide hope when I too was feeling hopeless about my very similar circumstance?

How many times had I cried to God to take away my longing to be with a man? I too wondered why God would ask me not to love someone to whom I was so naturally drawn. My sexual orientation was more than just wanting sexual gratification. It was the way in which I viewed myself, felt connected to others, was able to love and feel loved. I had spent my own dark times contemplating if there was a place for me in the world. Wondering if it would be easier not to be alive. I had been taught for so long that this “affliction” would be removed in the next life. I had been so tempted to skip the suffering by cutting my mortality short to finally be “healed.”

I often felt confused about why God was allowing this to happen. People reassured me that God made me this way. Others told me that that it was a trial that I should persevere through with self-discipline. I did not know whom to trust.

I had told myself for so long that being gay was the “natural man,” and if I just aligned myself with God, I could put off the natural man and become more like a saint as we are taught in the Book of Mormon. Although heterosexual wasn’t listed in the characteristics that follow that verse in Moroni, I was convinced it was an unwritten qualification to being worthy of God’s love. I had concluded a long time ago that I just had to suffer through mortality so I could finally be free from my same-sex attraction when I died. It felt God had left me out of his plan of happiness.

I felt an extreme amount of empathy for this man in the hospital and what he was going through. I wanted to cry, “I know! Isn’t this all messed up? It’s a miserable, hopeless position to be in.” Instead, I put aside my own pain and feelings of hopelessness and attempted to offer some comfort, maybe even some hope if possible. Honestly, I had no idea what to say in that moment. It felt like all I could do was validate the awful struggle he was facing and provide hope that there are people surrounding him to help him heal from his despair. I felt honored that he felt safe enough to share his deeply personal struggle with me. While it may not take away the pain, confusion, and heartbreak, I encouraged him to lean on others while he heals his soul and mind.

I found myself wondering if I was offering this for him or for me. I suppose it was for us. I thought I had to be whole myself before I could help others. But maybe I do not have to be completely healed to heal others. Perhaps we can heal together. Amid a pandemic, with uncertainty in the world and the uncertainty I face in my own life coming to terms with my sexuality, I can better understand that we are all suffering. And yet in the suffering we are helping one another to heal.

In the end, isn’t that what we are all trying to do, strengthen and heal each other from the pain and struggle we face? That’s what makes life beautiful. Not being free from all the pain, but joining together to listen, comfort, and support one another.

I continue to feel grief and pain when I learn of how many individuals find themselves in a similar situation to me and my patient. The intersection of faith and sexuality can be an incredibly frightening, lonely, and a seemingly hopeless place. I do not have the power to heal by changing the Church’s doctrines on LGBTQ+ issues. But I do have the power to ease the suffering of others by standing together with them, offering my validation that the journey is painful, and providing hope for the future. Hope that comes not from having the answers, the solutions, or being completely healed. But hope in the form of peace that we find helping one another to heal and knowing we are not alone.

---

Note: The Dialogue Foundation provides the web format of this article as a courtesy. There may be unintentional differences from the printed version. For citational and bibliographical purposes, please use the printed version or the PDFs provided online and on JSTOR.

[post_title] => Healing Together: The Lonely Intersection of Faith and Sexuality [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 56:2 (Summer 2023) 109-112
“My wife has left me because I’m attracted to men. I can’t live with myself for hurting her. God has abandoned me for going against the teachings of the Bible. I don’t deserve to be alive.” His despair was overwhelming. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => healing-together-the-lonely-intersectionof-faith-and-sexuality [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2025-02-15 20:02:00 [post_modified_gmt] => 2025-02-15 20:02:00 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=33170 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 29135 [post_author] => 2981 [post_date] => 2022-04-12 16:20:28 [post_date_gmt] => 2022-04-12 16:20:28 [post_content] =>

Although the concept of Heavenly Mother is empowering for many women, the focus on God as a cisgender, heterosexual couple also limits who can see their own divinity reflected in the stories told about God. First, with Heavenly Mother as the only female divinity, divine expression of womanhood is restricted to motherhood. This excludes many women, including women struggling with infertility, women who do not wish to become mothers, and transgender women who experience motherhood differently than fertile, cisgender women. Second, the focus on Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother’s male-female relationship emphasizes heterosexuality to the point of heteronormativity. Third, the emphasis on gender and sex binaries in the Heavenly Mother/Heavenly Father pairing enshrines cisnormativity[1] as divine and excludes identities that do not fit neatly into these binaries. Together, heteronormativity and cisnormativity exclude LGBTQ+ people[2] from narratives of godhood. Both the exclusion of women and LGBTQ+ people are serious issues for a theology that claims to be broad and expansive enough to include all of God’s diverse children. Some theologians tackle the first problem by adding additional female divinities (like Eve and Mary) to offer divine examples for multiple forms of womanhood, but this approach continues to enshrine cisnormativity. Others try to address the second and third problems by focusing on erasing differences between male and female, such as by creating a genderless god. Still, the creation of a genderless god erases gendered experiences, whether the gendered experiences are those of a transgender or cisgender individual. Claiming that a genderless god is inclusive is parallel to claiming that “colorblindness” solves racial issues. Refusing to acknowledge diversity doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or impact people’s lives; it simply excludes anything beyond the cultural default from conversation. Both approaches have value, but neither one can solve these issues on its own. Additional embodied female deities are not necessarily queer-inclusive, while a genderless god lacks the intimate understanding of menstruation, childbirth, miscarriage, and more that many women find comforting in an embodied Heavenly Mother. Inclusivity requires acknowledging and celebrating diversity. Whether a single god or a group of additional embodied deities, conceptions of God must be gender-inclusive or gender-encompassing in a theology that includes all God’s diverse children.

In an attempt to combine these two approaches, I follow religious scholar Caroline Kline’s suggested approach of adding nuance to the Heavenly Father/Heavenly Mother pairing by “bringing forward and theologically developing other divine groupings and formations,”[3] including a spectrum of genders and sexualities. Given the Mormon belief in apotheosis, there is space within our theology for an extended heavenly family that includes LGBTQ+ gods and a broader representation of womanhood. However, intellectual conversations about theological theories do not easily become part of lived religion. Theological storytelling translates abstract theological theories into concrete, easily visualized examples that can be internalized as beliefs. In order to make this theory accessible and to provide an example of how including LGBTQ+ gods might change our concept of godhood, I offer a short theological story reimagining a queer-inclusive extended heavenly family. Although they may not be the gods most Latter-day Saints are familiar with, these additional figures and groupings are part of our greater heavenly family. Understanding queer stories of godhood expands limited or narrow concepts of divinity to include all of humanity.

To be clear, through theological storytelling I seek to find clarity regarding previous, imperfect, and exclusionary constructions of deity, not to create new doctrine from scratch. Teachings of Church leaders are filtered through their personal biases and historical context. Consequently, these teachings are not, and cannot be, objective. In that sense, all the truths that Mormonism claims to teach of God are constructed through and limited by human perception. The process of questioning and exploring alters the limits human biases place on understanding the nature of God, allowing perspectives to shift and uncover previously unseen truths.

Who is Heavenly Mother?

The doctrine of Heavenly Mother is rooted in the literal interpretations of scripture describing God as a Father and theistic anthropomorphism by leaders and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If we are children of God the Father, early Church members reasoned, then there must also be a God the Mother. Joseph Smith taught Zina Diantha Huntington Young[4] and Eliza R. Snow that they had a Mother in Heaven.[5] Other Church leaders have since also taught of the existence of Heavenly Mother, including in official documents such as the 1909 First Presidency statement[6] and the 1995 “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”[7]

Unlike the traditional Christian interpretation of gendered terminology relating to God as metaphorical, Mormons interpret gendered pronouns very literally. Brigham Young taught that all humans were “created . . . in the image of our father and our mother, the image of our God” and indicated that this was consistent with the biblical account of both “male and female” being made in the image of God.[8] Thus, Adam was created in the image of Heavenly Father; Eve was created in the image of Heavenly Mother. Additionally, both heavenly parents have “[bodies] of flesh and bone as tangible as man’s.”[9] According to Mormon understanding, this means that “God the Father is a male with a male’s body and God the Mother is a female with a female body.”[10] Because “all men and women are in the similitude of” gendered and embodied heavenly parents, Church leaders assume that human bodies are similarly gendered in a binary manner.[11]

Although some Church leaders consider “God” to include both heavenly parents, in practice the word “God” is often understood to refer to God the Father and is accompanied by masculine pronouns.[12] For example, the four 2020 general conference talks that mentioned heavenly parents only used that phrase once while using “God,” “Lord,” or “Heavenly Father,” and masculine pronouns throughout the rest of the talk.[13] More often, Heavenly Mother is not named but is implicitly included in a conversation focused on God the Father with the phrase “heavenly parents.”[14]

Whether explicitly included in conversations about God or included in the term “heavenly parents,” the focus tends to be on Heavenly Mother’s roles as wife or mother, how Heavenly Mother is the ideal every woman should strive to become, and how Heavenly Mother can be used to enforce complementary gender roles.

Heavenly Mother is the wife of Heavenly Father and nurturing mother of all humanity. President Boyd K. Packer taught that before birth, each human “lived in a premortal existence as individual spirit children of heavenly parents” and suggested that “in the development of our characters our Heavenly Mother was perhaps particularly nurturing.”[15] Similarly, Susa Young Gates taught that “our great heavenly Mother was the greater molder” of Abraham and that she has played similarly nurturing roles since, providing “careful training” and “watchful care” to every human.[16] President Spencer W. Kimball taught that Heavenly Mother is “the ultimate in maternal modesty,” then asked, “knowing how profoundly our mortal mothers have shaped us here, do we suppose her influence on us as individuals to be less”?[17]

Heavenly Mother is the “eternal prototype” of womanhood, the ideal that every Mormon woman is expected to become.[18] President Russell M. Nelson taught that “as begotten children of heavenly parents” humans are “endowed with the potential to become like them, just as mortal children may become like their mortal parents.”[19] Women are taught that they specifically have the potential to develop the traits and attributes of Heavenly Mother. For example, Vaughn J. Featherstone explained that “women are endowed with special traits and attributes that come trailing down through eternity from a divine mother. Young women have special God-given feelings about charity, love, and obedience.”[20] Similarly, Glenn L. Pace told women that when they stood before Heavenly Mother they would “see standing directly in front of you your divine nature and destiny.”[21] Note that these teachings also exclude men and nonbinary people from being nurturing or inheriting attributes from Heavenly Mother.

Church leaders have also repeatedly taught that Heavenly Mother’s gendered roles and attributes are complementary to Heavenly Father’s and that humans are expected to perform similarly complementary gender roles. According to several Church leaders, neither Heavenly Father nor Heavenly Mother could be complete or could become a god on their own.[22] The 1916 First Presidency declaration “The Father and Son” taught that it was only together that heavenly parents could have children or attain exaltation.[23] Similarly, Richard G. Scott taught, “In the Lord’s plan, it takes two—a man and a woman—to form a whole.” Whether Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Father or a mortal couple, “husband and wife are not two identical halves, but a wondrous, divinely determined combination of complementary capacities and characteristics.”[24] Just as Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother could not become gods alone, human males “may never hope to reach the high destiny marked out for him by the Savior in these encouraging words: ‘Be ye perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect,’ without woman by his side; for ‘neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.’”[25] According to David A. Bednar, the complementary gendered roles and responsibilities “of both males and females were needed to implement the plan of happiness. Alone, neither the man nor the woman could fulfill the purposes of his or her creation.”[26] Performing separate and complementary gender roles is seen as a way for humans to imitate Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Father.

How do teachings about Heavenly Mother harm women and LGBTQ+ members?

There exist three major weaknesses in the current theological conception of Heavenly Mother. First, Heavenly Mother, a singular being representing the potential of all her daughters, reinforces stereotypes of motherhood as the only path to divine womanhood. Second, focusing on Heavenly Mother in the context of her marital relationship with Heavenly Father enforces binaries that exclude non-heterosexual relationships from potential godhood. Third, because narratives about Heavenly Mother’s and Heavenly Father’s gendered embodiment promotes cisnormativity, transgender, nonbinary, and intersex individuals are excluded from potential godhood.

In Heavenly Mother, women are given one example of female divinity. The writings and speeches of official Church leaders portray Heavenly Mother as a pedestalized, silent, childbearing partner to Heavenly Father and nurturing mother to all humanity. This framework has troubling implications for women who do not wish to or cannot have children. As Blaire Ostler observes, “The inherent nature of Heavenly Mother implies all women would desire eternal motherhood. In this sense, motherhood becomes the gatekeeper of a woman’s godly potential.”[27] Because narratives about Heavenly Mother equate motherhood with womanhood and female godhood, the only avenue toward divinity for women is through motherhood. In contrast, men have God the Father and Jesus, giving them two examples of male divinity, Father and Son. But women have only Heavenly Mother, a God described and named in terms of motherhood. Within this theological conception of womanhood, women who are not mothers are excluded from seeing themselves in God.

Pairing Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Father as a husband and wife who could only become gods as a couple suggests that heterosexuality is essential to godhood. This view of heterosexuality is based on 1 Corinthians 11:11, which states “Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord,” and teachings of Church authorities. Extrapolating from his belief that God is Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother together, Erastus Snow taught, “There can be no God except he is composed of the man and woman united, and there is not in all the eternities that exist, or ever will be a God in any other way. We may never hope to attain unto the eternal power and the Godhead upon any other principle . . . [than] this Godhead composing two parts, male and female.”[28] This teaching was later affirmed by other Church authorities, including Hugh B. Brown, James E. Talmage, Melvin J. Ballard, and Bruce R. McConkie.[29] If Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother became gods in part through a heterosexual relationship, can non-heterosexual individuals also become gods? Because focusing on Heavenly Mother in the context of a male-female partnership shifts narratives about God from that of an individual to that of a heterosexual couple, this narrative enforces beliefs that heterosexuality is a prerequisite of godhood. Consequently, Heavenly Mother’s heterosexual relationship is used to exclude non-heterosexual individuals and couples from potential godhood.

The narrative of Heavenly Mother’s and Heavenly Father’s gendered embodiment is used to promote cisnormativity through a process called “cisgendering reality.” This cisgendering of reality, in turn, excludes non-cisgender individuals from potential godhood. The term “cisgendering reality” is defined as “the process whereby religious leaders and members socially construct and maintain cisnormative interpretations of the world through their ongoing teachings, rituals, and other faith-related activities,” such as by erasing, marking, or punishing transgender existence.[30] Most contemporary religious cosmologies and theologies, including Mormonism, are “devoid of and ignore transgender existence. Rather than describing our world, they breathe life into an imagined world entirely composed of cisgender people” even though transgender people exist in Mormonism and have existed throughout human history.[31] They are similarly devoid of nonbinary, intersex, and gender-fluid individuals. By ignoring gender variance to create and enforce a binary male/female view of God and God’s children, religious narratives cisgender reality and “provide the symbolic material necessary” to judge “what is and is not acceptable to God.”[32]

Cisgendering reality within Mormonism is specifically associated with narratives asserting that only male and female beings exist, that God created men and women to occupy distinctly separate and complementary roles and responsibilities, and that any empirical realities that do not match these storylines should be rejected. The Church teaches that, as the literal, embodied spirit children of gendered and embodied heavenly parents, humanity consists of people who are either a “male with a male body” or a “female with a female body.” But this ignores the existence and experiences of intersex, nonbinary, gender-fluid, and transgender individuals throughout history. If all humans are made in the image of God, that includes intersex, nonbinary, gender-fluid, and transgender humans. Individuals are also expected to perform complementary gender roles based on their gender as assigned at birth—women are expected to become mothers (like Heavenly Mother) while men are expected to “preside, provide [for], and protect” their family.[33] When Heavenly Mother is added to discussions of Heavenly Father in order to “emphasize male and female distinctions without any mention of other potentially moral options and define gender variance of any kind as an assault on the sanctity of God’s plans,” the result is the cisgendering of reality through the rejection of the empirical evidence and the lived experiences of gender-nonconforming individuals.[34] As philosophy professor Kelli D. Potter points out, the “idea of a natural or inherent binary sexual difference in LDS discourse makes a legible ‘sex’ the prerequisite to personhood,” meaning that non-cisgender individuals are “illegible as children of God [with] divine potentials.”[35] Using Heavenly Mother’s embodiment to cisgender reality withholds the potential of godhood from transgender, nonbinary, intersex, and gender-fluid individuals.

Mary Daly, a feminist philosopher and theologian, once said, “If God is male, then male is God.”[36] I would argue that it is also true that if God is heterosexual, then heterosexual is God, and if God is cisgender, then cisgender is God. The current conception of the feminine divine as a single being who is revered in the context of her relationships as part of a cisgender, heterosexual couple excludes the LGBTQ+ community from godhood unless they eternally perform a cisgender, heterosexual relationship.

How have other scholars approached these issues?

Many Mormon studies scholars and theologians have sought to address these three major weaknesses in the current theological conception of Heavenly Mother. Their approaches include exploring non-biological reproduction and multiplicity of passageways, reintroducing kinship sealings, and adding additional female divine beings to our doctrinal pantheon. Scholars outside of Mormonism have also developed theology that expands godhood by feminizing the Holy Spirit or queering the Godhead.

Taylor Petrey criticizes feminist theological writings about Heavenly Mother in “Rethinking Mormonism’s Heavenly Mother” because they promote gender essentialism, reduce all women to one female god, reinforce binaries, and idealize heterosexuality.[37] Petrey argues that expanding the pantheon of female deities cannot solve the problems he outlined because additional female figures only continue to reinforce gender binaries. Instead, he suggests multiplicity to create passageways between male and female in order to expand the concept of God beyond binaries and examines the gender transgressiveness of Jesus.[38] While I agree with Petrey that the concept of God should extend beyond binaries, I also recognize that some women benefit from worshipping a God who intimately understands biological processes like menstruation, miscarriage, pregnancy, and menopause. Embodied representation of diverse identities and experiences is essential to developing an inclusive theology.

In response to Taylor Petrey’s article, religious studies professor Caroline Kline observes, “How deity is constructed has implications for our own eternal futures. If God is a married heterosexual couple, then how can we create theological space for LGBTQ people in heaven? How can we find theological room for LGBTQ people to form eternal partnerships with those of their choice and act as partnered Gods to enable new generations of humans to grow and progress and reach their eternal destinies?”[39] I would add, if God is cisgender, how can we create theological space for transgender, intersex, and nonbinary people in heaven? How can we embrace their existence and celebrate it as sacred and divine? Noting the importance of an embodied female God to many women, Kline suggests that perhaps future theological work will “retain Heavenly Mother as equal to Heavenly Father, but nuance this male/female pairing by bringing forward and theologically developing other divine groupings and formations.”[40]

Multiple scholars have explored other divine, feminine groupings or formations. However, these additional female deities reinforce traditional beliefs about gender and sexuality that effectively exclude the LGBTQ+ community from godhood unless they perform cisgender heterosexuality. To expand the Mormon concept of female divinity beyond Heavenly Mother, Margaret Toscano has suggested a female trinity of Mother, Daughter, and Holy Spirit, as well as a variety of female divine figures including the Bride, Zion, Eve, and Sophia.[41] Other non-Mormon scholars, including Margaret Barker, have also explored the Holy Ghost as feminine.[42] Although these theological writings do not limit divinity to a heterosexual couple, they don’t explicitly expand the concept of God to include queer individuals or relationships. These additional female divinities are either unembodied (like Zion and the Holy Spirit) or are based on biblical characters like Eve and Mary, but, because of the ongoing cisgendering of reality, they are assumed to be cisgender, meaning that they do not make divinity more inclusive for nonbinary, intersex, transgender, and gender-fluid individuals. In order to be queer-inclusive, additional embodied deities must be explicitly non-cisgender or non-heterosexual.

Scholars outside of Mormon studies have explored expanding divinity through queering the Godhead. For example, Nancy Wilson and Robert Williams write of Jesus as a gay man.[43] In Indecent Theology, Marcella Althaus-Reid imagines Christ as a young lesbian, a transgender person, and as a lover kissing and cuddling Lazarus after raising him from the dead.[44] Kittredge Cherry’s Jesus In Love tells the story of a bisexual, transgender Jesus who is in relationships with both the apostle John and Mary Magdalene.[45] Gavin D’Costa, Marcella Althaus-Reid, and Patrick Cheng also explore the Trinity as a polyamorous grouping.[46] Each of these writers creatively and effectively expands divinity to include queerness in non-Mormon theology.

Nevertheless, there is space within Mormon history and theology to include LGTBQ+ identities. Historically, Mormon teachings about gender and sexuality have actually been fluid rather than fixed.[47] Past teachings about gender include that each individual chose their gender before birth, that gender would be eliminated after death,[48] and that each person’s gender was assigned by God.[49] According to contemporary teachings, gender is “an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”[50] Exactly what constitutes gender remains unclear, however, as gender sometimes appears to refer to biological sex, prescribed gender roles, or gender expression throughout Church documents. The meaning of the “eternal” nature of gender is similarly vague. According to Blaire Ostler, “Eternal does not mean static or unchanging. Eternal means ‘existing forever’ or perhaps ‘endless time’ and to exist in Mormon theology is to be in a constant state of change or evolution. Some might even call it eternal progression.”[51] Thus, the teaching that gender is eternal does not mean that gender is static. Kelli D. Potter similarly argues that “the Mormon emphasis on divine and human embodiment can be quite affirming” for nonbinary transgender individuals because “being male and female is a matter of degree” and sex and gender can be “subject to constant change due to the impermanent nature of embodiment.”[52] Given the multiple meanings of both “gender” and “eternal” within Mormon theology, it is possible to understand gender as both nonbinary and changeable.

Past teachings about relationships and sexuality have undergone similar shifts, including banning then permitting interracial marriage,[53] limiting the purpose of sex to procreation then expanding it to include pleasure and emotional bonding of spouses,[54] determining what sexual practices were acceptable in marriage,[55] and declaring polygamist marriage a requirement for the highest degree of heaven.[56] As Kelli D. Potter notes, “Orthodox Mormons are not forced by their theology to reject gays and trans folk; instead they are forcing their theology to reject queer and trans folk.”[57] Thus, though queer people and relationships may not be explicitly welcomed today, the historical fluidity of teachings about gender and sexuality leaves room for continued exploration in Mormon theology.

One future shift the Church could make to be more inclusive is broadening who and what relationships can be sealed in the temple. In “Queer Polygamy,” Blaire Ostler offers a way to include all—straight or not, cisgender or not, monogamous or not—in godhood through a model of queer polygamy. Building on her research of early adoptive sealings and Joseph Smith’s sealings to already married women, Ostler argues that sealings could be offered for relationships of kinship, friendship, or love. This model of queer polygamy can include sealings for an infinite number of marital, sexual, romantic, and platonic relationships. Importantly, Ostler points out that “the family is far more than just one mom and dad. It is siblings, cousins, spouses, aunts, uncles, friends, grandparents, and the generations of persons who came here before you or me.”[58] Family is not just a cisgender, heterosexual couple. I see no reason why our heavenly family would not be just as expansive and inclusive.

In “Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology,” Taylor Petrey points out areas where our theology may already have space for the queer community, including in the abstractedness of celestial reproduction compared to biological reproduction, the historical practice of sealings as kinship, and the complexity of eternal gender.[59] According to Petrey, “contemporary Mormon discourse distinguishes between homosexual desires and sexual practices, permitting the former but rejecting the latter.”[60] As a result, homosexual relationships are excluded as a legitimate dimension of Mormon LGBTQ+ experience. Since heterosexuality is already idealized within Mormonism as an eternal male-female relationship, Petrey defines homosexuality in terms of relationships rather than only desires and practices to give homosexual and heterosexual relationships equal footing.[61] Petrey suggests the possibility that homosexual relationships may be allowed the same blessings of sealing as heterosexual relationships.

Like Kline and Toscano, I am not ready to erase Heavenly Mother because I see value in imagining an embodied female God who is an equal partner to a male God. Yet, as a queer woman, I also see the need for a more LGBTQ+-inclusive theology that goes beyond the additional female divine figures Toscano writes about. Thus, I follow Kline’s suggestion to theologically develop other divine groupings and formations while focusing on relationships like Petrey.[62] I follow Ostler’s example to imagine a sealed celestial family based on relationships of kinship, friendship, or love—eternal relationships that are not limited to only cisgender, heterosexual couples.

Both gender and sexuality are innate parts of an individual’s identity—what makes them who they are—like their sense of humor, creativity, or curiosity. If queer people were to be transfigured, changed from their queer selves to something non-queer after resurrection, we would no longer be ourselves.[63] Therefore, I accept the premise that gender is an essential characteristic of an individual’s eternal existence and assume that sexuality is similarly essential. Following Potter’s suggestion, I “reject the gender binary and . . . allow that being male and female is a matter of degree with various combinations being possible in a similar way to biological sex.”[64] Thus, in this exploration of godhood, I assume that gender and sexuality both exist on spectrums and that an individual’s gender and sexuality may be fluid rather than static.

Theological Background

The theological basis for a diverse, inclusive heavenly family is apotheosis, or the idea that an individual can become a god. Apotheosis has been taught by multiple prophets of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, starting with Joseph Smith and continuing on with modern leaders, though it is now described as exaltation.

Joseph Smith taught on several occasions that as literal children of God each human has the potential to achieve godhood. In 1832, Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon experienced a vision depicting the afterlife, including that those who are faithful on earth become “gods, even the sons of God” in the afterlife.[65] On April 7, 1844, Joseph Smith taught more about theosis in a funeral sermon (known as the King Follet Sermon) that explained his beliefs on the nature of God and on mankind’s ability to become gods. Of God, Smith said, “He once was a man like one of us and that God Himself, the Father of us all, once dwelled on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did in the flesh and like us.”[66] Later in the sermon, Smith counseled the audience, “You have got to learn how to make yourselves Gods in order to save yourselves and be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done—by going from a small capacity to a great capacity, from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, until the resurrection of the dead, from exaltation to exaltation.”[67] Thus, according to Joseph Smith, (1) our God was once a mortal living on an earth like we are now, and (2) our God is one of many gods who have lived mortal lives as part of their eternal progression.

Other Mormon prophets have also taught apotheosis. Lorenzo Snow penned the succinct couplet “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.”[68] Joseph Fielding Smith more explicitly described the role of the extended heavenly family in apotheosis. God’s father “passed through a period of mortality even as he passed through mortality, and as we all are doing. Our Father in heaven, according to the Prophet, had a Father, and since there has been a condition of this kind through all eternity, each Father had a Father.”[69] Our Heavenly Father has a father, a grandfather, a great-grandfather, and so on, each of whom experienced a mortal probation prior to godhood. Presumably, our Heavenly Mother also has family members and progenitors who experienced their own mortal probations before becoming gods.

Modern Church leaders frequently talk about apotheosis in terms of exaltation and ongoing relationships. “Exaltation” refers to a future state in which humans have become like God and live as God does now.[70] A key part of the discussion of exaltation is the continuation of loving and familial relationships. According to Doctrine and Covenants 130, the relationships we have here on earth will continue in heaven, “only they will be coupled with eternal glory.”[71] Thus, relationships will continue after death, but in an improved and glorified way.

This relational focus of exaltation is emphasized in the Gospel Topics essay “Becoming Like God.” The essay states that Church members imagine and desire exaltation “less through images of what they will get and more through the relationships they have now and how those relationships might be purified and elevated.”[72] Similarly, Dallin H. Oaks described the importance of continuing family relationships as part of apotheosis. “For us, eternal life is not a mystical union with an incomprehensible spirit-god. Eternal life is family life with a loving Father in Heaven and with our progenitors and our posterity.”[73] It is the continuation of our relationship with God and our relationships with those we love that will make exaltation—and thus godhood—joyful.[74]

To ensure the continuation of relationships past death, Joseph Smith introduced a sealing ritual. The types of relationships that have been eligible for sealing have varied since the introduction of the sealing ceremony. From around 1842 until 1894, men could be adopted through sealing to another man without the need for genetic relationship or legal adoption. The purpose of this adoptive sealing was to connect them with someone (usually an apostle, General Authority, or local Church leader) who was already sealed. This grafted their family line to the family of God.[75] Sometimes these adopted sons even took their adoptive father’s last name, though these adoptive sealings were not accompanied by legal adoption.[76] Some women who were already legally married were simultaneously sealed to other men. For example, one-third of the sealings Joseph Smith participated in before his death were polyandrous, i.e., sealings to women who were already married and who continued living with their legal husbands.[77] Today, heterosexual couples may be sealed in temples, and biological or legally adopted children may be sealed to their parents. The sealing ritual has not always been limited to legally married, cisgender and heterosexual couples and their children. Expanding the sealing ritual to include all loving relationships and all family formations is a vital step toward meaningful inclusion of both queer and unmarried members.

Although they may not be permitted by current policies, Blaire Ostler and Taylor Petrey convincingly argue for why queer sealings and queer people fit into the theological frame of Mormonism. Both point out that a primary objection to the possibility that queer relationships can be eternal is the question of procreation. And yet, how can we presume to limit an infinite and powerful God to biological procreation when (with modern technology) we ourselves are no longer limited to biological procreation? Ostler also observes that “the purpose of sealing isn’t to legitimize sexual behavior; the purpose of sealing is to legitimize the eternal and everlasting bonds that people share with one another.”[78] These bonds exist wherever there is love, including in queer relationships. Petrey points out that both the New Testament and the Book of Mormon teach that God does not withhold salvation based on one’s gender, race, or status.[79] Why, then, would a God who “denieth none that come unto him” withhold sealings or exaltation based on an individual’s queerness? If gender and sexuality are essential characteristics of one’s eternal nature, and if God does not deny salvation based on gender, race, status, or sexuality, then queer people will be exalted as queer people.

If we believe God—our heavenly parents—once lived on an earth as we do now, then they are not the only gods. Our heavenly parents also have parents and siblings and grandparents and aunts and uncles and cousins and friends from their earthly experience who are now gods. Together all these gods form a heavenly family, an extended family of gods. Like humans on our earth, this heavenly family is diverse. There are members of the heavenly family with many different eye colors, skin tones, hair textures, gifts, talents, and abilities. Some members of the heavenly family are queer. The loving relationships members of the heavenly family formed during their mortal experiences have continued but are now “coupled with eternal glory” and godhood.[80] The variety of loving relationships that exist on our earth, including queer relationships, is reflected in the diversity of loving relationships in the heavenly family. This heavenly family includes lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer gods. Thus, the heavenly family is queer, or at the very least includes queerness.

Theological Storytelling

As important as developing theology on an intellectual level is, it is only the first step of creating a Mormon theology broad and expansive enough to include all of God’s children. New theological ideas, like this theory of a queer heavenly family, have little lasting impact without theological storytelling to connect theories and ideas with emotion and belief.

Stories provide a way for theological ideas to connect with emotions and impact what we believe and how we live our lives. As Colleen Mary Carpenter writes, “New ‘images’ of God that don’t fit in the old stories have no anchor, no hold on our hearts. They exist in the rational corner of our minds but not in the worshipping center of our existence, the core of our being where we meet God. That core has been shaped by a lifetime of story, song, and symbol, and if we rationally wish to change it, then we must seek out new stories, new songs, and new symbols.”[81] Stories are the bridge between the theological theories of the mind and the beliefs of the soul.

Theological storytelling, or midrash, is a common practice in Jewish rabbinical tradition. Wilda Gafney, a Hebrew Bible scholar and theologian, explains, “Midrash interprets not only the text before the reader, but also the text behind and beyond the text and the text between the lines of the text. In rabbinic thinking, each letter and the spaces between the letters are available for interpretive work.”[82] These gaps in the text or story aren’t errors but opportunities for revelatory storytelling. Midrash doesn’t overwrite existing scripture; it “reimagine[s] dominant narratival readings while crafting new ones to stand alongside—not replace—former readings.”[83] In effect, midrash is part of an ongoing conversation focused on discovering the relationship between God and humans.

Borrowing from the Jewish tradition of midrash, modern theological storytellers like Carpenter, Gafney, and Rachel Held Evans creatively retell biblical stories to explore modern questions and expand understanding of both themselves and God. Through their retellings, they “rethink the religious traditions in which they live, to find glimmers of truth submerged in existing tradition.”[84]

The story of godhood as told within the existing tradition of Mormonism is the story of a cisgender, heterosexual couple. In the text behind and between the lines of this story—the spaces between words—are gaps created by the absence of LGBTQ+ people in our theological storytelling. If we are to develop and practice a theology truly broad and expansive enough to include all of God’s diverse children, the story of God as a cisgender, heterosexual couple must be accompanied by additional stories—stories of gay and loving gods, of joyful transgender gods, of radical queer acceptance by other members of the heavenly family.

Inspired by the theological storytelling of Carpenter, Gafney, and Evans, I offer the following short but queer-inclusive story of our Heavenly Family.

The heavenly family is queer. Sure, our heavenly parents are in a heterosexual relationship, but the heavenly family is bigger than just our heavenly parents. It includes parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and even close friends.

One of our Heavenly Father’s parents is nonbinary. Heavenly Father calls them Zaza, a gender-neutral term of endearment for a parent.

Our Heavenly Mother and her brother are both straight, but their older sister (and our Heavenly Mother’s best friend) is a lesbian goddess celestially partnered with her transgender[85] wife. They preside as gods over a world they created together.

Heavenly Father has an asexual uncle. He was never interested in marriage, but he is sealed to several close friends with whom he collaborates on creation and constantly teases. He always knows how to make you laugh if you’re feeling down.

And Heavenly Mother’s grandfather is gay. Together he and his husband have created some of the most intriguing and beautiful animals known to the extended heavenly family.

One of Heavenly Mother’s cousins is polyamorous[86] and has three spouses. She presides over a world in partnership with her wife and two husbands, all gods together. They like being able to split up responsibilities among four people instead of two.

Of course, these are only a few members of the heavenly family. Our heavenly family is so large it would take me more than a day and a night to tell you about each member. But most importantly, no matter the differences in whom they love and choose to lead a celestial life with, all members of the heavenly family—queer or not—are welcomed and celebrated at heavenly family reunions.

I do not offer this as a definitive theological story but as an example of how our concept of godhood might change as we add divine LGBTQ+ groupings and pairings to our existing theological story. Perhaps there are glimmers of truth in this story, too.

Why does heavenly queerness matter?

Stories of godhood don’t matter because they change the nature of God. They matter because they change our understanding of what divinity looks like, of where there is potential for godhood. They shift how we think about who God is and who can become God. By expanding our concept of godhood, this theological story of a queer heavenly family replaces exclusion with hope and offers a way to see godliness in all humanity, including the LGBTQ+ community.

Theological storytelling of a queer heavenly family offers hope instead of exclusion. If the only story of godhood is that of a cisgender, heterosexual couple, then most LGBTQ+ members are excluded from achieving godhood unless they choose to eternally perform a cisgender, heterosexual relationship. Within Mormon theology, if one is excluded from hope of godhood, one is also excluded from being with loved ones after this life (and, consequently, joy). When the story of godhood includes a multitude of different groupings and pairings in a queer heavenly family, then that story offers hope of godhood and eternal, loving relationships to all.

The story of a queer-inclusive heavenly family offers a way to see godliness in all humanity. The prophet Joseph Smith taught, “If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves.”[87] If I, a queer woman, only know the story of God as a cisgender, heterosexual individual or couple, how can I see godliness in myself? If a straight, cisgender person only knows the story of God as a cisgender, heterosexual individual or couple, how can they see godliness in their transgender friend, their gay neighbor, their nonbinary child? We are all created in God’s image. Recognizing our divinity leads to greater respect, compassion, and affirmation of ourselves and one another and offers everyone hope for godhood and joy. Without a diverse heavenly family, anyone may struggle to see godliness in themselves or in their earthly family or friends. With a theological story of a queer Heavenly Family, potential for godhood expands to include all of humanity.

Conclusion

As Blaire Ostler observes in “Heavenly Mother: The Mother of All Women,” if all human beings have “the potential to be a God in Mormon theology, Godly esthetics should reflect the image of all Their children.”[88] Through apotheosis and the possibilities of queer sealings (as established by Blaire Ostler), we can imagine a beautifully diverse and inclusive heavenly family. By expanding our concept of godhood and telling new stories of a queer heavenly family, we offer a theology of hope rather than exclusion to LGBTQ+ members.

Although my primary purpose in imagining this heavenly family is to theologize an LGBTQ+-inclusive godhood, this concept of an extended heavenly family also benefits straight, cisgender women and, indeed, anyone who is unable to or uninterested in eternally performing a traditional form of male/female gender roles in a heterosexual relationship. It offers many examples of divinity that are independent of complementary male/female gender roles. The theological story I write is both limited and inspired by my own experiences as a queer Mormon woman. I hope others will create their own theological stories of additional pairings and groupings based on their individual identities and experiences. Just as knowledge of their potential for godhood “transforms the way Latter-day Saints see . . . [cisgender, heterosexual] human beings,” perhaps theological storytelling of a queer-inclusive heavenly family will transform the way Latter-day Saints see LGBTQ+ human beings.[89]

---

Note: The Dialogue Foundation provides the web format of this article as a courtesy. There may be unintentional differences from the printed version. For citational and bibliographical purposes, please use the printed version or the PDFs provided online and on JSTOR.

^[1] Cisnormativity is “an ideology that assumes and requires all people to be sorted into only male-man and female-woman categories despite the existence of many other options in the empirical world throughout recorded history.” J. E. Sumerau, Lain A. B. Mathers, and Ryan T. Cragun, “Incorporating Transgender Experience Toward a More Inclusive Gender Lens in the Sociology of Religion,” Sociology of Religion: A Quarterly Review 79, no. 4 (2018): 5.

^[2] LGBTQ+ stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other gender and sexual identities not listed, including nonbinary, gender-fluid, intersex, asexual, and pansexual. Throughout this paper, I will use LGBTQ+ and the word “queer” interchangeably.

^[3] Caroline Kline, “A Multiplicity of Theological Groupings and Identities—Without Giving Up on Heavenly Mother,” By Common Consent (blog), Sept. 2, 2016.

^[4] Martha Sonntag Bradley and Mary Brown Firmage Woodward, Four Zinas: A Story of Mothers and Daughters on the Mormon Frontier (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2000), 107.

^[5] Jill Mulvay Derr, “The Significance of ‘O My Father’ in the Personal Journey of Eliza R. Snow,” BYU Studies 36, no. 1 (1996–97): 100.

^[6] First Presidency of the Church, “The Origin of Man,” Improvement Era 13, no. 1 (1909): 78.

^[7] “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Ensign, Nov. 2010, 129.

^[8] Brigham Young, Discourses of Brigham Young, edited by John A. Widtsoe (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1954), 51.

^[9] Doctrine and Covenants 130:22.

^[10] Kelli D. Potter, “A Transfeminist Critique of Mormon Theologies of Gender,” The Lost Sheep in Philosophy of Religion: New Perspectives on Disability, Gender, Race, and Animals, edited by Blake Hereth and Kevin Timpe (New York: Routledge, 2019), 316.

^[11] First Presidency, “The Origin of Man,” 78.

^[12] Erastus Snow, Mar. 3, 1878, Journal of Discourses 19:269–70; Young, Discourses of Brigham Young, 51.

^[13] For the four examples mentioning “heavenly parents” in 2020, see the following speeches:

Dallin H. Oaks, “The Great Plan,” Apr. 2020; Jean B. Bingham, “United in Accomplishing God’s Work,” Apr. 2020; Dallin H. Oaks, “Be of Good Cheer,” Oct. 2020; Michelle D. Craig, “Eyes to See,” Oct. 2020.

^[14] In all the general conference talks from 2000 to 2020, there were 12,444 mentions of “God,” 2,407 mentions of “Heavenly Father,” eighty-three mentions of “heavenly parents,” three mentions of “Mother in Heaven,” and none of “Heavenly Mother.” Mark Davies, “Corpus of LDS General Conference Talks, 2000–2020,” LDS General Conference Corpus.

^[15] Boyd K. Packer, “Counsel to Young Men,” Apr. 2009.

^[16] Susa Young Gates, “The Editor’s Department,” Young Woman’s Journal 2, no. 10 (1891): 475.

^[17] Spencer W. Kimball, “The True Way of Life and Salvation,” Apr. 1978.

^[18] “Our Mother in Heaven,” Millennial Star 72, no. 39, Sept. 29, 1910, 619–20. As the editor of Millennial Star at the time, this unsigned article has traditionally been attributed to Rudger Clawson.

^[19] Russell M. Nelson, “Perfection Pending,” Oct. 1995.

^[20] Vaughn J. Featherstone, “A Champion of Youth,” Oct. 1987.

^[21] Kimball, “The True Way of Life and Salvation.”

^[22] Eldred G. Smith, “Exaltation,” in Brigham Young University Speeches of the Year 1963–64, (Provo: Brigham Young University, 1964), 6; James E. Talmage, A Study of the Articles of Faith (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1982), 442–43; Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 516–17.

^[23] “The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles,” Improvement Era 19, no. 10 (1916): 942.

^[24] Richard G. Scott, “The Joy of Living the Great Plan of Happiness,” Oct. 1996.

^[25] “Our Mother in Heaven,” 619–20.

^[26] David A. Bednar, “Marriage Is Essential to His Eternal Plan,” Ensign, June 2006.

^[27] Blaire Ostler, “Heavenly Mother: The Mother of All Women,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 51, no. 4 (Winter 2018): 171.

^[28] Erastus Snow, Mar. 3, 1878, Journal of Discourses, 19:269–70.

^[29] David L. Paulsen and Martin Pulido, “‘A Mother There’: A Survey of Historical Teachings about Mother in Heaven,” BYU Studies 50, no. 1 (2011): 79–80.

^[30] J. E. Sumerau, Ryan T. Cragun, and Lain A. B. Mathers, “Contemporary Religion and the Cisgendering of Reality,” Social Currents 3, no. 3 (2016): 296.

^[31] Sumerau, Cragun, and Mathers, “Cisgendering of Reality,” 295.

^[32] Sumerau, Cragun, and Mathers, “Cisgendering of Reality,” 300, 305.

^[33] “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

^[34] Sumerau, Cragun, and Mathers, “Cisgendering of Reality,” 300.

^[35] Potter, “Transfeminist Critique,” 323.

^[36] Mary Daly, Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women’s Liberation (Boston: Beacon Press, 1973), 19.

^[37] Taylor G. Petrey, “Rethinking Mormonism’s Heavenly Mother,” Harvard Theological Review 109, no. 3 (2016): 315–41.

^[38] Taylor G. Petrey, “Rethinking Mormonism’s Heavenly Mother,” 315–41.

^[39] Kline, “A Multiplicity of Theological Groupings and Identities.”

^[40] Kline, “A Multiplicity of Theological Groupings and Identities.”

^[41] Margaret Merrill Toscano, “Put on Your Strength O Daughters of Zion: Claiming Priesthood and Knowing the Mother,” in Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism, edited by Maxine Hanks (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992), 427–35.

^[42] Margaret Barker, “Where Shall Wisdom Be Found? (Job 28.12),” MargaretBarker.com, 2001.

^[43] Patrick S. Cheng, Radical Love: An Introduction to Queer Theology (New York: Seabury Books, 2011), 21, 81.

^[44] Marcella Althaus-Reid, Indecent Theology: Theological Perversions in Sex, Gender and Politics (New York: Routledge, 2000), 116, 122.

^[45] Kittredge Cherry, Jesus In Love (Berkeley, Calif.: AndroGyne Press, 2006).

^[46] Cheng, Radical Love, 57–59.

^[47] For an in-depth exploration of the fluidity of gender and sexuality in modern Mormonism, see Taylor G. Petrey, Tabernacles of Clay: Sexuality and Gender in Modern Mormonism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2020).

^[48] Petrey, Tabernacles of Clay, 214.

^[49] Petrey, Tabernacles of Clay, 43.

^[50] “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

^[51] Blaire Ostler, “Gender is Eternal,” Rational Faiths (blog), Mar. 20, 2018.

^[52] Potter, “Transfeminist Critique,” 322.

^[53] Petrey, Tabernacles of Clay, 20, 27, 48.

^[54] Petrey, Tabernacles of Clay, 130–32.

^[55] Petrey, Tabernacles of Clay, 213–14.

^[56] Note that though Official Declaration 1 states that the Church is “not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice,” polygamy has not fully been disavowed. Though polygamy is not practiced on earth, eternal polygamy is still practiced in the sense that a man may be sealed to and expect to eternally be with multiple wives. For example, Russell M. Nelson is sealed to both Dantzel (deceased) and Wendy (his living wife). Blaire Ostler, “Queer Polygamy,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 52, no. 1 (Spring 2019): 33; Doctrine and Covenants, Official Declaration 1.

^[57] Potter, “Transfeminist Critique,” 320.

^[58] Ostler, “Queer Polygamy,” 42.

^[59] Taylor G. Petrey, “Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 44, no. 4 (Winter 2011): 106–41.

^[60] Petrey, “Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology,” 107.

^[61] Petrey, “Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology,” 107.

^[62] I recognize that one can be homosexual without being in a homosexual relationship, just as one can be heterosexual without being in a heterosexual relationship. My focus on relationships is not meant to exclude unpartnered people but to validate queer celestial relationships of kinship, friendship, and love.

^[63] I base this assumption on Alma 34:34, which teaches, “that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.” In other words, we will essentially be the same person after death, including our gender and sexuality. I also recognize the influence of Blaire Ostler’s blog post “Celestial Genocide,” which states, “Suggesting queer folks will be turned into cisgender, heterosexuals in the next life is the equivalent of the celestial genocide of queer folks.”

Blaire Ostler, “Celestial Genocide,” BlaireOstler.com, Sept. 19, 2020.

^[64] Potter, “Transfeminist Critique,” 322.

^[65] Doctrine and Covenants 76:58.

^[66] Joseph Smith, “King Follet Sermon,” Apr. 7, 1844, in History of the Church, 6:311.

^[67] Smith, “King Follet Sermon.”

^[68] Lorenzo Snow, “The Grand Destiny of Man,” Deseret Evening News 52, no. 207, Jul. 20, 1901, 22.

^[69] Joseph Fielding Smith, “Exaltation: Joint Heirs with Jesus Christ,” Doctrines of Salvation: Sermons and Writings of Joseph Fielding Smith, edited by Bruce R. McConkie, vol. 2 (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1955), 249.

^[70] Fielding Smith, “Exaltation: Joint Heirs with Jesus Christ,” 241.

^[71] Doctrine and Covenants 130:2.

^[72] “Becoming Like God,” Gospel Topics Essays.

^[73] Dallin H. Oaks, “Apostasy and Restoration,” Apr. 1995.

^[74] Joy is an important part of Mormon theology and is related to both humans’ purpose on earth and what God desires for their children. Joseph Smith taught, “Happiness is the object and design of our existence.” Similarly, the Book of Mormon teaches that “men [and women and nonbinary people] are that they might have joy” (2 Ne. 2:25). Joseph Smith, in History of the Church, 5:134.

^[75] Gordon Irving, “The Law of Adoption: One Phase of the Development of the Mormon Concept of Salvation, 1830–1900,” BYU Studies Quarterly 14, no. 3 (1974): 3.

^[76] Irving, “Law of Adoption,” 4.

^[77] Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997), 38.

^[78] Blaire Ostler, “Queer Polygamy,” 41.

^[79] See Galatians 3:28 and 2 Nephi 26:33; Petrey, “Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology,” 129.

^[80] Doctrine and Covenants 130:2.

^[81] Colleen Carpenter Cullinan, Redeeming the Story: Women, Suffering, and Christ (New York: Continuum, 2004), 3. This author now publishes as Colleen Mary Carpenter.

^[82] Wilda C. Gafney, Womanist Midrash: A Reintroduction to the Women of the Torah and the Throne (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2017), 4–5.

^[83] Gafney, Womanist Midrash, 3.

^[84] Carpenter Cullinan, Redeeming the Story, 67.

^[85] Transgender people identify with a different gender than was assigned to them at birth. In this example, this goddess was incorrectly assigned a non-female gender at her mortal birth, but her eternal gender is female. She is also a lesbian because she is a woman and is attracted to other women.

^[86] Polyamory is the practice or ability to have more than one loving sexual relationship at a time, with the consent of all involved. Though there is some debate about whether polyamory belongs under the LGBTQ+ umbrella, I include it in this theological story because of both its similarities and differences to the polygamist history of Mormonism. Both traditional Mormon polygamy and contemporary polyamory include multiple sexual partners, though Mormon polygamy only allows a man to have multiple female wives while polyamory allows individuals of any gender to have multiple partners of any gender. Polyamory is also distinct from Mormon polygamy because of the focus on the consent of all parties involved. In contrast, Doctrine and Covenants 130 provides a loophole that means the consent of prior wives is not required in Mormon polygamy.

^[87] Smith, “King Follet Sermon.”

^[88] Ostler, “Heavenly Mother,” 181.

^[89] “Becoming Like God.”

2022: Charlotte Scholl Shurtz, “A Queer Heavenly Family: Expanding Godhood Beyond a Heterosexual, Cisgender Couple” Dialogue 55.1 (Spring 2022): 69–98.

Although the concept of Heavenly Mother is empowering for many women, the focus on God as a cisgender, heterosexual couple also limits who can see their own divinity reflected in the stories told about God. First, with Heavenly Mother as the only female divinity, divine expression of womanhood is restricted to motherhood. This excludes many women, including women struggling with infertility, women who do not wish to become mothers, and transgender women who experience motherhood differently than fertile, cisgender women.

[post_title] => A Queer Heavenly Family: Expanding Godhood Beyond a Heterosexual, Cisgender Couple [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 55.1 (Spring 2022): 69–98
Although the concept of Heavenly Mother is empowering for many women, the focus on God as a cisgender, heterosexual couple also limits who can see their own divinity reflected in the stories told about God. First, with Heavenly Mother as the only female divinity, divine expression of womanhood is restricted to motherhood. This excludes many women, including women struggling with infertility, women who do not wish to become mothers, and transgender women who experience motherhood differently than fertile, cisgender women. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => a-queer-heavenly-family-expanding-godhood-beyond-a-heterosexual-cisgender-couple [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-10-11 21:51:38 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-10-11 21:51:38 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=29135 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 29136 [post_author] => 2980 [post_date] => 2022-04-12 16:21:59 [post_date_gmt] => 2022-04-12 16:21:59 [post_content] =>

“Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.”

D&C 132:20

The doctrine of Heavenly Mother is cherished among Latter-day Saints.[1] She is birthed from necessity in a physicalist theology. Though she has feminist roots, her theology in Mormonism is laced with latent gender essentialist and complementarian theories. Both have been used in modern Mormonism to exclude the LGBTQ+ community from Mormonism. The assertion that God is composed of one fertile, cisgender, heterosexual couple, namely Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Father, is a narrow interpretation of the broadness of Mormon theology. Though gender essentialist interpretations of Heavenly Mother are queer-exclusionary, her presence in Mormon theology opens the door to a robust polytheism that includes an entire community of gods, diverse in gender, race, ability, and desires. In this paper, I argue that if we are all made in the image of God, God is significantly larger than a fertile, cisgender, heterosexual female and male coupling. Through deification, we all have the potential to become gods. In Mormonism, our theology cannot be fully understood unless it is developed within the bounds of the concrete, material, physical, and practical experiences of our human experience. Theosis, or the process of becoming gods, implies a polytheism filled with generational gods as diverse as all humanity.

Early Gods

The doctrine of Heavenly Mother can be traced back to many early Saints, including Eliza R. Snow, W. W. Phelps, Edward Tullidge, Orson Pratt, and Erastus Snow. The earliest references to Heavenly Mother in Mormon theology were found in poetry and theologically committed to physicalism, also called “materialism.” In Mormonism, heavenly beings and families are material like our earthly bodies and families. Not only that, our earthly existence functions as a pattern for a heavenly existence.

One of the earliest and most popular affirmations of Heavenly Mother comes from Eliza R. Snow, polygamous wife to both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Her status in the patriarchal order of the Church gave her significant credibility in her poetry and theology. For many, Eliza R. Snow’s poem “Invocation, or the Eternal Father and Mother” is the most notable beginning of Heavenly Mother in Latter-day Saint worship. Today, Latter-day Saints now sing Snow’s poem in a hymn called “O My Father.” In this poem, Snow potently infuses theology with “reason”: “Truth is reason; truth eternal tells me I have a mother there.” In the first and second verses, she writes about her premortal existence and her longing to return to an “exalted sphere.” In the third verse, she “reasons” that heavenly families must be patterned after earthly families, which include mothers and fathers. She asks, “In the heav’ns are parents single?” To this she replies that the thought of a single parent “makes reason stare!” This seems to defy all reason to Snow. Single parents existed in Snow’s social world, so the allusion to needing both a mother and a father is likely a biological one. The thought of a single Heavenly Father asexually creating all these spirit children is so strange that the “truth” of her “reason” is that we must have “a mother there.” Lastly, the final verse concludes with her desire to meet both her Father and Mother after her earthly probation is over.[2] Snow’s poem is a testament to Mormonism’s commitment to physicalism. In Mormon theology, the earth and heavens are physical or supervene on the physical. In this case, if it takes a fertile cisgender man and woman to make children on earth, it stands to reason, in Snow’s mind, that it takes a fertile cisgender man and woman to make children in the heavens.

Edward W. Tullidge, literary critic, newspaper editor, historian, and influential Latter-day Saint, also wrote about the union of man and woman as a necessary component of celestial glory. In his poem titled “Marriage,” he uses Heavenly Mother to promote complementarian themes and views on gender differences. In short, men and women, in Tullidge’s view, are complements and are perfected through one another. In the first verse of his poem, he uses couplings and pairs to demonstrate that it is by design that man and woman are created for one another. He muses that, when unionized, “two lives, two natures, and two kindred souls” are completed. When separated, they are only parts, “not two perfect wholes” but only incomplete halves to a whole. For Tullidge, “sexes reach their culminating point” when they merge as one. In the second verse, he explicitly states that sexes will never end and asks rhetorically, “Himself sexless and non-mated God? A ‘perfect’ man and yet himself no man?” Here, Tullidge is suggesting that a perfected god cannot be a sexless god. According to Tullidge, sex is a material reality on earth and will continue into heavenly realities: as he writes in the poem, God’s “works on earth” are patterned on “things above.” This is another demonstration of the early Saints’ commitment to physicalism. Finally, in the last verse of the poem, Tullidge concludes with a reference to theosis. In wedlock, couples become like the “first holy pair” and may become “parents of a race as great.”[3] In summary, Tullidge’s poem “Marriage” demonstrates that earthly realties and lived experiences of Latter-day Saints are seen as a pattern for heavenly imaginings.

In both Eliza R. Snow’s and Edward W. Tullidge’s creative works, the doctrine of Heavenly Mother appears to be rooted in the idea that “[God’s] works on earth, but pattern things above.” For Snow, the thought of having a mother on earth and no Mother in the heavens made reason “stare” due to her physicalist views. Tullidge’s praise of the “universe” and “great nature” is another manifestation of physicalism in Mormon theology. God, the heavens, and celestial glory are not a metaphysical paradise beyond the scope of our reality. Again, physicalism is a very important philosophy embraced by early Saints that led them to believe that God must be composed of a fertile, cisgender man and woman.

The completeness of God through the union of man and woman was a common teaching in this period. For instance, in 1853 Orson Pratt affirmed, “No man can be ‘in the Lord,’ in the full sense of this passage, that is, he cannot enter into all the fullness of his glory, ‘without the woman.’ And no woman can be ‘in the Lord,’ or in the enjoyment of a fullness, ‘without the man.’”[4] A couple decades later in 1878, Elder Erastus Snow avowed, “If I believe anything God has ever said about himself . . . I must believe that deity consist of man and woman.”[5] David L. Paulsen and Martin Pulido argue that Erastus Snow’s God is not a “hermaphrodite,” but a God composed of male and female through marriage. In a footnote they argue, “The passage reads much clearer within Mormon discourse and Snow’s own declarations if read from a perspective describing social unity in marriage.”[6] Again, even our contemporary interpretations of early Mormonism are committed to physicalist interpretations of our theology.

These sentiments would persist throughout Mormonism in the following years. In the Mormon imagination, Heavenly Mother is a practical necessity and could not be erased even though some began to question her status as a deity. In 1895, George Q. Cannon contended that “there is too much of this inclination to deify ‘our mother in heaven.’ Our Father in heaven should be the object of worship. He will not have any divided worship.”[7] Here we can see that though Heavenly Mother is an essential part of Mormon theology, her robust and equitable inclusion in worship is at times repressed by patriarchal authority. This continued all the way to the late twentieth century. In a general conference talk by President Gordan B. Hinckley in October 1991, he affirmed the doctrine of Heavenly Mother but simultaneously excluded her from explicit worship through prayer. In his words,

Logic and reason would certainly suggest that if we have a Father in Heaven, we have a Mother in Heaven. That doctrine rests well with me. However, in light of the instruction we have received from the Lord Himself, I regard it as inappropriate for anyone in the Church to pray to our Mother in Heaven.[8]

For Hinckley, Heavenly Mother is a matter of “logic and reason,” just as Snow suggested in her poem written over a century ago. Throughout Mormon history, there seems to be a persistence among patriarchs to keep Heavenly Mother under control as a necessary but hidden cog in a physicalist theology.

Feminist Gods

All along the way, Mormon feminists have championed the inclusion of Heavenly Mother in Mormon discourse. Though it is beyond the scope of this paper to give a robust history or analysis of Mormon feminism, it is worth noting that Mormon history is deeply influenced by Mormon feminists both past and present.[9] Mormon feminists have been both friend and foe in the development of a gender-expansive theology. While non-queer feminist interpretations of Heavenly Mother broaden the story of God to include cisgender, heterosexual women, they often also promote gender essentialist interpretations of godhood. Mormon feminists have written poems, articles, essays, and even entire books on Heavenly Mother that further the goals of monogamous, cisgender, heterosexual women but fail to include or comprehend the needs of queer women, and often women of color. At best, non-queer feminist works have attempted to be queer inclusive with sincere intentions but with little understanding of how to actually do it. At worst, feminist works have weaponized Heavenly Mother against the queer community, furthering our exclusion from church pews, temple worship, and ultimately celestial glory with our families.[10]

Non-queer feminists might more thoroughly follow their own physicalist philosophy to more inclusive vistas. In the history of Mormon theology about her, Heavenly Mother generally isn’t queer-inclusive, not because feminist theology is wrong but because it is incomplete. It’s no wonder why some critics suggest that the inclusion of queer genders and relationships in Mormon theology could destroy the very foundation of the Church when the ultimate archetype of God in Mormon culture is shaped by gender essentialist, binary, ableist, monogamist, and complementarian biases.

Monogamy is one way that some Mormon feminists have constricted the possibilities of a theology of Heavenly Mother. For instance, Carol Lynn Pearson’s The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy advocates for a single Heavenly Father and a single Heavenly Mother in an eternal pairing.[11] In this monogamous, cisnormative, heteronormative relationship, she strangulates theological veins that could lead to the inclusion of a multiplicity of diverse gods, including queer genders, queer pairings, and queer groupings.[12] The potential of polygamy could be an opportunity for lesbian, bisexual, trans, infertile, asexual, non-monogamous, and intersex Heavenly Mothers.[13]

Gender essentialism is another limitation that Mormon feminists have placed on teachings about Heavenly Mother. As pointed out by religion scholar Taylor Petrey, many feminist theologians fail to see how their theological ambitions lack queer representations, just as the patriarchs fail to include women.[14] Margaret Toscano wrote in response to Petrey’s criticism: “If there is one regret I have about Strangers in Paradox that I wrote with my husband Paul, it is that we didn’t make homosexuality visual and theologically viable in Mormonism.”[15] While this sentiment is appreciated and represents an improvement on the standard feminist rhetoric in the Church, it suggests a limited focus on homosexuality rather than a more capacious vision of how to include queer women and people in Mormon feminist theology. Mormon feminists should consider how to better include intersex, nonbinary, and trans women in their ambitions. Queerness is more than homosexuality.

Queer Mormon women are women. Feminist and queer approaches should work together to accomplish shared goals of inclusion. These tensions about which women are included in feminism is a long-standing one. Sojourner Truth confronted the hypocrisy of white feminism as far back as the 1850s in her unforgettable speech “Ain’t I a Woman?”[16] These criticisms have been echoed by many women of color throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.[17] To advocate for some women and not all women hardly seems like a feminism worth championing and does not embody the notion that “all are alike unto God.”[18]

People are very good at fashioning God in their own image. This observation is not intended as a slight, nor is it intended to discourage anyone from equitable representation in godhood. My observation that we fashion gods in our image is not an affront but an invitation for LGBTQ+ Saints, Saints of color, single Saints, infertile Saints, and disabled Saints to tell the story of God too. We are all made in the image of God and thus, as believers of Mormon theology, are called to champion the creation of gods as diverse as ourselves.

Queer Gods

God is “they” in Mormonism.[19] Many Mormon feminists, Church leaders, and scholars of religion alike have insisted that God is plural—not simply “he” or “she” but “they.”[20] Even modern prophets have referenced Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Father as “them.” Dallin H. Oaks is just one example of this when he wrote in an Ensign article, “Our theology begins with heavenly parents. Our highest aspiration is to be like them.”[21] Though God and heavenly parents have both worn “they” pronouns, the preceding analysis has shown that it is more often than not used to represent a fertile, cisgender, heterosexual, male and female pairing.

While many agree that God is “they,” few consider the ramifications of a “they” God beyond cisnormative, heteronormative, and mononormative assumptions. As previously discussed, many early Mormons considered God to be “they” by earthly reproductive default. For many feminists, God is “they” because women lack divine representation. Yet, for many queer Latter-day Saints, God is “they” because God is a community composed of diverse genders, orientations, abilities, races, bodies, and families. God is “they” because if we are all made in the image of God, “they” is the only pronoun we have in English to adequately signify the plurality and diversity that exists within our heavenly family.[22] God is “they” because God is a community as diverse as our earthly existence, with a diversity of Heavenly Mothers.

Under the umbrella of “God” there are many possible parental formations and familial dynamics, as exemplified in our earthly life. The union of man and woman does not need to mandate heteronormative ideas concerning reproduction, sex, or marriage. It mandates the possibility of multi-gender alliances, partnerships, and cooperation, just like here on earth. Keep in mind that Zion was called Zion because the people were of one heart and one mind.[23] The intimacy of being joined together in heart and mind is not limited to heterosexual relationships between men and women. Zion is bigger. Even families sealed in the temple share more than genetic material.[24]

If life on earth is a pattern for life above, we can see that there are many different family formations on earth right now. Yes, there is the mono-cis-hetero nuclear family model, but there are a lot of other different family groupings too. There are also eternal polygamist groupings. Many Church authorities, from Joseph Smith to President Russell M. Nelson, have been sealed to more than one partner.[25] President Nelson’s eternal family includes two wives, two mothers, two lovers. Some families have two moms, be they polygamist or lesbian. Some families have two dads, be they gay or stepfathers. Some families are single-parent families, and some families have no children. Some families have biological children while others have adopted children. Family relationships in mortality are varied, but under cis-hetero supremacist ideas, we are taught that some of these families are less than, imposters, or counterfeit.[26] Yet, once again, Snow and Tullidge set a powerful precedent when it comes to celestial glory. If life on earth is a pattern for life above, life above is just as diverse as the socialities that exist here among us on earth, and that includes queer families and genders.[27]

Furthermore, in Genesis 1:27, we are symbiotically created in the image of God, both male and female. People have read this passage of scripture and quickly assumed that this excludes queer, trans, or nonbinary genders, but that hasty reading of scripture is incomplete. In Genesis we also read about how God created night and day—two contrasting polarities separated from one another through lightness and darkness.[28] At first glance it might seem like the division between day and night creates a clear binary. However, in the following sentence, it states that God also created evening and morning.[29] Night and day, both necessary and lovely, are opposites resting at the ends of a broad spectrum. In transition between them is morning and evening. Yes, God created night and day, but God also created dawn and dusk. Dawn and dusk are no less godly than night and day simply because they are transitions. The same is true of humanity. God created man and woman—two lovely binaries made in the image of God. Yet in transition between them are nonbinary bodies and spirits. Though we are rare, we are no less godly. We are the dawn and dusk of humanity. There is a spectrum of transitions between lightness and darkness, day and night, earth and water, man and woman. We are all made in the image of God—intersex, nonbinary, and trans—because God created more than binaries.

Each of us is the coeternal image of God.[30] In a physicalist theology, we are literally made in their likeness. God is a community intimately intertwined with the materiality of every living entity. God is life eternal—wholly, singly, and plurally.[31] Any other reductive, androcentric, cisnormative, heteronormative, ableist, or white aesthetic of an all-encompassing God would be an incomplete, even harmful, representation of God’s plurality. The community that is God is reflected in all life, not just men, women, or even humans. God told Moses, “Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless?”[32] It stands to reason that an endless God, at the very least, has the potential to include queer bodies, queer genders, and queer families in our coeternal nature. We have the potential to be just as diverse and endless as God through theosis.

Theosis, or the process of becoming gods, is at the core of LDS religion. It undergirds all other doctrines and policies of the Church. It does not dishonor God to emulate them. Quite the opposite. Our emulation of God is our highest respect and worship. Again, as stated by Dallin H. Oaks, “Our theology begins with heavenly parents. Our highest aspiration is to be like them.”[33] If it does not dishonor the Father for men to emulate him, use his priesthood power, and strive to divinity, then it does not dishonor the Mother that her daughters should emulate her. Likewise, queer folks in no way dishonor God when we emulate and worship them in our works, worship, and theology. Quite the opposite—it’s a manifestation of our highest respect, faith, works, and reverence.

Generational Gods

In Mormonism, gods create gods in worlds without end, and no god exists independent of their community, heritage, or posterity.[34] We are taught this through scriptures, hymns, and temple ritual. Even beyond the Mormon Godhead being composed of three separate beings, including a God composed of a full spectrum of genders, marriages, alliances, relationships, and partnerships, Mormon theology can be taken even further.

In Mormonism, God is a community of generational beings. Godhood is not a one-time occurrence. From early Saints to modern prophets, we all have the potential to share in the same glory as our heavenly parents.[35] We do temple work because the hearts of the children turn to their parents.[36] The spirit of Elijah, also defined as the spirit of familial kinship and unity, demands the plurality of gods.[37] Being a child of God isn’t just a theoretical or metaphysical proposition but has a material lineage and posterity. In the taxonomy of gods, we are the same species as God.[38] We are all made in the image of God with the potential to join the endless network of gods above and partake of our heavenly inheritance. Our theology is so much grander than a single Heavenly Father or Mother. God is expansive, dynamic, generational, and endless. Yet at the same time God is as familial, personal, and physical as a great-grandparent or great-grandchild.[39]

God wasn’t always God but became God.[40] God was once a child of God, too. God also has heavenly parents. Likewise, those heavenly parents have heavenly parents, and those heavenly parents have heavenly parents. Not only that: if our children make it to godhood they will become gods too, and their children will become gods, and their children’s children will become gods. Gods birth gods in an eternal, interconnected round. God is an eternal, never-ending cycle of creation without beginning or end.[41] As Joseph Smith taught, “The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end.”[42] If our prophets, scriptures, and rituals are to be taken seriously, God is not just God, but Gods—communally, generationally, and endlessly.[43]

Mormon theology leads to the inclusion of innumerable, diverse, generational gods reflected in our earthly experience. This concept is beautifully and artistically iterated in the hymn “If You Could High to Kolob,” with text written by W. W. Phelps. In this iconic hymn, philosophy and poetry articulate the doctrine of generational gods. According to this hymn, no one knows where gods begin, nor if they will end.

If you could hie to Kolob
In the twinkling of an eye,
And then continue onward
With that same speed to fly,

Do you think that you could ever,
Through all eternity,
Find out the generation
Where Gods began to be?

Or see the grand beginning,
Where space did not extend?
Or view the last creation,
Where Gods and matter end?

Methinks the Spirit whispers,
“No man has found ‘pure space,’
Nor seen the outside curtains,
Where nothing has a place.”[44]

Phelps’s poetry echoes the teachings of Joseph Smith. He taught, “If [we] do not comprehend the character of God [we] do not comprehend ourselves.”[45] Joseph Smith is inviting us to understand that God is so much more than our limited perceptions, not just of gender, orientation, or anatomical differences, but of space, time, and eternity. The image of God includes the whole of humanity. Not just one Heavenly Mother, but many diverse, unique, and exquisite Heavenly Mothers. Not just one Heavenly Father, but many diverse, unique, and exquisite Heavenly Fathers. Not just one pairing of heavenly parents, but many diverse pairings, even groupings, of heavenly parents—polygamous or otherwise.

Joyful Gods

God is so benevolent and grand that we all could have a place in the community of gods if it is the desire of our hearts.[46] We are taught in Doctrine and Covenants that we are not meant to passively wait for godhood to come to us. Mormonism is a religion of praxis—a religion of doing. Faith without works is dead.[47] To become gods requires us to bring to pass righteousness of our own free will without idly being told what to do and to be anxiously engaged in good causes.[48] Godhood is a fruition of our desires and efforts. As taught by Jeffrey R. Holland, if we want to become gods, we must do godly things with our godly desires.

We’re the church that says we’re gods and goddesses in embryo. We’re the Church that says we’re kings and queens. We’re priests and priestesses. People accuse us of heresy. They say we’re absolutely heretical, non-Christians because we happen to believe what all the prophets taught and that is that we are children of God, joint heirs with Christ. We just happen to take the scriptures literally that kids grow up to be like their parents. But how does that happen? How does godliness happen? Do we just pop up? Are we just going to pop up out of the grave? Hallelujah, it’s resurrection morning! Give me a universe or two. Bring me some worlds to run! . . . I don’t think so. That doesn’t sound like line upon line or precept upon precept to me. How do you become godly? You do godly things. That’s how you become godly. And you practice and you practice and you practice.[49]

Now is not the time to “procrastinate the day of our salvation.”[50] Now is not the time to idly “dream of our mansions above.”[51] This is not the time to revel in smug complacency about a completed Restoration.[52] The Restoration is still happening.[53] Godhood is still and always will be in a creative and formative process. There is no end to “restoration” in a theology that believes in eternal progression. There is no end to an endless God. The inclusion and creation of queer gods beyond a single paring of fertile, cisgender, heterosexual Gods called “Heavenly Mother” and “Heavenly Father” depends on us when we are both the creator and inheritors of godhood.

In Doctrine and Covenants we are taught that the same sociality that exists here will exist in the next life, only it will be coupled with eternal glory.[54] Our relationships are so important that Joseph Smith declared “friendship” to be “one of the grand fundamental principles of ‘Mormonism.’” He also commented that, “Friendship is like Brother Turley in his blacksmith shop welding iron to iron; it unites the human family with its happy influence.”[55] Smith knew the value of friendship. When he was isolated from friends he said, “Those who have not been enclosed in the walls of prison can have but little idea how sweet the voice of a friend is.”[56] As he was escorted to his death at Carthage, he said, “If my life is of no value to my friends it is of none to myself.”[57] Godhood is not simply about couples being sealed, it’s also about friendship. The friendships, relationships, and sociality of what we have here on earth is only a taste of things to come. What we learn here from Joseph Smith is that the community of gods should be linked together on the bonds of friendship for our enjoyment, happiness, and joy.

Sadly, at present, LGBTQ+ Latter-day Saints are not included fully in the bonds of celestial friendship.[58] Queer Saints are abused, excluded, rejected, isolated, ridiculed, and persecuted. We have been taught implicitly and explicitly to hate ourselves, our bodies, our genders, and our orientations.[59] From reparative therapy to folk doctrines of transfiguring queer bodies into straight bodies, fellow Saints work toward our extinction.[60] At best, we are placated by false platitudes of love by those who know little of our world.[61] At worst, fellow Saints advocate for our celestial genocide.[62] It wasn’t that long ago that Spencer W. Kimball was lamenting the fact the homosexuals could not receive the death penalty.[63] The sociality that exists within the Church does not bring us a fullness of joy and happiness and it is not because LGBTQ+ Saints are unworthy of happiness.

The book of Job shows us that not all suffering is a product of sin. Even God’s most “perfect and upright” children suffer at the hands of other.[64] Even though he suffered greatly, “Job sinned not.”[65] As was the belief of the time, Job’s friends insisted that he must have sinned and brought this suffering upon himself.[66] However, Job rejected this assessment of his suffering and stood firm in his beliefs that unhappiness is not always caused by sin.[67]

Likewise, the suffering of queer Saints is not a product of sinful gender identities, expressions, pronouns, surgeries, or relationships. Queer suffering stems from being greeted with prejudice, fear, misunderstanding, falsehoods, skepticism, violence, and ignorance from what feels like every possible vantage point. If ever there were a group of people in need of a friendship, it is queer Latter-day Saints. The sociality that exists among the Saints today is not glorified and will not be glorified until it includes us as equitable members of the community of gods.

Conclusion

Though the Mormon understanding of Heavenly Mother is carving a path to a more inclusive physicalist theology, she is not the only godly archetype in our repertoire. God certainly includes visions of a fertile, cisgender, heterosexual Heavenly Mother, but God also includes so much more. LGBTQ+ theologians, like myself, argue that deification includes us too. We are all made in the image of God, which includes queer, intersex, trans, and nonbinary bodies.[68] Deification includes diverse marriages, children, relationships, families, and socialities, even if queer sealings are delayed by prejudice set against the fulfillment of joy. We belong, if nowhere else, among the gods.

We are not just children of God. We are children of gods in an endlessly creative, dynamic community of diverse deities reflected in our earthly existence. The sociality here is that of the gods. Under this more robust vision of God, cherished hymns like “I Am a Child of God” could be enhanced by using more inclusive terminology. Surely, I am a child of gods.

I am a child of Gods,
And they have sent me here,
Have given me an earthly home
With parents kind and dear.

I am a child of Gods,
And so my needs are great;
Help me to understand their words
Before it grows too late.

I am a child of Gods.
Rich blessings are in store;
If I but learn to do their will,
I’ll live with them once more.

I am a child of Gods.
Their promises are sure;
Celestial glory shall be mine
If I can but endure.

Lead me, guide me, walk beside me,
Help me find the way.
Teach me all that I must do
To live with them someday.[69]

---

Note: The Dialogue Foundation provides the web format of this article as a courtesy. There may be unintentional differences from the printed version. For citational and bibliographical purposes, please use the printed version or the PDFs provided online and on JSTOR.

^[1] “Mother in Heaven,” Gospel Topics Essays.

^[2] “O My Father,” Hymns, no. 292.

^[3] Edward W. Tullidge, “Marriage,” Millennial Star 19, no. 41 (1857): 656.

^[4] Orson Pratt, “Celestial Marriage,” The Seer 1, Apr. 1853, 59.

^[5] Erastus Snow, Mar. 3, 1878, Journal of Discourses, 19:269–70.

^[6] David L. Paulsen and Martin Pulido, “‘A Mother There’: A Survey of Historical Teachings about Mother in Heaven,” BYU Studies 50, no. 1 (2011): 70–97.

^[7] George Q. Cannon, “Topics of the Times: The Worship of Female Deities,” Juvenile Instructor 30, May 5, 1895, 314–17.

^[8] Gordon B. Hinckley, “Daughters of God,” Oct. 1991.

^[9] Joanna Brooks, Rachel Hunt Steenblik, and Hannah Wheelwright, eds., Mormon Feminism: Essential Writings (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016).

^[10] Valerie Hudson, “Women in the Church—A Conversation with Valerie Hudson,” Faith Matters (podcast), Dec. 29, 2019.

^[11] Carol Lynn Pearson, The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy: Haunting the Hearts and Heaven of Mormon Women and Men (Walnut Creek, Calif.: Pivot Point Books, 2016).

^[12] Blaire Ostler, “Queer Polygamy,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 52, no. 1 (Spring 2019): 33–43.

^[13] I want to make clear that no one should enter a marriage, polygamous or monogamous, if it is not their desire. Asking women who desire monogamy to practice polygamy for all eternity is just as oppressive as asking homosexual people to practice heterosexuality for all eternity. However, if fear of polygamy causes someone to oppress those who are different from them, they have now become the oppressor they so desperately tried to liberate themselves from.

^[14] Taylor Petrey, “Rethinking Mormonism’s Heavenly Mother,” Harvard Theological Review 109, no. 3 (2016): 16.

^[15] Margaret Toscano, “How Bodies Matter: A Response to ‘Rethinking Mormonism’s Heavenly Mother,’” By Common Consent (blog), Aug. 30, 2016.

^[16] Sojourner Truth, “Ain’t I A Woman?,” speech, Women’s Rights Convention, May 29, 1851, Akron, Ohio.

^[17] bell hooks, Ain’t I A Woman: Black Women and Feminism (Boston: South End Press, 1981).

^[18] 2 Nephi 26:33.

^[19] Genesis 3:22; Doctrine and Covenants 132:20.

^[20] Tyler Chadwick, Dayna Patterson, Martin Pulido, eds., Dove Song: Heavenly Mother in Poetry (El Cerrito, Calif.: Peculiar Pages, 2018), 4.

^[21] Dallin H. Oaks, “Apostasy and Restoration,” Apr. 1995.

^[22] Genesis 1:27; Genesis 3:22.

^[23] Moses 7:18.

^[24] General Handbook: Serving in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [July 2021], 38.4.2., “Sealing Children to Parents.”

^[25] “Elder Russell M. Nelson Marries Wendy L. Watson,” Newsroom, Apr. 6, 2006.

^[26] L. Tom Perry, “Why Marriage and Family Matter—Everywhere in the World,” Apr. 2015.

^[27] Doctrine and Covenants 130:2.

^[28] Genesis 1:3–5.

^[29] Genesis 1:5.

^[30] Joseph Smith, “King Follet Sermon,” Apr. 7, 1844, in History of the Church, 6:311. “There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven.”

^[31] John 17:3; Doctrine and Covenants 14:7; Moses 1:4; Moses 1:39.

^[32] Moses 1:3.

^[33] Oaks, “Apostasy and Restoration.”

^[34] Moses 1:33.

^[35] Jeffrey R. Holland, “Elder Holland Arizona April 2016,” YouTube, Apr. 30, 2016.

^[36] Malachi 4:6.

^[37] Doctrine and Covenants 138:47–48; Doctrine and Covenants 110:13–16.

^[38] Andrew C. Skinner, To Become Like God: Witnesses of Our Divine Potential (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2016), 13.

^[39] Doctrine and Covenants 76:24.

^[40] Smith, “King Follet Sermon,” in History of the Church, 6:305. “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret.”

^[41] Hebrews 7:3.

^[42] Smith, “King Follet Sermon.”

^[43] Psalm 82:6; John 10:34–35; Acts 17:29.

^[44] “If You Could Hie to Kolob,” Hymns, no. 284.

^[45] Smith, “King Follet Sermon.”

^[46] Psalm 37:4; Psalm 20:4.

^[47] James 2:20.

^[48] Doctrine and Covenants 58:26–27; 2 Nephi 26:33.

^[49] Holland, “Elder Holland Arizona April 2016.”

^[50] Alma 34:35.

^[51] “Have I Done Any Good?,” Hymns, no. 223.

^[52] Hebrews 6:12.

^[53] Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Are You Sleeping Through the Restoration?,” Apr. 2014.

^[54] Doctrine and Covenants 130:2.

^[55] Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 5:517.

^[56] Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 3:293.

^[57] Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 6:549.

^[58] General Handbook, 38.6.15, 38.6.16, 38.6.23.

^[59] Andrew E. Evans, “Rise and shout, the Cougars are out,” Outsports, June 8, 2017.

^[60] Blaire Ostler, Queer Mormon Theology: An Introduction (Newburgh, Ind.: By Common Consent Press, 2021).

^[61]. Blaire Ostler, “More Than a Statistic,” Queer Mormon Transhumanist (blog), Sept. 10, 2018.

^[62]. Blaire Ostler, “Celestial Genocide,” Queer Mormon Transhumanist (blog), Sept. 19, 2019.

^[63] Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1969), 79.

^[64] Job 1:1.

^[65] Job 1:22.

^[66] Job 36:1–12.

^[67] Job 31.

^[68] 2 Nephi 26:33.

^[69] Revised version of “I Am a Child of God,” Hymns, no. 301.

2022: Blaire Ostler, “I Am a Child of Gods” Dialogue 55.1 (Spring 2022): 99–119.

The doctrine of Heavenly Mother is cherished among Latter-day Saints. She is birthed from necessity in a physicalist theology. Though she has feminist roots, her theology in Mormonism is laced with latent gender essentialist and complementarian theories. Both have been used in modern Mormonism to exclude the LGBTQ+ community from Mormonism. The assertion that God is composed of one fertile, cisgender, heterosexual couple, namely Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Father, is a narrow interpretation of the broadness of Mormon theology. Though gender essentialist interpretations of Heavenly Mother are queer-exclusionary, her presence in Mormon theology opens the door to a robust polytheism that includes an entire community of gods, diverse in gender, race, ability, and desires. In this paper, I argue that if we are all made in the image of God, God is significantly larger than a fertile, cisgender, heterosexual female and male coupling. Through deification, we all have the potential to become gods. In Mormonism, our theology cannot be fully understood unless it is developed within the bounds of the concrete, material, physical, and practical experiences of our human experience. Theosis, or the process of becoming gods, implies a polytheism filled with generational gods as diverse as all humanity.

[post_title] => I Am a Child of Gods [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 55.1 (Spring 2022): 99–118
Mormon feminists should consider how to better include intersex, nonbinary, and trans women in their ambitions. Queerness is more than homosexuality. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => i-am-a-child-of-gods [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-05-31 23:58:18 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-05-31 23:58:18 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=29136 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 28750 [post_author] => 2980 [post_date] => 2021-12-10 21:04:28 [post_date_gmt] => 2021-12-10 21:04:28 [post_content] =>

Though there is a well-established conversation on how reproductive technologies and policies influence cisgender, heterosexual women’s bodies within Mormonism, there is a less established conversation on how reproductive technologies and policies are affecting LGBTQ+ Saints.^[1] Granted, the majority of the Church’s attention has focused on non-queer women’s reproductivity and not on the LGBTQ+ community. However, within the last handful of decades the Church has expanded its attention to include specific policies directed at the LGBTQ+ Latter-day Saint community.^[2]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints explicitly states its position in the General Handbook concerning how and when reproductive technologies are to be used. The morality of a technology is less a matter of the technology itself, but rather of matter of who is using it. Policies outlined in the handbook are directing reproductive technologies toward the creation of a fertile, cisgender, heterosexual, sex binary under the guise of God’s laws.^[3] In this brief article, I discuss the Church’s current policies on reproductive technologies as outlined in the handbook and how they affect specifically the LGBTQ+ community.

Reproductive technology is already changing the landscape of gender and reproduction. For instance, such technology allows two cisgender women and one cisgender man to be the biological parents of their child who has the DNA of three biological parents.^[4] Uterine transplants allow baren bodies the ability to gestate their offspring.^[5] This is not science fiction. This is already happening. If these trends continue, technology could eventually enable trans women the ability to birth and nurse their own children.^[6] In time, two cisgender women could produce their own offspring without the need of a sperm donor, and children could have shared DNA with both their gay, cisgender fathers.^[7] Advancements in reproductive and medical technologies are not just changing the aesthetics and sociology of gender but also the biological utility and function of sex.

Biological sex classification is predicated on assumed reproductive function. According to Aristotelian essentialism, which is the basis of most gender essentialist claims, function is key to essentialism. As Aristotle explains in his biopsychology, an eye is only an eye if it fulfills the measure of its creation, to provide vision. If an eye cannot see, it is an eye in name only. In Aristotle’s words, “The eye itself is the matter for vision; and if [vision] departs, there is no eye any longer, except equivocally, as in the case of an eye in a statue or a painting.”^[8] According to essentialism, an eye must have the ability to see to be considered an eye in actuality. If not, it is only an eye in potentiality. However, if a blind eye has its vision restored, it is again an eye in actuality. To be considered an “actual eye” is a matter of function and utility in Aristotle’s essentialist philosophy.

When function is at the center of gender, reproduction takes on a special role. Under gender essentialist philosophy, biological sex is a matter of reproductive utility, at least in potentiality. A woman must have the potential ability to reproduce to be considered a woman. A strict gender essentialist might even claim that she would have to actually reproduce to be a “actual woman.” Her biological assignment is predicated on her reproductive ability, and an infertile woman is not an “actual woman” but only a woman in potential. If she cannot reproduce, an infertile woman is a woman in name only, like a statue or painting. She may look, talk, and sound like a woman, but if she doesn’t serve the biological utility of a woman, she is not an “actual woman.” Likewise, an infertile man or even childless man is not a man in function. To be a biologically “functioning” man or woman would require fertility and the fulfillment of that utility. In the stricter interpretation, a man would have to reproduce in actuality to be considered an “actual man.” If not, he only has the potential to be a man, essentially speaking.

Reproductive gender essentialism claims exclude trans persons for their gender identity. However, these same arguments, when taken seriously, also exclude infertile and intersex women too. Such a strict definition of “man” or “woman” does not simply exclude trans folks but also any body not fulfilling its biological utility. After all, biological potential and utility is the basis of a biological sex assignment.

There are many parallels with Aristotle’s essentialism, gender essentialism, and Mormon theology. In Mormon theology, doctrine, and policy, reproduction is of supreme importance.^[9] Brigham Young warned the Saints about “attempts to destroy and dry up the fountains of life.”^[10] He also stated, “There are multitudes of pure and holy spirits waiting to take tabernacles, now what is our duty?—to prepare tabernacles for them.” He continues, “It is the duty of every righteous man and woman to prepare tabernacles for all the spirits they can.”^[11] Brigham Young’s encouragement for Latter-day Saints to reproduce is echoed in temple ritual, covenants, culture, scripture, and yes, the General Handbook. We are commanded to multiply and replenish the earth.^[12] Providing bodies for spirits is a critical part of Mormon theology and doctrine.

Infertile bodies then pose quite a problem in Mormon theology. They must be “fixed” or at least have the potential to be “fixed,” in the next life or with current reproductive technology, as a matter of both utility and redemption. If God commanded us to multiply and replenish, God must provide a way for all bodies to achieve the measure of their creation. According to scripture, God gives us no commandment unless there is a way prepared for us to accomplish said commandment.^[13] In Mormonism, everyone must have the potential to reproduce—even infertile bodies. If one of our earthly purposes is to birth and rear children, technology can and has assisted many faithful Latter-day Saints in that endeavor. As explained in the handbook, “When needed, reproductive technology can assist a married woman and man in their righteous desire to have children.”^[14] Technology is among the means Latter-day Saints use to fulfill the measure of their creation.

In a certain regard, infertile bodies have a shared “queerness” with the LGBTQ+ community.^[15] Both infertile and queer bodies are not performing according to their sex assignment and biological function, which in the Mormon imagination includes reproduction. Infertile bodies are queer bodies, both biologically and theologically. Many queer persons and bodies are not reproductive whether because they are single or in a nonreproductive relationship. If the purpose of a biological sex assignment is to reproduce via copulation, anything outside that narrow definition and gender essentialist view is somewhat “queer.”

Yet, despite infertile and LGBTQ+ Saints having a shared “queerness,” LGBTQ+ Saints carry the brunt of the queer prejudice. Many LGBTQ+ Saints that are not in cisgender, heterosexual relationships are excluded from reproductive technologies that would enable us to have families, while infertile, cisgender, heterosexual Latter-day Saints are not. Is the technology being used to reinforce cisgender, heterosexual, patriarchal gender assignments or reject or subvert said gender assignments? Prejudice against LGBTQ+ Saints creating celestial families of our own is codified in the handbook by prohibiting not just some kinds of relationships but also who can use specific reproductive technologies.

Though the handbook has made space for technological modifications for cis-male and cis-female bodies and couples, the Church has simultaneously demonstrated repeated resistance to technological modifications of many LGBTQ+ bodies and couples that don’t include cis-male and cis-female couples. As stated in the handbook, “The pattern of a husband and wife providing bodies for God’s spirit children is divinely appointed.”^[16] In other words, vaginal-penile penetration is God’s way to bring children into the world, and methods outside this “divine appointment” require patriarchal policing and approval. The collision of biology and technology is pushing against a fragile system which requires constant, meticulous, vigilant, and legalistic policymaking at the highest levels of authority in the Church, even from the First Presidency.^[17]

Various reproductive technologies that would benefit queer reproduction are discussed in the handbook. Under the heading “Policies on Moral Issues,” there is a list of “discouragements” that include surrogacy, sperm/egg donation, artificial insemination, and in vitro fertilization.^[18] Though these practices are discouraged, they are not entirely forbidden. These specific reproductive technologies are available to some but not all. For example, a cisgender, heterosexual man might require artificial insemination to impregnate his cisgender, heterosexual wife. Under the current handbook, this is permissible. As stated, “When needed, reproductive technology can assist a married woman and man in their righteous desire to have children. This technology includes artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization.”^[19] Furthermore, their children are “born in the covenant” if the parents are already sealed.^[20]

However, the handbook does not simply open the door for artificial insemination, sperm/egg donation, surrogacy, and in vitro fertilization as sanctioned technologies for everyone. Sperm/egg donation and surrogacy are means frequently used by the LGBTQ+ community and therefore require more policing than artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization between a monogamous, cisgender, heterosexual couple. For example, a child born via surrogacy is not born in the covenant.^[21] This child requires a separate sealing with First Presidency approval.^[22] This ensures the First Presidency can exclude children parented by same-sex couples.^[23]

The handbook explicitly states, multiple times, that these technologies are for a cisgender “husband and wife”: “The Church discourages artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization using sperm from anyone but the husband or an egg from anyone but the wife.” This clarification reinforces a cis-male and cis-female application, which is especially potent when combined with other policies and prohibitions on LGBTQ+ participation in the Church and temple.^[24] Thus, these reproductive technologies can be used as a corrective measure for infertile cis-male and cis-female married Saints but not used to assist LGBTQ+ Saints in creating celestial families. Quite explicitly, the handbook’s current policies demonstrate that celestial families can be created via technology but only if you are cisgender, in a mixed-sex relationship and/or intersex.

There are many examples of the Church allowing technological transformations for cisgender persons, while disallowing the procedures for trans persons. A cisgender woman is allowed breast augmentation or even labiaplasty, but trans women are threatened and/or excommunicated for similar or even less invasive technological body modifications.^[25] Likewise, some trans folks are threatened with ecclesiastical discipline for a mastectomy, while cancer patients are not taught to counsel with their bishop before undergoing a mastectomy.^[26] The handbook makes no mention of a cisgender woman who requires hormone therapy for menopause but has an entire section dedicated to policing how trans bodies can use hormone therapy.^[27] This fragile system of correcting, policing, and erasing queerness is shaken by the collision of technology, biology, and theology.

Intersex bodies specifically pose a threat to an imagined biological sex binary because intersex bodies are literally born non-binary.^[28] According to the cisgender, heterosexual, fertile, patriarchal mandate, intersex bodies and infertile bodies must be “corrected” to fit the imagined biological sex binary of how a man or woman is supposed to function. The gender binary is not just socially constructed, it must be technologically and surgically constructed, medicated, corrected, performed, and strictly enforced. Intersex persons are often erased or ignored in Mormon discourse, or when we are addressed, intersex conditions are treated like a disability.^[29] Queerness, in this case, is considered a “challenge of the flesh” that requires technological treatment.^[30] From intersex bodies to conversion therapy to in vitro fertilization, the Church has a well-established history of using technology to eradicate queerness as if it is a disability.

Keep in mind that a disability is considered a “disability” precisely because a presumed function is not being fulfilled. If the Church assumes that the purpose of a cisgender woman is to bear children and she cannot, she is, according to essentialism, broken and in need of repair. Folk doctrines suggest that if she cannot be fixed now with technological means, her “condition” can be “fixed” in the afterlife. Infertile cisgender women should certainly be encouraged to use technological transformations to bear children according to their desires, but we should not assume that the purpose of all cisgender women is to bear and nurse children.^[31] The problem is not the desire to be fertile, regardless of whether the women is transgender or cisgender, the problem is proscribing how her gender should function and perform. One woman may see her infertility as a “disability,” while another woman may welcome infertility as a convenient form of birth control. The “disability” should only be considered as disability if it hinders the fulfilment of her desires not because her disability is a product of an imposed proscription telling her how to perform her gender.

To make matters more intense for the Church, technology is not going anywhere. Technological developments are not slowing down. From uterine transplants to artificial embryo selection, reproductive technologies are only the beginning. CRISPR is being used to edit genes and will change our species irreversibly in ways we are not even imagining.^[32] Cisgender, vaginal-penile penetration could eventually be considered a reckless form of reproduction when technology allows us to alter a child’s genes even before gestation. Yesterday’s science fiction is tomorrow’s reality. Technology is radically and rapidly changing our world. The First Presidency, through the handbook that they approve of, have been trying to channel a small portion of that technology into the creation of an artificial cisgender, heterosexual, sex binary under the guise of God’s law, but their method of excluding queerness from Mormonism is slowly breaking down with the rise of queer Latter-day Saint visibility, activism, theology, and sympathy.^[33]

To be clear, the legitimization of queer bodies, relationships, and families is not simply a matter of embracing technological advancements. Theology, doctrine, and policy are in a symbiotic relationship with one another. Doctrine feeds our theology, and theology feeds policy. The exclusion of LGBTQ+ Saints is more than simply denying us equal access to reproductive technology within our Mormon community. Excluding LGBTQ+ Saints on the grounds that we cannot reproduce is weakened when technology has clearly allowed both straight and queer couples the ability to reproduce and raise families. Prejudice toward LGBTQ+ Saints did not start with policies in the handbook. Exclusionary policies are reflections of our existing prejudices. The legitimization of queer bodies, relationships, and families within the Church will not happen until we can imagine a more inclusive theology by interpreting our doctrine more compassionately. Technology can hinder or aid us in that endeavor, but the decision ultimately lies within our willingness to include queer Latter-day Saints as worthy members of celestial glory, including glorified bodies.^[34]

I suspect that when technology becomes powerful enough to give “men” the reproductive function of “women” and “women” the reproductive function of “men,” not just in social performance or aesthetics but in reproductive function and biological utility, we will see an unprecedented cracking of our taxonomies that the Church is woefully underprepared for. Keeping queerness out of churches, temples, and celestial eternities with the handbook is not a sustainable model. When Church policies, rituals, privileges, theologies, orthopraxis, and even classrooms are segregated according to the false premise of a biological sex binary, the rumbling of queer bodies could shake the very foundation of the Church.

---

Note: The Dialogue Foundation provides the web format of this article as a courtesy. There may be unintentional differences from the printed version. For citational and bibliographical purposes, please use the printed version or the PDFs provided online and on JSTOR.

^[1] Melissa Proctor, “Bodies, Babies, and Birth Control,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 36, no. 3 (Fall 2003): 159–75.

^[2] Tad Walch, “Church Releases Updates to Handbook for Latter-day Saint Leaders Worldwide,” Deseret News, July 31, 2020.

^[3] “38.6.9, Fertility Treatments,” and “2.1.3, Parents and Children,” General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2020).

^[4] Ian Sample, “Three-Parent Babies Explained: What Are the Concerns and Are They Justified?,” Guardian, Feb. 2, 2015.

^[5] Bill Chappell, “A First: Uterus Transplant Gives Parents a Healthy Baby,” NPR International, Oct. 4, 2014.

^[6] B. P. Jones et al., “Uterine Transplantation in Transgender Women,” BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 126, no. 2 (2019): 152–56, https://doi.org/10.1111/1471–0528.15438.

^[7] Guy Ringler, “Get Ready for Embryos from Two Men or Two Women,” Time, Mar. 18, 2015.

^[8] Hippocrates George Apostle, Aristotle’s On the Soul (De Anima) (Grinnell, Iowa: Peripatetic Press, 1981), 20.

^[9] Genesis 1:28; Genesis 9:1; Genesis 35:11; and The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “The Family: A Proclamation to the World [Sept. 1995],” Ensign, Nov. 1985: “We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.”

^[10] Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 12:120–21.

^[11] Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 4:56.

^[12] Genesis 1:28 KJV.

^[13] 1 Nephi 3:7.

^[14] 38.6.9 “Fertility Treatments,” General Handbook.

^[15] For the purposes of this article, I will expand the definition of “queer” or “queerness” to include infertile bodies. Though “queer” has been used to refence the LGBTQIA+ community, I will use “queer” and “queerness” to denote all deviations from a binary, cisgender, heterosexual, fertile body. In the context of Mormon theology, infertility is its own sort of queerness when it deviates from the general pre-proscribed function of biological sex, which is to reproduce. If a man or woman cannot reproduce, their biological functioned is “queer.”

^[16] “38.6.22, Surrogate Motherhood,” General Handbook.

^[17] “38.6.22, Surrogate Motherhood,” General Handbook.

^[18] “38.6.7, Donating or Selling Sperm or Eggs,” and “38.6.9, Fertility Treatments,” General Handbook.

^[19] “38.6.9, Fertility Treatments,” General Handbook.

^[20] “38.4.2.7, Children Conceived by Artificial Insemination or In Vitro Fertilization,” General Handbook.

^[21] Surrogacy is a complicated issue when it comes to women’s bodies, especially impoverished women of color. Though surrogacy is a technology to help people, including gay parents, bring children into the world, it is also ethically complicated due to economic stratification that exploits women of color. There are significant ethical dilemmas to address beyond the scope of this paper.

^[22] “38.6.22, Surrogate Motherhood,” General Handbook.

^[23] “38.6.15, Same-Sex Attraction and Same-Sex Behavior” and “38.6.16, Same-Sex Marriage,” General Handbook.

^[24] “38.6.9, Fertility Treatments,” General Handbook.

^[25] Peggy Fletcher Stack, “After Leading LDS Congregations and Designing Mormon Temples, This Utah Dad is Building a New Life—as a Woman,” Salt Lake Tribune, July 21, 2017.

^[26] Courtney Tanner, “A Transgender BYU Student Could Be Expelled and Face Discipline in the Mormon Church for Having Breast-Removal Surgery,” Salt Lake Tribune, Aug. 16, 2018.

^[27] “38.6.22, Surrogate Motherhood,” General Handbook.

^[28] Elizabeth Reis, Bodies in Doubt (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009).

^[29] “Interview with Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman: ‘Same-Gender Attraction,’” Mormon Newsroom, 2006.

^[30] David A. Bednar, “There Are No Homosexual Members of the Church [Feb. 23, 2016],” uploaded on Feb. 29, 206, YouTube video, 11:37; Gregory Prince, Gay Rights and the Mormon Church (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2019), 89–101, 112, 115; Taylor Petrey, Tabernacles of Clay: Sexuality and Gender in Modern Mormonism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2020), 97, 155–61, 184–85.

^[31] Blaire Ostler, “Heavenly Mother: The Mother of All Women,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 51 no. 4 (2018): 171–81.

^[32] Heidi Ledford, “CRISPR: Gene Editing Is Just the Beginning,” Nature: International Weekly Journal of Science, Mar. 7, 2016.

^[33] I should clarify it is not exclusively the First Presidency that are creating an artificial cisgender, heterosexual sex binary with technology. There are many other queer antagonists that are doing similar if not identical things. Though I am putting my own community under the microscope, I understand this is not exclusively a Latter-day Saint issue.

^[34] Doctrine and Covenants 76:69–70.

[post_title] => Queer Bodies, Queer Technologies, and Queer Policies [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 54.4 (Winter 2021): 99–109
Reproductive gender essentialism claims exclude trans persons for their gender identity. However, these same arguments, when taken seriously, also exclude infertile and intersex women too. Such a strict definition of “man” or “woman” does not simply exclude trans folks but also any body not fulfilling its biological utility. After all, biological potential and utility is the basis of a biological sex assignment [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => queer-bodies-queer-technologies-and-queer-policies [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-07-19 12:55:12 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-07-19 12:55:12 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=28750 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 28751 [post_author] => 1865 [post_date] => 2021-12-10 21:06:08 [post_date_gmt] => 2021-12-10 21:06:08 [post_content] =>

Ten years ago, my article “Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology” was published in Dialogue.^[1] I did not know what to expect when it made its way into the world, but it ended up being a widely discussed piece and has been accessed tens of thousands of times.^[2] The public discussion about my ideas was both critical and appreciative. In the wake of the article, my own research and thinking have also developed. When I first approached this topic, I expected that my interest would be limited to a single contribution. However, in the ensuing decade I now count several articles, a book, and a substantial edited volume on Mormonism, sexuality, gender in my research portfolio. My fascination with this question has endured.

Other things are also different now than they were at the time I wrote the original article. Same-sex marriage is legal everywhere in the United States. The Church has engaged in multiple public campaigns related to LGBTQ issues, including pastoral outreach, updated policies, and a reframed political project on “religious freedom.” In the ensuring years, several other thinkers have approached this question of same-sex relationships and gender identity with theological and historical sophistication. Here, I want to discuss in retrospect the origins of “Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology,” the reception of the article, and the trajectory that my own work has taken. Despite all of these developments, the place of same-sex relationships in LDS thought and practice remains vexed.

Origins and Main Ideas

I was just preparing to go on a mission when Gordon B. Hinckley presented “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” a guiding document on LDS teachings on marriage and public policy released just as the same-sex marriage issue had arisen the United States. After I returned from my mission and to my university education in New York City, I became increasingly interested in feminist theory and the new approaches to sexuality and identity in the 1990s. While I was an undergraduate student, the Church had gotten involved in propositions to prohibit same-sex marriage in Hawaii, California, and Alaska. But being in New York City, it all seemed rather far away and I hadn’t really worked out how I wanted to approach this social question.

Heading to graduate school for a master’s degree in New Testament and Early Christianity in 2001, I was consumed with learning the languages and the history of scholarship in that field. When I was admitted into the doctoral program in that field, I began to take more coursework in gender and sexuality. My advisor, Karen L. King, was a leader in thinking about gender in early Christianity, and feminist icons like Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza loomed large in my program and in my own thinking. When Amy Hollywood arrived at Harvard, it opened up to me a whole new set of theories and approaches to identity, bodies, and desire. As I started writing my dissertation on how early Christians imagined sexuality and desire in the resurrection body, I turned to feminist theory, especially that of Judith Butler, to help me articulate the issues at stake in these debates.

Meanwhile, Latter-day Saints were engaged in a substantive and contentious exchange about same-sex relationships in the first decade of the 2000s. I closely followed the topic in Mormon blogging, which had attracted a number of rising intellectuals in their twenties and thirties. Of course, the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in 2004, accelerating the issue in the United States. But the Church had done quite little to mobilize in Massachusetts. That helped to defer the question for me. However, when the Church formally announced that it would organize to oppose Prop 8 in California in 2008, I found myself deeply torn. By coincidence, I was scheduled to preach at Harvard Divinity School in an LDS-run service at the start of the new term in January 2009, after the election. Early protests had occurred against Latter-day Saints around the country, and I was feeling some dread about how to navigate the issue with my colleagues. I spoke from the heart about my conflicted feelings. The publications director for the Harvard Divinity Bulletin was there and asked to publish my remarks, titled “An Uncomfortable Mormon.”^[3]

My discomfort increasingly turned to a set of theoretical problems. I recall two pieces that had an impact on me in the year after the 2008 election. The first was by Valerie Hudson Cassler, at the time a well-respected political science professor at Brigham Young University, titled “‘Some Things That Should Not Have Been Forgotten Were Lost’: The Pro-Feminist, Pro-Democracy, Pro-Peace Case for State Privileging of Companionate Heterosexual Monogamous Marriage.”^[4] This was at the time hailed as the most significant, substantive LDS argument opposing same-sex marriage on putatively feminist grounds.^[5] I remember having a strong reaction to this piece and feeling deeply concerned about the oppositional framework between feminism and LGBTQ rights.

The second piece was Judith Butler’s short book Antigone’s Claim: Kinship Between Life and Death.^[6] Based on a series of lectures she had given, Butler addressed the question of kinship in queer contexts. I distinctly remember this book hitting me like a lightning bolt, and I rushed to grab a piece of paper to sketch out the outline for an article that would see same-sex marriage as claim about kinship, suddenly an obvious argument that I had not yet understood in my focus on gender and sexuality. For me, this realization was a potent reframing of same-sex marriage that had been analyzed as a legal or sociological issue, or even a question about sexual ethics. Kinship, for me, unlocked a whole new framework for a new theological imaginary.

The sketch for the article that I put together was extremely compressed. It was just the stub of what would eventually become “Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology,” but I contacted Kristine Haglund, then editor at Dialogue, to see if she thought it had any merit. She kindly sent it out for review, which came back confirming that it was underdeveloped. I’d written it rather half-heartedly, hoping someone else would flesh out my own idea to more productive ends. My reluctance to complete my thought was in part because I was getting ready to graduate from my doctoral program and in search of a job in biblical studies—an extreme rarity for Latter-day Saints. I didn’t want to start establishing a Mormon studies publication record at that stage in my career. In any case, the reviewers and Haglund asked me to fill in the outline. Going on the job market, the birth of my second child, a move to start a new job, and other events delayed the revisions for about a year. The delay allowed me to do more reading, benefiting especially from new research on early Mormon kinship that further confirmed for me that this was a necessary starting point for a theological redescription.^[7]

I recall feeling that I was breaking some new ground, though I was building on decades of previous work. While I think “Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology” marks a distinctive theoretical turn, scholars and activists had been organizing, writing, blogging, and speaking about these issues for years. D. Michael Quinn and Connell O’Donovan had approached the issue from a historical perspective, chronicling episodes and changes to LDS teachings.^[8] Other scholars were looking at the question of sexual ethics.^[9] The causes or etiology of homosexuality often took special prominence.^[10] Others had attempted to carve out some ecclesiastical space for affirming same-sex relationships.^[11] Many of these texts and others focused on pastoral concerns about damage to LGBTQ members.^[12] Some of the analysis focused on the reputational damage to straight Latter-day Saints by holding on to anti-homosexuality teachings.^[13] Others provided an analysis of the legal and social scientific debates.^[14]

All of these made major contributions, but I still felt that the ground of the analysis needed to shift. Much of the discussion focused on homosexuality as a set of desires or analyzed the morality of certain sexual acts. I came to believe that the act/desires distinction was not especially useful. The framing of the question as a debate about desires and acts seems to concede the very terms that had been developed in anti-homosexuality culture—seeing “homosexuality” as primarily about “sexuality.” By contrast, male-female relationships occupied a larger conceptual footprint that had built into itself institutional acknowledgment of relationships that were fuller than their sexual dimension. In other words, I wanted to consider relationships and kinship as the potential theological desideratum and saving principle in a post-heterosexual theology, not the kind of sex that people were having.

Second, it seemed to me that there were deep, structural issues in Mormon theology as it had developed that made it difficult to accommodate same-sex relationships. Answering the “clobber texts” or other apologetic or historical engagements seemed wholly insufficient because they did not address the deep ways that heterosexual supremacy had been braided into the Mormon cosmos. The question of sexual morality, or the etiology of homosexuality, or respectability did not address head on the presumed heterosexual reproductivity of the Mormon heavens. Legal or social scientific analysis of the effects of same-sex marriage did little to address the theological questions about reproduction. I wanted to question the received wisdom that reproduction and Mormonism were inseparably intertwined by examining the theological foundations of the idea as it had emerged in recent decades. The first part of my article then interrogated “celestial reproduction” as a supposedly essential feature of Mormon theology. I argued that the evidence for it was quite weak, that there were alternative modes of reproduction not rooted in heterosexuality in the tradition, and that adoption was a well-established theological and social practice in Mormonism that replaced biological kinship.

The next major idea of the paper was a brief history of LDS teachings on kinship and the sealing ordinance. Both historically and today, sealing was not rooted in reproduction but was instead a way of ritually marking kinship as opposed to the biological, nuclear family. Here too I attempted to displace “sexuality” as the defining feature of sealing and instead pointed to care, commitment, and covenant as a potential route for including non-heterosexual relationships. I further suggested that centering heterosexuality in LDS kinship practices was bound to conflict with a wide variety of global and historical kinship practices. Kinship rather than sexuality would accommodate a wider array of historical and contemporary relationships.

Finally, it seemed to me that some critical analysis of LDS ideas of “eternal gender” was a necessary part of this question, for the ways that it was used against both same-sex relationships and transgender identity. I came to see the link between sex and gender, and sexuality and gender identity, as an inevitable part of a post-heterosexual theology. LDS concepts of heterosexuality were intimately rooted in theories of sexual difference. They not only affirmed the existence of two separate sex/genders but also were based on complementarian notions of their interdependence. Such views upheld male-female relationships as superior to others because they were somehow more balanced or complete. I wanted to examine how Latter-day Saints defined “eternal gender” by contrasting it with the dominant view that had emerged in contemporary feminist and queer theory that the sex/gender distinction and the concept of gender itself was historically contingent, not an expression of a timeless ideal. This problem of decontextualizing sexual difference as an immutable feature needed greater theological reflection. Gender essentialism did not hold much philosophical credibility, at least not in ways that matched with Mormon theologizing. Further, I wanted to question whether the privileging of gender as a distinctive feature of human identity was necessary for a post-heterosexual theology.

My arguments were a thought experiment to lay out problems that needed to be solved no matter the answers, and to propose possible solutions to those problems. I wanted to be clear that I was not advocating that my solutions were correct, nor that church leaders or members should follow my arguments. Rather, I wanted to raise critical questions about the best arguments that stood in the way of affirming same-sex sealing and explore their strengths and weaknesses.

Reception

The finished article appeared in December 2011 on the dialoguejournal.com website. I wasn’t sure that anyone would read it. The article made perfect sense to me as a someone who had been working closely in poststructuralist thought, psychoanalysis, and feminist and queer theory. Yet I knew that the arguments were a still somewhat dense for most casual readers. The editors at Dialogue gently nudged me to tone down some of the jargon, but it meant something to me to say what I wanted to say in the idiom in which I had been immersed. Their advice was probably right, but I am pleased that the barrier to entry into the article was not so high that no one could make heads or tails of it. The misunderstandings that have emerged in the reception of the article seem to be more strategic misrepresentation than my miscommunication, though there are things that I might say differently now.

My recollection is that there was still some anxiety on my part and the part of Dialogue about the article going live. Kristine Haglund was not only editing Dialogue but also blogging at ByCommonConsent.com and worked out the idea to announce it there. The entry received the innocuous title “Guest Post From Dialogue” and went live on December 9, 2011. In the entry, I wrote a brief introduction explaining that the significance of my article was to offer a model for future LDS theology, to connect mainstream Mormon theology with feminist theology, and finally, to “suggest that we think less about the types of sex that people are having and more about the types of relationships that people are building.”^[15] Between the blog title and my tepid post, we all seemed to be burying the lede. Still, the post received nearly two hundred (mostly) substantive comments and was the early place for generating attention about the article.

Over the following days, weeks, and months, there were a number of blog posts responding to me. The article received mentions Slate, the Daily Beast, and the New York Times. Facebook was another hub for conversation as the article was being shared and praised widely. Kaimi Wegner wrote, “Holy cow. Have you seen Taylor Petrey’s new article? It is a must-read.” Richard Livingston wrote on a listserve:

It seems to me that the single most impressive aspect of Taylor’s article isn’t so much the many insightful possibilities that it suggests—which it does very admirably—but rather the questions it raises, or perhaps better, the way in which it raises those questions. . . . Sometimes just clarifying the significance of a single question can be every bit as illuminating as the discovery of a potential solution to some long-standing dilemma, and yet Taylor illuminates the true depth and breadth and scope of multiple questions in this essay. Thus, he isn’t just asking the right question, but he’s asking multiple thought-provoking questions in all the right ways.

I was deeply appreciative of the positive feedback from many LDS readers.

I learned over the next few years that the article was not only being read in Latter-day Saint contexts but was being assigned in courses throughout North America on theology, sex, and religion. One of my former advisors at Harvard mentioned that she assigned it in her undergraduate classes and that “it was the first article I read all the way through in years.” Since then I have received possibly hundreds of expressions of gratitude from friends, family, and total strangers for voicing their own concerns, giving them new frameworks and questions, and for creating space for further conversation.

Not all of the feedback was positive. Several people challenged my ideas, some with greater sophistication than others. I want to point out three responses that I think were particularly important because of their substantive merit or influence on later events. The first came out of the small, but capable Mormon theological community that had been growing for much of the first decade of the 2000s. Joseph Spencer, then a graduate student, had a related expertise to many of the poststructuralist theories that informed my own work. He wrote a letter to the editor to Dialogue, first posted on the website and then in the next issue of the journal, responding to “Taylor Petrey’s carefully executed, unmistakably informed, rightly concerned, and entirely productive essay.” Yet Spencer criticized me for not doing “any actual work on constructing a Mormon queer theory in this essay.”^[16] That is, Spencer suggested that my project went too far in abandoning the Mormon elements of a theology by questioning whether “eternal gender” was an essential church teaching. Spencer then took a different tack on this issue, briefly laying out a view of gender essentialism that is both critical and coherent. I remain unpersuaded that a reformed theory of gender essentialism is either a necessary starting point for a Mormon theology, or that it would not also be just as revisionist as my own. Still, Spencer’s idea holds promise about how a coherent version of essentialism might be brought into conversation with LDS thought.

The second piece of feedback arrived in the form of an organized protest. Far-right activist Stephen Graham, founder of the Standard of Liberty, an anti-gay group, planned a protest against me during a conference at which I was slated to speak at Brigham Young University. The conference was on the theme of “The Apostasy,” the proceedings of which were later published in an edited volume with Oxford University Press titled Standing Apart. At the 2012 conference, I was invited to deliver a paper on the concept of the Apostasy in early Christianity.^[17] The day before the event, Graham sent an email about me to a list of at least one organization he runs, called UtahsRepublic.org, which advocates for radical changes to public education.

Graham was a known provocateur on same-sex relationships when I came on his radar. His Standard of Liberty organization protested BYU events on homosexuality multiple times. He objected to the BYU Honor Code change in 2007 and warned that BYU professors were teaching “homosexualism” as well as “socialism” and “anti-Americanism.”^[18] His email about me suggested that I was “an apostate” who had “written in opposition of male-female marriage and gender as an eternal characteristic” and “called for homosexual sealings in LDS temples.” Graham then instructed individuals to call BYU president Cecil Samuelson on this “urgent” issue and included a copy of the email that he and his wife Janice Graham had sent to Samuelson seeking to de-platform me. Their letter warned:

We represent an organization of like-minded people with a subscription list of nearly 8000. Petrey must not be allowed to speak, as he stands in active opposition to Church doctrine, and as such is apostate, the very topic he is to speak on.

Please respond and let us know how you intend to address this matter.

We will be sending out an email newsletter addressing this issue, and we would like to say that BYU did the right thing when it was brought to their attention that a speaker at one of their conferences was in direct opposition to the Church and its doctrines.^[19]

I learned of this specific content of the email later on, but I learned of its effects immediately as the conference was getting started. I arrived in Provo the night before the conference and heard that multiple complaints had been made against my presence at BYU that day. I was distraught at the accusation, frustrated by the misrepresentation of my argument, and bothered by their labeling me as something that I was not.

BYU was scrambling to respond to this protest that had be foisted on them at the last minute. On the day of the conference, the dean of humanities, who had been tasked by President Samuelson to address the matter, scheduled a meeting with me to assess whether I would be a problem for them. The dean expressed concerns about the content of “Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology” and wanted to be reassured that nothing that I said that day in my talk would cover those topics, among other things. I also learned that undercover officers would be stationed in the audience for my protection in case the protest led to a disruption of the event. I delivered my talk and afterward was approached by Stephen Graham and another man, who I was not able to identify. They grilled me on my views on homosexuality and gave me their perspective that homosexuality was something that someone could change with help. Later that year, Graham would protest other speakers and events at BYU on homosexuality.^[20]

The final early response that I mention came in the form of an essay by Valerie Hudson Cassler. As noted above, she entered into debates about same-sex marriage by making a conservative feminist argument against the practice. Since that time, she continued to lay out her views in a series of popular presentations and essays.^[21] I had drawn on some of her scholarship and responded to some of it in “Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology.” But I was stunned by her post in the online blog/journal that she ran called SquareTwo.org. The Summer 2012 issue (published in September 2012) included a piece titled “Plato’s Son, Augustine’s Heir: ‘A Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology’?”^[22] While she called my article “thoughtful and thought-provoking,” her argument was that (male) same-sex relationships were misogynistic and that I was engaged in “occult misogyny.” I was and remain hurt by the personal attacks.

Here is the logic of the argument. Celestial reproduction is an essential doctrine that cannot be changed because it is the thing that makes women necessary partners in the plan of salvation. If women do not reproduce then they have no value. Since one option that I put forward—in a variety of post-heterosexual options—does not rely on women’s eternal reproductive role, then I have made women themselves obsolete. “Women are no longer necessary for the work of the gods in the eternities, or for there to be brought forth spirit children: indeed, there need not be a Heavenly Mother, or, for that matter, earthly mothers,” she wrote.^[23]

Her criticism was based on a selective misreading. In my article, I laid out theological and scriptural precedents for male-female, male-male, and female-female creative relationships that included both reproduction and nonreproductive generation. I called into question the theological necessity of heterosexuality and heterosexual reproduction based on the existence of male-male creative relationships already in LDS theology. I did not question the necessary existence of women whose existence and importance is both affirmed and self-evident. I pointed to scholars who were examining nonreproductive kinship in Mormon thought and even her own scholarship that had equivocated on celestial reproduction.^[24] I question Cassler’s argument that reduces women’s worth to reproductive output as a feminist argument.

Cassler’s perspective relied on feminists who believe in social “parity” between the sexes and a complementarian notion of essential gender differences. Such parity, rather than equality, socially balanced men and women in egalitarian societies. I don’t object to these goals, but I do question enforced heterosexuality as the means of achieving them and the binary ontology that Cassler uses to sustain them. This is one of the other areas of misrepresenting my argument in her response. Cassler suggested that I was putting forward a unitary ontology of gender that erased the differences between male and female. Rather, I explicitly said that I was using a pluralist ontology of gender that did not reduce sexual difference to two options: “To admit the social basis of gender does not entail the elimination of gender, nor does it require a leveling of difference toward some androgynous ideal. Quite the opposite. Instead, we may see more of a proliferation of ‘genders,’ released from the constraints of fantasies about a neat gender binary.”^[25] Hardly an heir to Augustinian ontology.

I submitted a reply to Hudson privately. In my email I laid out the areas where we agreed and where there was further area for disagreement, but I also wrote:

I think that you mischaracterize my argument about women’s reproduction when you put quotes around the word “absurd” following a quotation of mine as if it is a continuation of what I have actually said. Of course, I never say such a thing, nor do I think it, and my argument about divine reproduction explicitly mentions both male and female reproductive processes, even in the quote you offer. Further, I spend over a page discussing the problems of women being excluded from creation in our ritual and textual accounts, as well as the dependency of women on male actors in those accounts. I do not single out women’s bodies as messy, dirty, disgusting, contemptible, polluting, let alone does anything I say suggest a “profound contempt for all things female,” as you accuse me of doing. I find this accusation unfair and having no basis in anything I have said.

The essay was quietly updated to correct a few errors, but her response to my email was dismissive. A week later I submitted a brief response in the public comments section of the article. My comment was held “under review” for two weeks and then appeared with her response.

Cassler became the source for a particular misreading of my project. I’ve been frustrated that this argument has been considered a serious response and cited as such. The idea that expanding the heavens to allow for same-sex relationships and non-binary gender identity was somehow anti-women or anti-mixed-sex relationships remains unconvincing. An expansion does not eliminate what is already allowed but draws a bigger circle around what could be allowed. Yet this kind of argument that sees egalitarianism for others as diminishment for oneself has become a familiar form of grievance. Feminists should recognize the pattern of these arguments used against them as well.

New Directions

These responses, among many others, pushed me to think through some of the problems they raised, even when I fiercely disagreed with them. When I first wrote “Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology,” I expected two things. First, it would not receive much readership or interest outside of a small group of scholars. Second, the ideas in the piece were the only real contribution that I had about the subject and I would soon return to other research projects. Both turned out to be false assumptions. Processing its reception, I found myself back on the topic again and again. Just what was the place of essential difference in Mormon theology, how does one account for reparative therapy, and what role would Heavenly Mother play in a post-heterosexual Mormon theology? On these questions, I wanted to engage broader feminist philosophy of religion to help me.

In 2013 or so, I began writing in earnest what would become “Rethinking Mormonism’s Heavenly Mother,” published in Harvard Theological Review in 2016.^[26] I hoped that one of the leading journals of the field would appreciate these questions and was grateful for their positive evaluation to publish it. In this essay, I tried to tease out the differences between women and heterosexuality that had taken hold in a variety of feminist theologies, including those in LDS circles. In “Rethinking,” I examined LDS feminist theology alongside broader feminist philosophies of religion that also insisted on the need for a divine Woman as the basis of women’s importance, especially in the thought of Luce Irigaray. I examined how the role of “mother” had taken on central importance in these kinds of theologies, how they were tied to particular understandings of gender essentialism, complementarianism, and a reproductive imperative for women. Here, I tried to connect the ontological assumptions about women shared between competing schools of Mormon feminist thought: apologetic feminists like Cassler and critical feminists like Janice Allred.

In this article, I also wanted to offer something constructive in the terms of a “generous orthodoxy.” That is, I hoped to find within the “orthodox” theologies of LDS thinkers some resources for solving the problems of gender essentialism and compulsory heterosexuality. This would extend the analysis of “Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology” that looked for alternatives to heterosexual kinship and essential gender internal to Mormon thought. I won’t rehearse the arguments in detail here, but I thank Valerie Hudson Cassler’s work on the atonement as one among many instances that showed how divine characters are not defined by binary gender differences. I admit that my essay is still more pointing to a problem, namely, the singular Heavenly Mother who must represent all women, and who does so imperfectly, than clearly answering that problem, in part because of the constraints of orthodoxy I was working within. My solution was to alleviate this strain by weakening essential gender differences and therefore the processes of identification between devotees and divine figures. It was satisfactory to me, but some felt that it went too far.^[27]In response to some criticism, I clarified: “My caution is not against a Heavenly Mother, but against using the Heavenly Mother figure to diffuse the homoerotic elements of that tradition, to intervene in a way that creates a heteronormative love as of a different order, character, and quality than the love between others, or to reify the essential difference between male and female bodies, characters, roles, and experiences. My critique is not with Heavenly Mother, but the way which she is put into discourse, the kind of work she is assigned to perform, and the exclusionary rhetoric that creates a binary rather than undoes it.”^[28] That still seems right to me.

This article on Heavenly Mother inspired another one that explored a different problem, one that I think may be more fundamental. In “Silence and Absence: Feminist Philosophical Implication of Mormonism’s Heavenly Mother,” published in Sophia: International Journal in Philosophy and Traditions, I continued to test my thesis that Mormon feminist philosophy had broader interests outside of Mormon studies.^[29] In this article, I interrogate the philosophical question of how it is that speech about Heavenly Mother has a liberating impact on women and examine some of the limitations in this theory of language. While there are significant theological and cultural battles within and among LDS scholars and activists on this topic, the analysis of the mechanics of power in Heavenly Mother discourse remains ripe for significant revision, including the reliance upon theological discourse itself.

I note one other important development on spirit birth that runs adjacent to my own project on post-heterosexual theology. As noted above, some argue that the teaching is an essential doctrine to contemporary Mormonism. As I said in the original 2011 article, I am actually ambivalent on the teaching, neither for nor against it as such. I argued that there are post-heterosexual ways of thinking about celestial reproduction and pointed to ritual and scriptural “models of reproduction and creation that might suggest their possibility for same-sex partners.”^[30] There, I also surfaced past and present LDS teachings about adoption to suggest that kinship and reproduction are distinct practices in LDS doctrine, and I warned against reducing women’s value to reproductive function.

In early 2011, Samuel Brown and Jonathan Stapley had published important articles examining early Mormon practices of adoption that helped me think through post-heterosexual kinship in my article.^[31] These ideas also complicated doctrines of spirit birth. An 1833 revelation to Smith first expressed the idea of an uncreated human essence: “Man was also in the begining with God, inteligence or the Light of truth was not created or made neith[er] indeed can be,” canonized in Doctrine and Covenants 93.^[32] The implications are extreme, rejecting creation ex nihilo and denying that God is ontologically distinct from humans, who are co-eternal with the divine. This teaching was repeated in many of Joseph Smith’s speeches, translations, and revelations—perhaps in explicit disagreement with the doctrine of spirit birth as it was developing among some of his disciples in 1843–44.^[33] Smith’s famous “King Follet Discourse,” a key text distilling his radical theological developments explained, “God never did have power to create the spirit of man at all.”^[34]

In the 2010s, there was a significant debate among historians and theologians on the doctrine of spirit birth. Much of this did not engage the implications of such a challenge for same-sex kinship directly, but their work remains deeply relevant to the topic. In 2012 and 2013, Brown published more on the issue of adoption, including an extensive theological treatment of it in BYU Studies.^[35] He called Smith’s adoption project an “attack on proto-Victorian culture,”^[36] and expanded on what he and Stapley had hinted at in their 2011 articles, that “the notion of biological reproduction between divine beings as the origin of human spirits was not the only idea that prevailed in early Mormonism. Understanding this aspect of early Mormonism on its own terms may be useful to our era’s engagement of questions of human relationships and identity.”^[37] The limitations of the normative biological, heterosexual model of family and kinship poses the opportunity to explore alternative models, and early Mormon adoption theology might beneficially inform such conversations.

Some accepted this overall historical narrative that the doctrines of spirit birth did not originate with Smith. Terryl Givens, for instance, describes the shift to a literalistic notion of spirit birth as a “decisive” shift in the post-Smith period.^[38] Others, however, pushed back against Brown and Stapley, arguing that spirit birth traced back to Smith himself. Brian Hales became a prominent defender of a historical link between Smith and spirit birth. Such a notion, he argued, may be tied to the promise of eternal increase, “a continuation of the seeds forever and ever” (D&C 132:19) in the revelation given on plural marriage.^[39]However, Stapley convincingly shows that the evidence that Joseph Smith favored spirit birth is incredibly circumstantial and weak. There is no reason to read spirit birth into Joseph Smith’s teaching when other more plausible options exist. In this case, the “continuation of seeds” seems to indicate the bonds that connect one to one’s descendants in perpetuity, not a process of celestial sexual reproduction.^[40]

The historical questions are distinct, I think, from the theological issues. Whether Smith is or is not the source for the doctrine of spirit birth does not resolve the question of whether it is a good theological view. While the value of “motherhood” has been a driving feature for a variety of different feminists who promote a robust Heavenly Mother teaching, the version of motherhood imagined there is incredibly restrictive. For instance, it continues to link the title of “mother” to reproductive kinship alone. Medical technology today provides an obvious place to disrupt the notions of motherhood and sexual reproduction, including in vitro fertilization, surrogacy, and more.^[41] Others have examined “kinning,” the practices of adoption and other kinship relations that establish motherhood in same-sex families, for single women, and in other adoptive contexts.^[42]

The emphasis on biological motherhood as the primary role for Heavenly Mother not only reduces her role and function to a conduit but obscures the practices of motherhood as cultural and symbolic actions that define the postnatal relationship. Setting aside older models of “fictive” versus “real” kinship, all kinship practices involve the sharing of material substance to produce enduring connections far beyond genetic links. The sharing of food, space, touch, and so on reveal the ways that kinship is irreducible to reproduction.^[43]

Again, while I am still not opposed to divine reproduction within a post-heterosexual Mormon theology, I remain convinced that adoption theology offers a crucial wedge in such a project. In his 2013 article, Brown argued that the notion of love and relationships is actually the ground of Mormon theology. “We all,” he argues, “through our acts of loving intensely as parents, become gods because the pure participation in agape is the definition of godhood.”^[44] Brown sees in adoption theology an imputed communal responsibility by making humans interdependent. He explains, “Adoption theology holds out to me the possibility that what matters most are the sacred bonds we create with each other, the spiritual energies we invest in those we care for.”^[45] Brown further argues that the adoption theology of Mormonism’s past offers a support for legal adoption today, as well as to “comfort Latter-day Saints facing infertility and support those who adopt or serve as foster parents as part of their personal devotions or life’s work.”^[46] Though Brown does not say so explicitly, these same benefits may be provided to same-sex couples for one another and in their efforts to extend their love and care to others. There is no particularly important place for gender in such a theology of love and kinship, even if gender may have value in others dimensions.

In my own thinking over the past decade, I began to consider not just the theological ideas themselves but also the historical conditions that gave rise to them. In the conversations that were emerging from my article, and seeing how the larger conversations about same-sex relationships in LDS communities were going, I sensed a few developments. The first was that even if people could agree that my analysis in “Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology” was theoretically possible, the weight of the historical tradition of heterosexuality excluded an adequate precedent for change. While my goal was never to argue for the need to change LDS teachings, I became increasingly interested in this historical apologetic for heterosexuality. Was heterosexuality a consistent teaching in LDS history? My theological approach to post-heterosexual kinship was shifting toward an interest in interrogating the historical landscape that had led people to believe that heterosexuality was a central feature in the LDS tradition. I was skeptical. I knew enough about LDS history and American history to be wary of claims about an unchanging “tradition” about gender and sexuality.

I have already expressed skepticism about a historical apologetic that attempts to resolve the authority of a position by tracing it back to Joseph Smith. In this approach to history, Smith or his early followers were the font of authentic Mormonism and we must give especially close attention to their teachings to make an authoritative argument about theology. I learned to be skeptical of the search for “origins” as a rhetorical and historical framework from my studies of early Christianity specifically and in religious studies more generally, where the concept of “origins” has come under significant scrutiny. Such a quest ignores that the “origins” are also embedded in their own historical contexts. I also wanted to disrupt the idea that contemporary Mormonism could (or should) be traced back to its nineteenth-century roots. As my thinking developed, I hoped that I could take on a project that would explain modern Mormonism in its own historical context of contemporary American culture rather than as an unmediated outgrowth of Smith or Brigham Young. The result was Tabernacles of Clay: Gender and Sexuality in Modern Mormonism.^[47] I was honored when the Mormon History Association gave it the Best Book Award for 2021.^[48]

I am pleased that others saw the need to tell a similar story, most importantly Gregory Prince, Gay Rights and the Mormon Church, which covers roughly the same time period but from a different theoretical and methodological angle.^[49] My interest in the history of sexuality and gender studies helped guide my approach to this material and shape a narrative that spoke to some of my bigger questions. I have come to see that Tabernacles was working out, in part, a history about an idea that I first recognized in “Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology”: “Church teachings assert two ideas about gender identity that are in significant tension: first, that gender is an eternal, immutable aspect of one’s existence; and second, that notions of gender identity and roles are so contingent that they must be constantly enforced and taught, especially to young children.”^[50] This tension was not, I believed, insignificant but rather animated much of modernity in general and modern Mormonism specifically.

My sense was that the dominant approach to the topic by previous scholars had assumed three things. First, that the difference between male and female was a fixed and unchanging doctrine, essential to the LDS theological tradition itself and not a subject of historical inquiry. Second, the difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality was also a fixed line that stood outside of history or historical change in the LDS theological tradition. That is, on these two points there was no history. These two points informed the third, namely, that LDS teachings derived from Joseph Smith and LDS scripture and therefore did not have a broader historical context. The history of sexuality, by contrast, pushed me to think about the changes in practices and conceptual frameworks on the nature of gender and sexuality. This also helped me approach the question intersectionally to understand the overlapping relationships between ideologies of race, gender, and sexuality.

I took a historical approach to another related project as well. Amy Hoyt and I were putting together the Routledge Handbook of Mormonism and Gender.^[51] I assigned myself a chapter on “Theology of Sexuality” that that would discuss LDS treatments of this topic. There, I wrote about three distinct phases of LDS theology of sexuality that, in my view, were radically different from one another. In the first, the era of plural marriage, I surveyed the approaches to sexuality that could be found there. In the early era of monogamy, a strict sexual morality took hold in LDS culture that saw sex and reproduction as inseparable. I then discussed the “Mormon sexual revolution” that emerged in the 1970s and increasingly challenged the relationship between sex and reproduction in a quest for greater sexual satisfaction as its own value. Historicizing Mormon approaches to sexuality, gender, and marriage hopefully offers an alternative to the historical apologetics that often dominate this subfield. Instead of internal histories that emphasize continuity, I invite scholars to situate these ideas in broader trends and contexts and to explore changes and discontinuity.

Over the past decade, a substantial and significant conversation about gender, sexuality, and kinship has continued to unfold in Mormon studies. I am encouraged by the conversations, even when there has been significant and sometimes sharp disagreement, for spurring further research and clarifying issues and arguments. In addition to the theological and historical approaches discussed above, other scholars have taken these issues in new directions.^[52] Blaire Ostler’s work has been particularly interested in advancing these conversations, culminating in her recent book Queer Mormon Theology: An Introduction.^[53] The Queer Mormon Women project by Jenn Lee and Kerry Spencer is adding new perspectives and voices.^[54]In addition, there are now more conversations about trans issues that further engage with crucial topics, especially in the work of Kelli Potter.^[55] Further, the historical and theoretical work of Peter Coviello should have much to contribute to a reevaluation of bodies, sex, and power in Mormon theology.^[56] I am grateful to have contributed something to this conversation and to have tracked some of the development that has taken this work in different directions. What is clear is that there is much more to say, including the coming Spring 2022 issue of Dialogue, which is dedicated to the theme of Heavenly Mother. What the next ten years hold remains to be seen.

---

Note: The Dialogue Foundation provides the web format of this article as a courtesy. There may be unintentional differences from the printed version. For citational and bibliographical purposes, please use the printed version or the PDFs provided online and on JSTOR.

^[1] Taylor G. Petrey, “Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 44, no. 4 (Winter 2011): 106–41.

^[2] The precise number is unknown because Dialogue has changed servers several times in this period. The article is now also available on JSTOR instead of just the Dialogue website. Finally, the article is a free PDF and may be sent electronically without any tracking analytics. However, in 2015, the Dialogue staff informed me that it had been downloaded more than 20,000 times.

^[3] Taylor G. Petrey, “An Uncomfortable Mormon,” Harvard Divinity Bulletin 37, no. 2–3 (Spring/Sumer 2009): 14–16.

^[4] V. H. Cassler, “‘Some Things That Should Not Have Been Forgotten Were Lost’: The Pro-Feminist, Pro-Democracy, Pro-Peace Case for State Privileging of Companionate Heterosexual Monogamous Marriage,” SquareTwo 2, no. 1 (Spring 2009).

^[5] Julie M. Smith praised it: “For the first time ever, I’ve read a defense of the anti-same-sex-marriage movement that didn’t make me cringe.” In “Thank you, Valerie Hudson,” Times and Seasons, Apr. 15, 2009.

^[6] Judith Butler, Antigone’s Claim: Kinship Between Life and Death (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000).

^[7] Samuel M. Brown, “The Early Mormon Chain of Belonging,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 44, no. 1 (Spring 2011): 1–52; Samuel M. Brown, “Early Mormon Adoption Theology and the Mechanics of Salvation,” Journal of Mormon History 37, no. 2 (Summer 2011): 3–52; Jonathan A. Stapley, “Adoptive Sealing Ritual in Mormonism,” Journal of Mormon History 37, no. 2 (Summer 2011): 53–117.

^[8] Connell “Rocky” O’Donovan, “‘The Abominable and Detestable Crime against Nature’: A Revised History of Homosexuality and Mormonism, 1840–1980,” Connell O’Donovan (website), last revised 2004. See the shorter version, O’Donovan, “‘The Abominable and Detestable Crime Against Nature’: A Brief History of Homosexuality and Mormonism, 1840–1980,” in Multiply and Replenish: Mormon Essays on Sex and Family, edited by Brett Corcoran (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1994), 123–70; D. Michael Quinn, Same-Sex Dynamics in Nineteenth-Century America: A Mormon Example (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1994); D. Michael Quinn, “Male-Male Intimacy Among Nineteenth-Century Mormons: A Case Study,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 28, no. 4 (Winter 1995): 105–28; D. Michael Quinn, “Prelude to the National ‘Defense of Marriage’ Campaign: Civil Discrimination Against Feared or Despised Minorities,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 33, no. 3 (Fall 2000): 1–52. See also, Armand Mauss, “A Reply to Quinn,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 33, no. 3 (Fall 2000): 53–65.

^[9] Wayne Schow, “Sexuality Morality Revisited,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 37, no. 3 (Fall 2004): 114–36; Eric Swedin, “‘One Flesh’: A Historical Overview of Latter-day Saint Sexuality and Psychology,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 31, no. 4 (Winter 1998): 1–29.

^[10] R. Jan Stout “Sin and Sexuality: Psychobiology and the Development of Homosexuality,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 20, no. 2 (Summer 1987): 29–41; William S. Bradshaw, “Short Shrift to the Facts,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 44, no. 1 (Spring 2011): 171–91.

^[11] Gary M. Watts, “The Logical Next Step: Affirming Same-Sex Relationships,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 31, no. 3 (Fall 1998): 49–57.

^[12] Carol Lynn Pearson, No More Goodbyes: Circling the Wagons around Our Gay Loved Ones (Walnut Creek, Calif.: Pivot Point Books, 2007); Fred Matis, Marilyn Matis, and Ty Mansfield, In Quiet Desperation: Understanding the Challenge of Same-Gender Attraction (Salt Lake City: Shadow Mountain, an imprint of Deseret Book, 2004). Ron Schow, Wayne Schow, and Marybeth Raynes, eds., Peculiar People: Mormons and Same-Sex Orientation (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1991).

^[13] Armand Mauss, “Mormonism in the Twenty-First Century: Marketing for Miracles,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 29, no. 1 (Spring 1996): 236–49.

^[14] Randolph Muhlestein, “The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage,” and Wayne Schow, “The Case for Same-Sex Marriage: Reply to Randolph Muhlestein,” both in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 40, no. 3 (Fall 2007): 1–67.

^[15] Taylor Petrey, “Guest Post From Dialogue,” By Common Consent (blog), Dec. 11, 2011.

^[16] Joseph Spencer, “Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 45, no. 1 (Spring 2012): xxv.

^[17] Published as, Taylor G. Petrey, “Purity and Parallels: Constructing the Apostasy Narrative of Early Christianity,” in Standing Apart: Mormon Historical Consciousness and the Concept of Apostasy, edited by Melissa Wilcox and John Young (New York: Oxford University Press), 174–95.

^[18] Ryan Konnen, “BYU Too Liberal on Gay Issues According to Standard of Liberty Founders Stephen and Janice Graham,” unambiguous (blog), Nov. 28, 2011.

^[19] Oak Norton forwarding Stephen Graham, “[Utah’s Republic] BYU Speaker today- ALERT for LDS,” email to author, Mar. 1, 2012.

^[20] Peg Mcentee, “BYU Does the Right Thing as Anti-gay Website Howls,” Salt Lake Tribune, Mar. 31, 2012; Rosemary Winters and Brian Maffly, “Gay and Mormon: BYU Students Speak on Panel,” Salt Lake Tribune, Mar. 30, 2012.

^[21] Valerie Hudson, “The Two Trees,” FAIR, accessed August 25, 2021.

^[22] V. H. Cassler, “Plato’s Son, Augustine’s Heir: ‘A Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology’?” SquareTwo 5, no. 2 (Summer 2012).

^[23] Cassler, “Plato’s Son, Augustine’s Heir.”

^[24] Petrey, “Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology,” 108–9.

^[25] Petrey, “Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology,” 129.

^[26] Taylor G. Petrey, “Rethinking Mormonism’s Heavenly Mother,” Harvard Theological Review 109, no. 3 (2016): 315–41.

^[27] See the clarifying roundtable here: Taylor Petrey, “Heavenly Mother in the Harvard Theological Review,” By Common Consent (blog), Aug. 29, 2016; Margaret Toscano, “How Bodies Matter: A Response to ‘Rethinking Mormonism’s Heavenly Mother,’” By Common Consent (blog), Aug. 30, 2016; Caroline Kline, “A Multiplicity of Theological Groupings and Identities—Without Giving Up on Heavenly Mother,” By Common Consent (blog), Sept. 2, 2016; Kristine Haglund, “Leapfrogging the Waves: A Nakedly Unacademic Response to ‘Rethinking Mormonism’s Heavenly Mother,’” By Common Consent (blog), Sept. 7, 2016; and Taylor Petrey, “The Stakes of Heavenly Mother,” By Common Consent (blog), Sept. 9, 2016.

^[28] Petrey, “Stakes of Heavenly Mother.”

^[29] Taylor G. Petrey, “Silence and Absence: Feminist Philosophical Implications of Mormonism’s Heavenly Mother,” Sophia: International Journal in Philosophy and Traditions 59, no.1 (2020): 57–68.

^[30] Petrey, “Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology,” 112.

^[31] Brown, “Early Mormon Chain of Belonging”; Brown, “Early Mormon Adoption Theology”; Stapley, “Adoptive Sealing Ritual.”

^[32] Revelation, 6 May 1833 [D&C 93], The Joseph Smith Papers.

^[33] Van Hale, “The Origin of the Human Spirit in Early Mormon Thought,” in Line Upon Line, edited by Gary James Bergera (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989), 122.

^[34] Discourse, 7 April 1844, as Reported by William Clayton, 16, The Joseph Smith Papers.

^[35] Samuel M. Brown, “The ‘Lineage of My Preasthood’ and the Chain of Belonging,” in In Heaven as It Is on Earth: Joseph Smith and the Early Mormon Conquest of Death (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 203–47; Samuel M. Brown, “Believing Adoption,” BYU Studies Quarterly52, no. 2 (2013): 45–65; Brown, “Early Mormon Chain of Belonging”; Brown, “Early Mormon Adoption Theology”; Samuel M. Brown and Jonathan A. Stapley, “Mormonism’s Adoption Theology: An Introductory Statement,” Journal of Mormon History 37, no. 3 (2011): 1–2.

^[36] Brown, “Early Mormon Adoption Theology,” 23.

^[37] Brown and Stapley, “Mormonism’s Adoption Theology,” 2.

^[38] Terryl Givens, Wrestling the Angel: The Foundations of Mormon Thought: Cosmos, God, Humanity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 158.

^[39] Brian C. Hales, “‘A Continuation of the Seeds’: Joseph Smith and Spirit Birth,” Journal of Mormon History 38, no. 4 (2012): 105–30.

^[40] Jonathan Stapley, “A Response to Hales on ‘Spirit Birth,” By Common Consent (blog), Dec. 11, 2019; Brown, “Believing Adoption,” 45–65.

^[41] Petra Nordqvist, “Bringing Kinship into Being: Connectedness, Donor Conception and Lesbian Parenthood,” Sociology 48, no. 2 (2014): 268–83.

^[42] S. Howell, “Kinning: The Creation Of Life Trajectories In Transnational Adoptive Families,” Journal Of The Royal Anthropological Institute 9 (2003): 465–68; Eirini Papadaki, “Becoming Mothers: Narrating Adoption and Making Kinship in Greece,” Social Anthropology 28, no. 1 (February 2020): 153–67; Janette Logan, “Contemporary Adoptive Kinship: A Contribution to New Kinship Studies,” Child and Family Social Work 18, no. 1 (February 2013): 35–45; Stacy Lockerbie, “Infertility, Adoption and Metaphorical Pregnancies,” Anthropologica 56, no. 2 (2014): 463–71.

^[43] Michael Sahlins, What Kinship Is—And Is Not (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013), 62–86.

^[44] Samuel M. Brown, “Mormons Probably Aren’t Materialists,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 50, no. 3 (2017): 66.

^[45] Brown, “Believing Adoption,” 62.

^[46] Brown, “Believing Adoption,” 64.

^[47] Taylor G. Petrey, Tabernacles of Clay: Gender and Sexuality in Modern Mormonism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2020).

^[48] In 2021, the award was shared with Benjamin Park, The Kingdom of Nauvoo: The Rise and Fall of a Religious Empire on the American Frontier (New York: Liveright, 2020).

^[49] Gregory A. Prince, Gay Rights and the Mormon Church: Intended Actions, Unintended Consequences (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2019).

^[50] Petrey, “Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology,” 123–24.

^[51] Amy K. Hoyt and Taylor G. Petrey, eds., Routledge Handbook of Mormonism and Gender (New York: Routledge, 2020).

^[52] Bryce Cook, “What Do We Know of God’s Will for His LGBT Children? An Examination of the LDS Church’s Position on Homosexuality,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 50, no. 2 (Summer 2017): 1–52; Robert A. Rees and William S. Bradshaw, “LGBTQ Latter-day Saint Theology,” DiaBlogue (blog) Aug. 20, 2020.

^[53] Blaire Ostler, “Queer Polygamy,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 52, no. 1 (Spring 2019): 33–43.

^[54] Queer Mormon Women and Gender-Diverse Folx.

^[55] Kelli D. Potter, “A Transfeminist Critique of Mormon Theologies of Gender,” in The Lost Sheep in Philosophies of Religion: New Perspectives on Disability, Gender, Race, and Animals, edited by Blake Hereth and Kevin Timpe (New York: Routledge, 2019), 312–27; Kelli D. Potter, “Trans and Mutable Bodies,” in Hoyt and Petrey, Routledge Handbook of Mormonism and Gender, 539–52.

^[56] Peter Coviello, Make Yourselves Gods: Mormons and the Unfinished Business of American Secularism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2019).

Ten years ago, my article “Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology” was published in Dialogue. I did not know what to expect when it made its way into the world, but it ended up being a widely discussed piece and has been accessed tens of thousands of times.

2021: Taylor Petrey, “After a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology: A Ten-Year Retrospective,” Dialogue 54.4 (Winter 2021): 111–136.

[post_title] => After a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology: A Ten-Year Retrospective [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 54.4 (Winter 2021): 111–137
Ten years ago, my article “Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology” was published in Dialogue. I did not know what to expect when it made its way into the world, but it ended up being a widely discussed piece and has been accessed tens of thousands of times. The public discussion about my ideas was both critical and appreciative. In the wake of the article, my own research and thinking have also developed. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => after-a-post-heterosexual-mormon-theology-a-ten-year-retrospective [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-05-31 23:54:32 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-05-31 23:54:32 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=28751 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 27867 [post_author] => 3034 [post_date] => 2021-04-24 04:07:20 [post_date_gmt] => 2021-04-24 04:07:20 [post_content] =>

The relationship between the queer community and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has received considerable attention in the last few decades, along with the overlap between the two communities and the queer Mormon experience. While both scholarly and amateur work on the history and identity of queer Mormons is on the rise (especially ethnographic work on contemporary queer Mormons), there have, as of yet, been no works outlining what kind of arguments are commonly made by people participating in the construction of queer Mormon vernacular histories and what they are trying to achieve with these arguments.^[1]

Queer Mormon vernacular histories employ arguments about people in the past to construct new ways of being for the future. Vernacular histories include publishing a pamphlet, writing a blog post, or writing an essay in a collection intended for non-academic readership. This work may, in some cases, be done by people with academic training in historical methods; however, more often than not, this is not the case. This does not mean that the authors of such work have not researched substantially on their own, or that they do not interact with academic work on the subject. I examine a variety of sources; many come from archival materials, the LDS LGBTQ organization Affirmation, Instagram accounts, blog posts, YouTube videos, and even advertising for commercial brands. These represent the variety of ways that popular accounts of the past make it to the general public. I focus specifically on material that not only explores the queer Mormon past but makes arguments about what that past means for the future. These materials come from different historical, religious, and political contexts but all seek to use the past to construct new futures. These texts are often written in a more informal register than comparable academic work and are often produced with a specific intention of shifting conversations about queer Mormons in the present. Points of view also vary: not everyone contributing to this vernacular queer Mormon past is themselves queer or even Mormon.

In this mode of engaging history, the past is seen as a resource that can help people to create more inclusive futures for queer Mormons. I aim to outline the parameters and modes of these histories and examine the patterns of their argumentation, using the work of John Boswell as a point of reference. I argue that the patterns evident in Boswell’s work on the history of homosexuality are also apparent in many works of queer Mormon vernacular history. Namely, Boswell argues that “between the beginning of the Christian Era and the end of the Middle Ages” attitudes toward same-sex romantic and sexual relationships changed from relative indifference or toleration to active antipathy.^[2] Queer Mormon vernacular histories make a similar framing, arguing that early Mormonism was relatively tolerant of homosexuality and that recent antipathy toward it is an aberration.

Queer Mormon vernacular histories go further and argue that the past is proof that the future could be more accepting than the present. I take up David Halperin’s charge that “the tendency to refashion past sexual cultures in the image of our own says a lot about our own historical situation, the functioning of contemporary sexual categories, our standard ways of thinking about the past. It is richly informative in its own right.”^[3] I am less interested in whether these vernacular histories are “right” or “wrong” than in what they tell us about contemporary debates about the role of queer people in Mormonism. Some arguments made are more plausible or verifiable than others, but all of them offer value in understanding the ways in which people have sought to use the past to create new futures.

Mormon Conceptions of the Past

In order to understand queer Mormon historical modes, we must first examine the role of history and historical thought in Mormonism more broadly. Mormonism is, as a religious tradition, incredibly invested in history, not only as a means of memorializing the past but of orienting and constructing the self in the present. The verse in Doctrine and Covenants 21 admonishing Joseph Smith that “there shall be a record kept among you” is taken seriously (and literally) by Mormons. Former official LDS Church historian Marlin K. Jensen commented in 2007 that “the scriptures, especially the Book of Mormon, make clear that ‘remembering’ is a fundamental and saving principle of the gospel.”^[4] Since their earliest days, Mormons have felt that keeping a record of one’s past is important and that it can shape the future. Historian Roger D. Launius has argued that “shared experience and misery has been one of the key elements of the Mormon religion.”^[5]

History is an essential part of the construction of Mormon identity; events like the Missouri persecutions, the progress of settlers to Utah, and other historical moments are often drawn upon as lessons in conduct for the modern day and as a shared, sacred history. This is a history that can even be literally reenacted, with the reenactment often promoted as an opportunity for spiritual growth by participants. These reenactments need not concern events that happened to one’s own literal ancestors; once largely the province of pioneer-descended Utah Mormons, reenactments of the Mormon settlers’ trek toward Utah have spread as far as Mongolia, where youth constructed handcarts and passed through parts of the Ulaanbaatar countryside labeled with the names of US states that Mormon settlers passed through in the nineteenth century.^[6] In his article “Playing Jane: Re-presenting Black Mormon Memory through Reenacting Black Mormon Past,” Max Perry Mueller argues that, similarly, Black Mormons use recreations of the past to affirm both Black and Mormon identity and tie themselves to the Church’s past in a way that creates a sense of identity important to the present.^[7]

The LDS Church’s emphasis on genealogical work and its salvific (in terms of temple ordinances performed on behalf of the dead) and practical purposes add to this overall sense of the importance of history within Mormonism. In the temple ritual of baptism for the dead, the past becomes present as those who have already passed on are offered a baptism and a blessing in their name. Additionally, journal-keeping is encouraged by Church authorities in order to preserve one’s own history for future generations. All of these actions and encouragements demonstrate the ways in which history is uniquely valued in Mormonism, specifically a genealogical form of history in which one seeks to interact or identify with one’s ancestors, be they literal ancestors or figurative ones. By this, I mean that both people one is literally descended from as well as famed figures from the Mormon past are treated functionally as ancestors. In the case of queer Mormon vernacular histories, the interaction and identification lean toward the figurative, in that many of these histories seek out past queerness as evidence that queer Mormons have always existed and as proof that the Church could change its stances on queer relationships and identity in the future.

Queer Mormon vernacular histories clearly draw from this Mormon sense of history along with a queer sensibility that also values connection to the past. Joseph Smith’s well-known King Follett Sermon has often been summed up by Lorenzo Snow’s infamous couplet: “as man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.”^[8] We can perhaps imagine a similar concept at work in queer Mormon vernacular histories: “as things once were, things may now be.” This vernacular history is not merely the kind of list-making of famous past figures that is often associated with LGBTQ histories but a more holistic endeavor that attempts to discover not just individuals but their contexts.

Queer Mormon histories work not just to draw on past events as resources for the present but to preserve present events for the future, that their histories might serve a similar purpose for someone else. Commenting on his own journal-keeping, former Affirmation director James Kent wrote that “if this history can survive past my own lifetime, it can be of benefit to those who follow me. Should the future shine bright and give total equality of opportunity to non-heterosexuals, they can look back to a time when that was a journey of hope. Should the struggle continue far into the future, they will know from the past that they are not alone.”^[9] This is part of the importance of a queer Mormon vernacular history, according to its authors: it gives queer Mormons a historical context from which to evaluate progress or to reflect on the experiences of those who came before them. Recordkeeping is valuable not only because it preserves a record for one’s posterity; as Marlin K. Jensen noted, it takes on a form of sacred responsibility to future generations. We must also think about context here; Affirmation is a group for LGBTQ Mormons that comprises both former and active members, seeking to provide space for both. As such, it is unsurprising that someone in this context would speak to traditional Mormon thought on memory and history.

Traditional LDS recordkeeping has also contributed to the documentation of queer Mormons. In Utah Gay and Lesbian Community Center member Connell “Rocky” O’Donovan’s 1989 Gay Pride Day speech to Salt Lake City media members, he remarked that “often people first ask us ‘Is there even any Gay history in Utah?’ to which we reply emphatically ‘Yes!’ We are fortunate in our state because of the predominant view here that history should be recorded, and then these records should be maintained. Therefore there are several very large collections of private journals, newspapers, directories, court records etc. around this state, all of which give us clues and facts about who our gay foremothers + gay forefathers were.”^[10] O’Donovan, who was raised in the LDS Church, has written extensively on both LGBT and LDS histories as well as their overlap. This has included comparative work on the treatment of queer Mormons and the treatment of African American Mormons prior to the lifting of the priesthood ban in 1978.^[11] O’Donovan, in his Gay Pride Day speech, draws a clear connection between queer history and Mormon history, noting the “predominant view” in Utah that “history should be recorded.”

Similarly, in an article originally published in the Affirmation newsletter Affinity in 1982 and reproduced on the Affirmation website, Ina Mae Murri reflects on the Mormon legacy of genealogy and recordkeeping for future generations, writing that “I have in my possession a folder in which my mother assembled all the family histories she had on both her and my father’s side. . . . [T]his also gives me food for thought as I look at my life and what I want my descendants to know about my life. Probably we have all heard stories in our families about an aunt, uncle, cousin, or some other relative who the family keeps quiet about. . . . [D]o we as homosexuals fit in the category in our family where they do not know our true story?”^[12] Family history is seen by Murri as something that connects people to each other, and she worries that a lack of attention to queer Mormon histories will result in people not truly knowing their kin.

These vernacular histories are intended to have public audiences. “Prologue: An Examination of the Mormon Attitude Toward Homosexuality” is one of the earliest sources we have in print of a gay Mormon making an argument for a queer Mormon usable past. The pamphlet was written by a gay Brigham Young University student, Cloy Jenkins, who was responding to a psychology professor who saw homosexuality as “pathology,” with the help of a BYU instructor, Lee Williams.^[13] In the words of the pamphlet, “The influence of the homosexual in the church has been positive and profound from top to bottom, from the temple sessions to the favorite Mormon hymns we sing each Sunday, from the Tabernacle Broadcasts to the welfare system.”^[14] This genealogical bent is crucial to understanding the ways in which queer Mormons navigate usable pasts by making queer members an inseparable part of Mormon identity.

The queer Mormon usable past spans beyond what we might think of as the traditional temporal domain of the LDS Church. In a 1988 pamphlet entitled “Homosexuality and Scripture from a Latter-Day Saint Perspective,” it is traced back to Book of Mormon times. Pamphlet author Alan David Lach examines varying attitudes toward same-sex intimacy in the ancient Middle East, arguing that “if a more relaxed attitude toward homosexuality did exist among the pre-exilic Hebrews, the Book of Mormon peoples would have brought it with them to the new world.”^[15] Further, he argues that a global turn against same-sex intimacy occurred “during the period the LDS call the ‘great apostasy,’” implicitly linking anti-homosexuality attitudes with a period regarded in Mormon thought as a sort of spiritual dark ages.^[16]

This pamphlet demonstrates the sort of thinking that reappears throughout materials that engage with creating a vernacular queer Mormon history: if homosexuality was not reproached (or was reproached less severely) by the historical Church, be it the Church in the 1950s or the Church before the birth of Christ, then queer Mormons can be legitimately woven into a sacred Mormon past, with attendant rights and responsibilities. If Mormonism is the restoration of God’s true Church upon the earth, this narrative goes, and if homosexuality was not seen as reprehensible during the time that this Church was originally upon the earth, or in earlier periods of the restoration, then the modern Church has no justification for current policies that penalize homosexual activity. Later in this same pamphlet, Lach rebukes Mormon apostle Dallin H. Oaks for claiming in an interview that the Church has always condemned homosexuality, arguing that “only recently, within the last quarter-century, have apostles and prophets made explicit statements condemning homosexuality per se.”^[17]

These materials occasionally create an argument for a queer Mormon past based on absence of reference to it. Fewer direct references to homosexuality in Church materials in the past, this narrative commonly goes, may be attributed to greater tolerance for homosexuality by Church leaders. Lach makes the argument that Joseph Smith only refrained from openly condoning homosexuality because it would have been too distracting from his overall mission, writing, “What if Joseph Smith, for instance, had published a revelation claiming heavenly sanction of homosexuality? Its effect would have been explosive—enough to disrupt the reformation before it began.”^[18]

A usable past is inferred not only through absence but also from instances where Mormons were punished for homosexuality but less harshly than they may have been today. One example of this can be found in the work of Robert Rees, who has written extensively for over two decades on LGBT Mormon issues and has served as an LDS bishop.^[19] Rees writes in a 2000 pamphlet entitled “In a Dark Time the Eye Begins to See: Personal Reflections on Homosexuality among the Mormons at the Beginning of a New Millennium”: “I believe we have become less tolerant of homosexual relations. Fifty years ago . . . a music teacher was released from the faculty at Ricks College for homosexual behavior. A counselor in this man’s stake presidency wrote to the First Presidency asking what action should be taken. President J. Reuben Clark recorded the following in his office diary: ‘I said thus far we had done nothing more than drop them from the positions they had.’”^[20] These treatments are then contrasted unfavorably with current threats of excommunication, disfellowshipping, or other punitive measures. Again, the argument conveyed is that if things once were a certain way, there is nothing to prevent them from being so again in the future. However, these writers often envision not merely a return to this quasi-acceptance but for this past state to be used as a launching point toward brighter futures, whatever they may be envisioned to be.

Madam Pattirini

One key example of vernacular queer Mormon histories is the wide-ranging use of Madam Pattirini, a famous character played by Brigham Morris Young, one of LDS President Brigham Young’s many children. He served two missions in Hawaii and was one of the founders of the Young Men’s Mutual Improvement Association, the forerunner of the current Young Men program. However, Young is probably most known today for his performance persona of Madam Pattirini in part because of the popularity of this figure in queer Mormon histories. As Pattirini, Young wore dresses and sang opera arias in a falsetto. Some of the vernacular histories I examine use anachronistic terms like “drag” and similar contemporary terms to discuss Madam Pattirini, which allows us to understand what modes and practices of queerness are being put to work in discussion of Pattirini. In vernacular histories, Madam Pattirini is an example of a purported modern Mormon hypocrisy or another way in which prior Mormons were more lenient toward queerness.

Modern interlocutors have often framed Pattirini as an instance of socially accepted “drag” performance, one used today in primarily queer subcultures. A post on the blog Indie Ogden is an example of this phenomenon.^[21] Blog author Whitney gets into Young’s personal history, drawing attention to his parentage and writing that “I was fairly shocked when I came across this bit of information and also very happy at the same time because it is truly a beautiful thing to see a person no matter their faith, or in this case, ‘who’s your daddy,’ live unabashedly bold and fearless.”^[22] Pattirini is constructed here as proof that queerness in the form of drag performances was once tolerated in Mormonism and that it could be tolerated more openly once again.

Young has been memorialized under official auspices like that of Utah Pride Center. In a section of their site called “Queer Utah Ancestors,” Utah Pride Center memorializes Young along several other LDS and non-LDS Utah residents, writing that “[t]he historical evidence points only to Young cross-dressing as public entertainment, but he paved the way for later cross-dressing entertainers who appeared in Utah, some of whom were LGBT.”^[23] This is a careful parsing of Young’s legacy; he is not equated with drag performers or with transgender people but is seen as a forebear to whom LGBT people more broadly owe a debt of gratitude.

An Instagram account called @lgbt_history makes a similar claim. After giving a sketch of Young’s life more broadly, the account notes that while he was not “a drag queen in the modern sense” he “crossed Mormon gender barriers.”^[24] Moreover, the account notes that Young was a streetcar driver, an occupation associated in the nineteenth century with homosexuality, and that he drove a route that included the Wasatch Municipal Baths, a popular cruising ground for men seeking sex with men.^[25]

A YouTube channel called LGBT Snapshots, which profiles various LGBT people from history, has also featured Madam Pattirini. In the video description, the channel’s creators wrote: “We’ve chosen Madam Pattirini as this week’s Transgender Story, though we don’t know for certain whether Brigham Morris Young was actually transgender, or whether Madam Pattirini was the feminine expression of a gay man or even simply a character created by a straight man for entertainment.”^[26] The video’s creators walk a careful line; though they are featuring Young and Madam Pattirini as a “transgender story,” they admit that there are other possibilities for how Young related to the character of Madam Pattirini. This struggle over terminology in relationship to historical identity is something that resurfaces in other discussions of LGBTQ Mormon history, as we will see later.

A particularly interesting element of the Madam Pattirini case study is the use of Pattirini’s image for an Ogden, Utah liquor distillery’s brand of gin. Referring to Pattirini as a “drag diva,” an article from the Ogden Standard-Examiner mentions that Young was “one of Brigham Young’s sons” and lauds the move on the distillery’s part as “bringing a little-known piece of Mormon history to light.”^[27] A Salt Lake Tribune article similarly states that “Utah liquor distillers often enjoy poking fun at Utah’s conservative Mormon culture, and the newest product from Ogden’s Own Distillery—Madam Pattirini Gin—is no exception.”^[28] Naming the gin after Madam Pattirini is seen not as a neutral branding decision but as something meant to rattle conservative Mormons, presumably on queer issues. In this way, Young and the persona of Pattirini are just one of many contested queer Mormon histories picked over by both Mormons and non-Mormons in search of a usable past.

Gay By Any Other Name

What people call themselves, past and present, can tell us a lot about how they think about themselves. As the case of Pattirini has shown, terminology can be a point of some controversy in queer Mormon vernacular histories. Essentially, the debate becomes whether it is appropriate to apply the adjectives “gay,” “homosexual,” “transgender,” or similar terms to persons who lived before these terms had any meaning. Yale historian John Boswell freely used the term “gay” for medieval and ancient subjects who expressed a preference for same-sex romantic and sexual relationships, while recognizing it was a label impossible for them to apply to themselves, “making the question anachronistic and to some extent unanswerable.”^[29]

In professional Mormon histories, these terms are similarly fraught. D. Michael Quinn’s Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example is a book that must be acknowledged when discussing queer Mormon pasts. Quinn argues that same-sex relationships were relatively tolerated in Mormonism until the mid-twentieth century. Though it is a scholarly work, Quinn’s text has had a tremendous influence on vernacular histories, in part by interesting specific Mormon figures who had same-sex relationships. Same-Sex Dynamics influenced this debate over language in part by introducing the idea that names and concepts for behaviors had changed over time.^[30] Some works, especially those emerging after this book, do note that the term “gay” has not always existed as it does now, and that people referred to historically with that term would not necessarily have recognized it or seen themselves as members of such a specific category of identity, while arguing that persons with a disposition toward same-sex attraction, in some form, have existed continuously throughout history even when it was not a basis for sexual identity.

The tension between a belief in transhistorical “homosexuality” and an obligation to restrict the use of the term to modern contexts appears in numerous vernacular treatments. For example, Seth Anderson, in a post on the blog No More Strangers presenting a timeline of Mormon attitudes toward homosexuality, wrote, “On a personal level, I do believe that homosexual men and women not just ‘homosexual acts’ have existed throughout all of human history. We have the privilege to look back in time with our late twentieth and early twenty-first century historical lens and can see things that seem ‘gay’ but we cannot impose that identity on a person who never identified as ‘gay’ or ‘homosexual.’”^[31] This distinction between “homosexual men and women” and “homosexual acts” nonetheless runs into Anderson’s insistence that even though said men and women have “existed throughout all of human history,” it is not appropriate to impose that identity on them. This paradox is left unresolved.

It is important to note that the acts/identity distinction has been a tremendously important one in the history of Mormon thought on homosexuality, not just in queer circles. Taylor Petrey notes that “the question of labels remained a preoccupation” even in quite recent discussions of homosexuality among the Mormon hierarchy.^[32] This issue has been a long-standing one in Mormonism, with debate over whether terms like “gay” or “lesbian” should be used at all, as they may imply that same-sex desire is a fixed part of a person rather than a behavior that is subject to change.

Conclusion

Queer Mormon vernacular histories draw on a usable past that is influenced by a Mormon emphasis on the value of history and a mode of recovering queer pasts. These pasts are then used to imagine more inclusive futures for queer Mormons, based on the idea that queer Mormons were once more tolerated by the LDS Church and could be once again. These draw on genealogies, archival sources, and other memory-making tools to present narratives and characters that challenge contemporary heteronormative thinking. Such constructions of history point to individuals, imagined historical contexts, and contemporary debates to tell an alternative counter-history to a master narrative of uniform, universal heterosexuality in the Mormon past. These stories seek to integrate queer Mormons into a more general Mormon history, to normalize queer identities and practices as part of the past, and to gesture toward another, more imaginative future. The point here is not to fact-check these histories, though that has its place, but to explore the ways that queer Mormons operationalize the past in distinctively Mormon ways. Using the logic of precedent and an attachment to Mormon storytelling, queer vernacular histories construct a usable past for a livable future.

---

Note: The Dialogue Foundation provides the web format of this article as a courtesy. There may be unintentional differences from the printed version. For citational and bibliographical purposes, please use the printed version or the PDFs provided online and on JSTOR.

^[1] A note on terminology: throughout this paper, I purposefully use the term “queer” to refer to a wide swath of non-heterosexual people (whether cisgender or transgender), including those who may identify as lesbian, bisexual, gay, queer, person with same-sex attraction, or a host of other possible terms. I turn to the umbrella term “queer” as a space-saving measure so that I am not constantly reiterating this extensive list of possible identities, as well as in recognition of its utility in scholarship on this and related topics, e.g., “queer theory.” I recognize that “queer,” which is, essentially, a reclaimed slur, is certainly a term that people of any of those categories may not necessarily identify with or might object to; I use it for its expediency, with full realization of these potential problems.

^[2] John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 3.

^[3] David M. Halperin, How to Do the History of Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), 15.

^[4] Marlin K. Jensen, “There Shall Be a Record Kept Among You,” Ensign, Dec. 2007.

^[5] Roger D. Launius, “PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: Mormon Memory, Mormon Myth, and Mormon History,” Journal of Mormon History 21, no. 1 (Spring 1995): 4.

^[6] Peggy Fletcher Stack, “Mormons Around the Globe Re-enact Pioneer Trek,” Salt Lake Tribune, Aug. 10, 2012.

^[7] Max Perry Mueller, “Playing Jane: Re-presenting Black Mormon Memory through Reenacting the Black Mormon Past,” Journal of Africana Religions 1, no. 4 (2013): 513–61.

^[8] Gerald N. Lund, “Is President Lorenzo Snow’s oft-repeated statement—‘As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be’—accepted as official doctrine by the Church?” Ensign, Feb. 1982.

^[9] James Kent, “Keeping a Journal and Other Thoughts,” Affirmation, accessed Jan. 15, 2014. This post is no longer available on the Affirmation website at the time of publication.

^[10] Rocky O’Donovan, “1989 Gay Pride Day Speech” (speech notes, 1989), Accn. 1918, box 23, Special Collections, Marriott Library, University of Utah. Capitalization, punctuation, etc., present in original.

^[11] Connell O’Donovan, “‘I Would Confine Them to Their Own Species’: LDS Historical Rhetoric and Praxis Regarding Marriage Between Whites and Blacks” (paper presented at Sunstone West symposium, Cupertino, Calif., Mar. 28, 2009).

^[12] Ina Mae Murri, “‘Family’ History: Leaving a Legacy of Truth,” Affirmation, accessed Jan. 15, 2014. This post is no longer available on the Affirmation website at the time of publication.

^[13] Taylor G. Petrey, Tabernacles of Clay: Sexuality and Gender in Modern Mormonism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2020), 85.

^[14] Cloy Jenkins, Prologue: An Examination of the Mormon Attitude toward Homosexuality (Provo: Prometheus Enterprises, 1978), 55, accessed via Accn. 1867, box 5, Special Collections, Marriott Library, University of Utah.

^[15] Alan David Lach, Homosexuality and Scripture from a Latter-day Saint Perspective (Los Angeles: Affirmation/Gay & Lesbian Mormons, 1988), 15–16, accessed via Accn. 1867, box 5, Special Collections, Marriott Library, University of Utah.

^[16] Lach, 17.

^[17] Lach, 26.

^[18] Lach, 27.

^[19] “Robert A. Rees,” No More Strangers.

^[20] Robert A. Rees, “‘In a Dark Time the Eye Begins to See’: Personal Reflections on Homosexuality among the Mormons at the Beginning of a New Millennium” (paper presented at Family Fellowship, Salt Lake City, Utah, Feb. 27, 2000), accessed via Accn. 1867, box 5, Special Collections, Marriott Library, University of Utah. This paper was subsequently published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 33, no. 3 (Fall 2000): 137–51.

^[21] Whitney, “Indie Ogden History: Madam Pattirini,” Indie Ogden Utah, June 3, 2012. This post is no longer available on Indie Ogden website at the time of publication.

^[22] Whitney.

^[23] “Queer Utah Ancestors,” Utah Pride Center, accessed Mar. 24, 2019. This post is no longer available on the Utah Pride Center website at the time of publication. You can find more information about Brigham Morris Young at “Brigham Morris Young: Son of a prophet, ‘Qween’ of the highest order,” Latter Gay Stories, Feb. 13, 2019.

^[24] @lgbt_history, “Madam Pattirini (a.k.a. Brigham Morris Young) (January 18, 1854–Feb. 20, 1931), c. 1900. Photo by C.R. Savage, c/o Church History Library,” Instagram photo, Jan. 18, 2019.

^[25] @lgbt_history, Jan. 18, 2019.

^[26] LGBT Snapshots, “LGBT Snapshots: Madam Pattirini,” YouTube, May 22, 2016.

^[27] Makenzie Koch, “Ogden Distillery Pays Homage to Mormon Drag Diva with New Gin,” Ogden Standard-Examiner, May 6, 2017.

^[28] Kathy Stephenson, “Utah Distiller Introduces Madam Pattirini Gin, Named for a Little-Known Mormon Drag Diva,” Salt Lake Tribune, May 3, 2017.

^[29] John Boswell, Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe (New York: Vintage Books, 1994), xxv; Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, 41.

^[30] D. Michael Quinn, Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2001).

^[31] Seth Anderson, “Timeline of Mormon Thinking About Homosexuality,” No More Strangers (blog), Dec. 8, 2013.

^[32] Petrey, Tabernacles of Clay, 195.

[post_title] => Queer Mormon Histories and the Politics of a Usable Past [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 54.1 (Spring 2021): 1–16
Essentially, the debate becomes whether it is appropriate to apply the adjectives “gay,” “homosexual,” “transgender,” or similar terms to persons who lived before these terms had any meaning. Yale historian John Boswell freely used the term “gay” for medieval and ancient subjects who expressed a preference for same-sex romantic and sexual relationships, while recognizing it was a label impossible for them to apply to themselves, “making the question anachronistic and to some extent unanswerable.” [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => queer-mormon-histories-and-the-politics-of-a-usable-past [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-07-14 14:04:40 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-07-14 14:04:40 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=27867 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 27871 [post_author] => 3033 [post_date] => 2021-04-24 04:10:05 [post_date_gmt] => 2021-04-24 04:10:05 [post_content] =>

On Reading “The Family: A Proclamation to the World”

When President Gordon B. Hinckley read “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” during the general Relief Society meeting held September 23, 1995, few would have predicted the cultural weight that it would still carry for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) nearly twenty-five years later. For many in the LDS Church, this relatively short proclamation (only 630 words) is the defining statement on a variety of social issues: marriage, homosexuality, abortion, gender roles, domestic abuse, etc. Many members of the LDS Church recall the proclamation’s release as a defining “where were you” moment in life; the church experience of an entire generation of youth and young adults has been shaped profoundly by this statement.

Despite the authoritative status of the proclamation as a document, there is not an authoritative interpretation. The proclamation is regularly referenced in general conference and in local meetings, and it has been examined by many LDS (and non-LDS) scholars, advocates, and critics, with each of these parties coming to different conclusions. This should not be surprising. As many theories of textual interpretation have demonstrated, decoding a text is the result of an interaction between the text and the reader that reveals as least as much about the reader and the reader’s context as it does the text itself. There is nothing inherently wrong with such a textual transaction. In fact, there is no way we could do otherwise.

This realization that interpretation of a text is an interaction between the text and the reader arises out of literary theory. But this view has been influential in other fields as well. For instance, scholars of scripture also leverage the philosophical, methodological, and hermeneutical tools of literary theorists to better understand sacred texts. For instance, feminist readings of a text might help expose the male-centered nature of texts by reading it through the lens of contemporary concerns. But it can be difficult to realize that the text acts as a mirror. Too often, individuals do not recognize their confirmation bias and instead claim that their readings are both authoritative and fully self-evident. And just as often, these self-fulfilling interpretations are then weaponized and used to launch attacks against individuals and/or social positions that oppose the interpreter’s worldview.

Because of the sensitivity and polemical nature of the issues upon which the proclamation touches, it will likely remain a disputed text—particularly on issues such as gender roles, Heavenly Mother/Father, and homosexuality—regardless of any single person’s efforts to crowd out other readings. But in the spirit of embracing learning “by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118), I hope to offer two, perhaps under-recognized, ways to examine the proclamation that, taken together, may help open this text and create more space for individual and group exploration and understanding.

First, I want to explore the social environment in which the proclamation was created and released. Second, I will apply a feminist technique for reading the Pauline epistles, that of reading for “theological trajectory,” to see where the proclamation may be leading us. To be clear, it would be disingenuous and inaccurate to claim that this analysis and my own perspectives are free from bias. I cannot escape my context any more than the next person. That said, my goal is not to claim these approaches to the proclamation as the authoritative way to understand it but simply to foreground ideas that may help us see the proclamation in new ways.

Social Environment

Following the end of World War II, the Western/European vision of the family began to shift. Where families were once commonly understood to be multigenerational, co-habituating social groups, the 1950s and 1960s saw a normalization and idealization of the “nuclear family”: a married couple with children. Multigenerational families—at least in affluent, white America and Europe—were no longer viewed as the “standard” household arrangement. Research has shown that this idealized version of family life was never universal, not even in the 1950s,^[1] and it is an increasingly inaccurate picture of America’s family structure today.^[2] However, the basic notions of a breadwinner father, caregiver mother, and obedient children—the nuclear family—are foundational to the proclamation. Fathers are to “preside over their families . . . and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection.” Mothers are “primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.” Indeed, these “divine” roles for husband and wife theologize very specific Western/European gender roles and enshrine a very specific Western vision of what a family looks like. The proclamation is a product of its time (mid-1990s) and place (a developed Western nation): it reflects a post–World War II Western/European family ethos and an LDS theological perspective grounded in twentieth-century social issues.

To be fair, the proclamation alludes to alternative family structures. However, those allusions cast alternatives to the nuclear family as less-than-complete and often the result of some sort of calamity: “disability, death, or other circumstances”—in other words, not the way God intended. And though it also references extended families—which still remain part of the basic family unit in most of the world today—the proclamation distances them by simply saying they should “lend support when needed.” The implication is that extended families are separate from the husband/wife household, not regularly involved in its day-to-day activities, and not part of the heavenly unit. In short, the proclamation seems to imagine a heavenly family that strikingly similar to the twentieth-century Western ideal: a noble father as the head of the household, a supportive and caring mother by his side, and a brood of well-behaved children.

The proclamation’s Western/European/twentieth-century notion of family would not have worked and does not work for many, many situations in the Church’s past and present. Between 1843 and 1877 while Brigham Young was president of the Church, an authoritative document on marriage and family would have certainly included overt references to, and a powerful defense of, plural marriage. Additionally, the proclamation’s view of extended family is not consistent with living situations in Latin America and parts of Africa (regions of rapid Church growth), where the percentage of individuals in living in extended families range from 25 to 75 percent, with extended families helping to provide “an important measure of social and economic support.”^[3] Further, the proclamation’s picture of the ideal family is not consistent with the family structures portrayed in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, which are most often described as communities of interrelated individuals living in close proximity to each other. Given this dissonance, one approach would be to dismiss these alternative family structures (e.g., the extended-family households and ancient family structures of the Bible and Book of Mormon) as flawed and contrary to divine will. However, another, and I believe more productive, approach is to recognize that the proclamation portrays a culturally specific vision of family that can be easily situated within a particular time and place and is not reflective of many historical and contemporary family structures.

The proclamation is also properly contextualized within the culture wars, specifically the gay marriage debate that raged through the 1990s and 2000s. In 1995, Utah became the first state to pass a state-level “Defense of Marriage Act,” though twelve others “previously had approved statutes defining marriage as between one man and one woman.”^[4] In September 1996, the US Congress passed the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which upheld a state’s right to ban same-sex marriage and defined marriage, for federal government purposes, as the union between one man and one woman.^[5] By 1998 the majority of states had either a constitutional amendment or statutory language banning same-sex marriage.^[6] Given this social context, it is not surprising that the very first statement in the proclamation is not about “families” but rather a definition and theological defense of marriage: “that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.” Families are included later in the sentence; however, the reference is not a description of what constitutes a family because that was not in dispute. Concerns stemming from the 1990s culture wars played a role in the formation of the proclamation.

Lastly, in the years immediately leading up to the release of the proclamation, Latter-day Saint leaders spoke frequently about the decline of families. In general conference it was not uncommon to hear statements about the “terrible trends” of familial decline—i.e., the general movement away from the idealized family—and the “ghastly momentum” such trends are likely to produce in society.^[7] Thus we see in the proclamation language warning about the “disintegration of the family” and the statement that non-traditional family structures will harm “individuals, communities, and nations.” However, more recent general conference talks that address the family use far less drastic language. For comparison, between 1993 and 1995, there were four different general conference talks, all given by apostles or the Church president, that expressed specific concern about the “disintegration” of the family or home.^[8] From 2016 to 2018, there were none.^[9]

The lack of mention of the “disintegration of the family” is not because the world is making a dramatic movement back toward the idealized nuclear family—indeed, we continue to see a movement away from that ideal. Instead, I believe that Church leaders are simply becoming more open in acknowledging and making room for the variable family structures found among Church members. Consider, for instance, Henry B. Eyring’s October 2018 general conference talk “Women and Gospel Learning in the Home” wherein he recognizes the various social situations in which women live and notes the possibilities for the potential good these women can bring to their homes, churches, communities, and workplaces.^[10] Similarly, Neil L. Andersen’s April 2016 general conference talk “Whoso Receiveth Them, Receiveth Me” acknowledges the “complex family configurations” around the world and asserts that “with millions of members and the diversity we have in the children of the Church, we need to be even more thoughtful and sensitive.”^[11] These statements, and others like them, by Church leaders are different in tone and substance from the “family disintegration” language of the mid-1990s.

In sum, the proclamation reflects the social assumptions and conventions of the time and place in which it was produced. Written at a different time, in a different location, by different people, an authoritative statement on marriage and family would reflect different priorities and focal points. To be clear: this does not mean that the proclamation is not inspired. But prophets and their prophetic oracles come out of some social context.^[12] Acknowledgment of this situatedness should encourage flexibility in interpreting the proclamation for our time and place and create the expectation that future statements on family structure—which will inevitably be released in different social environments—will reflect and respond to these differences.

Theological Trajectory

The proclamation’s apparent reinforcing, absolutizing, eternalizing, and deifying of contemporary gendered stereotypes and heteronormativity has presented a challenge to feminists and LGBTQ individuals. However, feminist biblical scholars, who have had similar challenges with Paul’s writings, have developed many creative and thoughtful strategies for interpreting gendered texts. One particular feminist technique for reading Pauline texts championed by Sandra Polaski offers a powerful tool for examining the proclamation, what she calls the “theological trajectory” of a text.

Paul’s writings, or those attributed to Paul, contain numerous passages that seem to diminish women’s roles in the Church.^[13] In her examination of Paul, Polaski suggests avenues to expose and counter male oppression in a text. First, she argues for reading thematically, that is to say, restoring “the woman’s voice or critiqu[ing] the woman’s suppression within the texts of male literally culture.”^[14] In practice, thematic analysis re-centers the discussion of a text on the cultural context and social situatedness of its creation. Second, Polaski argues that readers must then learn to read strategically, seeking “a different reading altogether from the one that patriarchy has promoted.”^[15] Polaski suggests that this sort of dramatic re-vision of a text, one that privileges social context, allows readers to see the gendered language in a text as a set of debated positions that reflect the world that the writer knows, not necessarily the one the writer intends.^[16] As Phyllis Trible might say, texts become descriptive, not prescriptive.^[17] This strategy strips a text of oppressive power and allows readers to “imagine [a writer, in this case Paul] and his interpreters as fully engaged in the messier political subjectivities of the diverse communities to which he wrote and those that have subsequently interpreted him.”^[18]

A text’s theological trajectory goes beyond any one specific passage. Polaski suggests that readers can boldly reread challenging texts by uncovering the more fundamental principles on which the texts are built. This requires readers to understand texts as part of a specific social situation rather than a set of dogmatic, unbending universal principles. Further, as readers look deep into the text to see the principles upon which the text is based, they will necessarily recognize that these principles must be applied differently in different social situations. For Paul’s writings, Polaski suggests that readers see “the radical equality [Paul] posits between Jew and Gentile” and then apply the “theological trajectory” toward which the texts points to a understand a “similarly radical equality between . . . male and female.”^[19] Polaski looks at Paul’s writings “not so much to see where they (and their author and first recipients) stand. I look to see where the texts point!”^[20]

What is the theological trajectory of the statements in the family proclamation? Where is the proclamation leading us? By going through this exercise, I believe that readers can see the proclamation in a new light: as a living, flexible set of principles, not a monolith of social morality. Let me offer a few specific and powerful examples applying theological trajectory.

• The proclamation notes that “All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God.” Since Mormons believe in a gendered deity, there must be both a male image of God and a female image of God if this statement is to be coherent. When considered alongside the reference to “heavenly parents,” this language clearly points toward an increased discussion about, and examination of, a Heavenly Mother who has more than a passive role in our eternal lives. It also points toward increased use of feminine imagery and language in LDS God-talk. Finally, the recognition that godliness is inclusive of gender differences may point toward the breaking down of the theological barriers that currently limit female and LGBTQ members’ full participation in the priesthood and priesthood ordinances.
• The proclamation notes that gender “is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” However, as I have noted elsewhere,^[21] it does not say that gender is the essential characteristic of identity and purpose nor is there any explicit link between gender and priesthood (in fact, there is no mention of priesthood at all in the proclamation). The trajectory of this realization points toward increasing equality in ecclesiastical responsibilities, fewer (or no) gender-specific callings, and potentially the structuring of priesthood offices for women. For instance, this might include calling women as Sunday School president or men as Primary president, having women serve as the leader of a ward or stake, creating a regional leadership function for women (comparable to the Area Seventies), allowing women to serve in all General Authority positions (Quorums of the Seventy, Presiding Bishopric, apostles, etc.), or having young women assume responsibilities now only reserved for young men, such as preparing, passing, or blessing the sacrament. Further, if gender is only one of many characteristics that are essential to our individual purpose, this language points toward a dismantling of the stigmas and exclusion that too often accompany Church participation for those in the LGBTQ community.
• The proclamation delineates a father-breadwinner/mother-caregiver paradigm. At the same time, it also states: “Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs. . . . In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.” Just on its face, this statement opens the doors for wives to “help” the husbands with breadwinning responsibilities and for husbands to “help” the wives with caregiving responsibilities. However, the statement points toward situations where breadwinning and caregiving responsibilities are decided by the individual circumstance of a specific family rather than dictated in a universal, gendered statement that applies to all families.
• Perhaps most interestingly, the proclamation’s primary argument can be summarized as: “Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities.” This statement seems to point toward the idea that gender-specific roles and idealized family structures are far, far less important than the activities and qualities that characterize successful family life. Thus, this statement points toward the fairly remarkable view that quality relationships (both with other family members and with our heavenly parents) matter much more than any particular organizational schema and potentially more than whether, or to whom, one is married. For instance, a same-sex couple or a single mother or father raising a family that is founded on “faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities” may be more pleasing to God than a family that follows traditional father/mother structure but lacks those attributes.

While some might raise the concern that this sort of reading leads us “beyond the text,” “beyond the text” is where the living tradition of scripture is found. The Gospel of Matthew, for instance, is replete with fulfillment citations that come from the likes of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Hosea (among others).^[22] These scriptures cited by Matthew certainly meant something in the time in which they were uttered—they had a contemporaneous meaning—but Matthew looked “beyond the text” to see where these oracles were pointing and suggested that they were pointing to Jesus. For many modern Christians, including LDS readers, Matthew’s trajectory-analysis that points to Jesus now seems self-evident—in fact, there are many Christians who cannot understand the Old Testament scriptures cited by Matthew as anything other than a reference to Jesus—but in its day, it was an act of interpretation and re-vision. Just as Matthew’s process of reconsidering prior prophetic oracles to see where those texts might lead helped early Christians embrace the “newness” of Jesus’ advent, we can re-see the family proclamation in new and exciting ways to embrace the “newness” that is to come in our understanding of families.

Conclusion

In her book God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, Phyllis Trible observes of scripture, “interpretation of its content is forever changing, since new occasions teach new duties and contexts alter texts, liberating them from frozen constructions.”^[23] This same optimism and vision of freedom should fill LDS members worldwide. We are a people who deeply value our “living church”^[24] and who believe that God “will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”^[25] Certainly some of those revelations will come as we reconsider the words of the past. The family proclamation is not meant to be a “frozen construction” leveraged by individuals to support preexisting biases or a weapon against those who do not share political or ideological perspectives. Rather, by carefully unpacking the proclamation though understanding the social situatedness of that text, we are liberated to look far into the future and consider where the proclamation is pointing.

---

Note: The Dialogue Foundation provides the web format of this article as a courtesy. There may be unintentional differences from the printed version. For citational and bibliographical purposes, please use the printed version or the PDFs provided online and on JSTOR.

^[1] Philip Cohen, “Family Diversity is the New Normal for America’s Children,” Council on Contemporary Families, Sept. 4, 2014. Cohen questions the notion of the idealized family structure that developed as part of the suburban ethos in the 1950s and ’60s and suggests that there was no “typical” family.

^[2] Pew Research Center, “The American Family Today,” Dec. 17, 2015. See also research from the IOM (Institute of Medicine) and NRC (National Research Council) in Steve Olson, ed., Toward an Integrated Science of Research on Families: Workshop Report (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2011), 7–20.

^[3] Mindy E. Scott, W. Bradford Wilcox, Renee Ryberg, and Laurie DeRose, “Executive Summary,” in World Family Map 2015: Mapping Family Change and Child Well-Being Outcomes (New York: Child Trends and Social Trends Institute, 2015), 3, 12.

^[4] Pew Research Center, “Same-Sex Marriage, State by State,” June 26, 2015.

^[5] Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act was deemed unconstitutional on June 26, 2013 by the United States Supreme Court.

^[6] Pew Research Center, “Same-Sex Marriage, State by State.”

^[7] Neal A. Maxwell, “Take Especial Care of your Family,” Apr. 1994.

^[8] A search for “families” on the Citation Index (http://scriptures.byu.edu/) limited to general conference talks between 1993 and 1995 yielded ninety-one results. Four talks specifically addressed the “disintegration” of the family: James E. Faust, “Father, Come Home,” Apr. 1993; Boyd K. Packer, “The Father and the Family,” Apr. 1994; Howard W. Hunter, “Exceeding Great and Precious Promises,” Oct. 1994; and Gordon B. Hinckley, “Stand Strong against the Wiles of the World,” Oct. 1995.

^[9] Most references you find prior to 2016 are simply quotations from the proclamation rather than unique language on the family that makes a case independent of the proclamation.

^[10] Henry B. Eyring, “Women and Gospel Learning in the Home,” Oct. 2018.

^[11] Neil L. Andersen, “Whoso Receiveth Them, Receiveth Me,” Apr. 2016.

^[12] Consider the difference between Amos’s message to the Kingdom of Israel in the eighth century BCE and section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Amos’s preaching against the use of “high places” is contextualized to the time and place in which he preached just as much as Joseph Smith’s statements about tobacco and alcohol are specific to his time and place.

^[13] See, for instance, 1 Corinthians 14:33–35, Colossians 3:18, Ephesians 5:22, 1 Timothy 2:9–12, 1 Timothy 5:14, and Titus 2:4–5. See also Rebecca Moore, Women in Christian Traditions (New York: New York University Press, 2015), 53–56.

^[14] Sandra Hack Polaski, A Feminist Introduction to Paul (St. Louis, Mo.: Chalice Press, 2005), 5.

^[15] Polaski. Feminist Introduction to Paul, 5.

^[16] Polaski. Feminist Introduction to Paul, 108.

^[17] Phyllis Trible, “Eve and Adam: Genesis 2–3 Reread,” Andover Newton Quarterly 13 (1973): 80.

^[18] Melanie Johnson-DeBaufre and Laura S. Nasrallah, “Beyond the Heroic Paul: Toward a Feminist and Decolonizing Approach to the Letters of Paul,” in The Colonized Apostle: Paul through Postcolonial Eyes, edited by Christopher D. Stanley (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), 173.

^[19] Polaski, Feminist Introduction to Paul, 4.

^[20] Polaski, Feminist Introduction to Paul, 11, italics in the original.

^[21] M. David Huston, “Generation X and Framing Gender in the Church: My Personal Journey,” Sunstone 186 (Spring 2018): 12.

^[22] See, for example, Matthew 1:22–23; 2:15, 17–18, 23; 4:14–16; 8:17; 12:17–21; 13:35; 21:4–5; and 27:9–10. Mark Allan Powell, Introducing the New Testament: A Historical, Literary, and Theological Survey (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2009), 112.

^[23] Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978), 202.

^[24] Doctrine and Covenants 1:30.

^[25] Articles of Faith 1:9.

[post_title] => The Theological Trajectory of “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 54.1 (Spring 2021): 17–28
Huston argues that we should interpret that text in its historical context and glean from it new possibilities. Drawing on feminist interpretive strategies, Huston reads for the “theological trajectory,” rather than the plain meaning, to discern principles that might endure beyond a narrowly heterosexual nuclear family. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => the-theological-trajectory-of-the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-07-26 14:21:03 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-07-26 14:21:03 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=27871 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 27876 [post_author] => 2055 [post_date] => 2021-04-24 15:26:22 [post_date_gmt] => 2021-04-24 15:26:22 [post_content] =>

In the 1970s and ’80s there was a common attitude in the Church that a Latter-day Saint could not be gay, and the Church handbook was written in such a way as to allow individuals to be excommunicated just for being known to have a sexual orientation other than heterosexual. Even after the Church clarified that the mere fact of being gay was not grounds for excommunication, given that the majority of gay people choose a same-sex relationship over celibacy or marriage to a member of the opposite sex, disproportionate numbers of gay men and lesbians ended up excommunicated. An analogous situation exists for trans people, who generally need to transition in order to be healthy. Also, at least some Church leaders have continued, despite handbook clarifications, to excommunicate individuals for the mere fact of being LGBTQ. More recently, I know a number of gay and lesbian individuals excommunicated for “apostasy” during the forty-one months of “the policy” (categorizing same-sex marriage as apostasy). For LGBTQ individuals who are Latter-day Saints, the experience or anticipation of excommunication looms large in our emotional and spiritual landscape.

I was excommunicated in 1986. I’ve known many other LGBTQ Latter-day Saints who have been excommunicated. I’ve seen the range of emotions and reactions to the experience of being excommunicated: devastation, liberation, sadness, bravado, loneliness, fear, resilience, anxiety, and peace. Excommunication can be a heartbreaking experience, with huge repercussions for one’s self-image as well as for one’s family and social relationships. For some, excommunication represents a desired break with an institution with which one has irreconcilable differences. But for others, excommunication carries a social stigma to be avoided at all costs. For some, the spiritual penalties that come with excommunication are most feared, since they see excommunication as banishment from God and the severing of covenants that bind us to our individual families and to the larger human family.

Regardless of one’s feelings about it, excommunication is rarely seen as a positive thing.

One very common response to the threat of excommunication is to simply drop out of activity, to try to stay “off the radar” of one’s Church leaders. I remember a number of years ago having a conversation with a gay Latter-day Saint who told me that he wished he could attend church, but he was afraid of being excommunicated. I was attending church regularly, despite being excommunicated. I remember thinking how ironic it was to stop attending church for fear of excommunication. Many individuals informally excommunicate themselves because of their fear of the formality.

I understand this is complex. Because I am contacted from time to time by LGBTQ Latter-day Saints asking about the experience of being excommunicated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, my desire here is to share insights that come with having lived with excommunication for over thirty years, half of which has been lived as a believing and church-active LGBTQ Saint despite being excommunicated.

While the focus of this essay is dealing with excommunication, just about everything that I have to say here could apply to how people might deal with other forms of Church discipline, such as having one’s temple recommend taken away or being disfellowshipped. While this essay is written with a focus on the experience of LGBTQ individuals, I also hope this can be helpful to any others coming to terms with painful Church disciplinary actions. At the heart of any advice I would share is my conviction that there are things in life we can control, and there are things that we cannot control. We cannot always control the consequences of our choices, but we are the ones who make the choices. If we take the time to discern what we truly want in life, and then if we pursue that which we truly desire with integrity, we will be happy even when the consequences of our choices are difficult.

My Experience with Excommunication

I am a believing Latter-day Saint, actively attending my ward, participating as much as I am able, and practicing my faith as much as possible within the constraints of my membership status. I have a strong desire to someday be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in full standing.

I was excommunicated in 1986. At the time I had committed no offense worthy of excommunication. I had had my temple recommend taken away, and my bishop at BYU had told me that I should not partake of the sacrament until I had been masturbation-free for at least three months. After a bout with severe depression and nearly committing suicide, I felt prompted by the Spirit to write a letter to my bishop to ask that my name be removed from the records of the Church. Instead of performing this administrative procedure, my bishop convened a Church court and excommunicated me in absentia. My father attended the court.

My response to the excommunication was one of relief, with a little bit of annoyance. I had asked to have my name removed from the Church records and didn’t understand why a full-blown Church court would be necessary in order to do that. However, in my mind the end result was the same, and I was grateful that my request had been fulfilled and that I was no longer a member of the Church.

Five years after my excommunication, I met and entered into a relationship with the man who is my husband to this day. We became a couple in 1991; we held a public commitment ceremony in 1995, a time when same-sex marriage was legal nowhere in the United States; we purchased a home together in 1996; and we legally married in California in 2008. Regardless of how or why I was excommunicated in 1986, current Church policy is such that if I were a member, my bishop would have grounds for excommunicating me now, and I cannot currently be reinstated into membership.

In 2005, nineteen years after my excommunication, I had a series of spiritual experiences that led me to begin attending at my ward. I’ve remained “active” since then. I’ve been through five bishops and three stake presidents now and have met with each of them over the years, some of them on a regular basis. My church leaders and my ward are very supportive of me. They respect my agency and my desire to remain faithful to my relationship with my husband. They also hope and pray with me that I can someday be restored to full membership in the Church, however that may come about, whether by a change in Church policy or a change in my marital status.

There have been times when my excommunicated status has felt burdensome and when I have yearned to be able to be baptized and partake of the bread and water each week at sacrament. However, I firmly believe that I am currently where the Lord wants me to be, and I have felt reassurances through the Spirit that eventually all will work out so long as I remain faithful and attentive to its promptings.

I view my excommunicated status as a by-product of current Church policy and the state of our collective understanding of LGBTQ issues. I don’t resent it in any way. In fact, I’m grateful for the opportunity that my unique life circumstances afford me to learn valuable life lessons of patience and love.

Those are my biases, that is my experience, and that is my perspective. That having been said, I hope that what follows will be helpful to people regardless of where they’re coming from or what relationship they have or hope to have with the Church.

I’ve spoken with a number of close friends who are currently excommunicated, and everybody I know is in a different place with it. Of course, excommunication is an intensely personal experience, and I want to speak to some of the ways that we can navigate it despite the intense personal pain that we can experience around it. But excommunication is not merely personal, it is also social. So I also want to talk about some of the aspects of dealing with excommunication within our families and with our friends in the Church. If you live in a region of the United States where there is a Mormon majority, excommunication can have even more thoroughgoing impact, and I want to take a moment to address that situation as well.

Relationship with God

Ostensibly, Church disciplinary processes are all about our relationship with God. Some no longer believe in God by the time of their excommunication. For others, belief in God does not survive the excommunication process. For yet others, belief in and relationship with God remains an important factor throughout the process. Regardless of personal belief in or about God, the symbolic aspects of a process that is presented as a form of divine judgment on us is important to consider.

One of the most common ways that people typically think of God is as morality writ large. In psychological terms, God is identified with the superego. Our ideas about and relationship with God are often a function of our relationship with our superego. If we find ourselves frequently in conflict with authority figures, chances are likely that we will feel ourselves in conflict with, angry at, or disbelieving in relation to God. Whether God exists or not, it might be worthwhile to consider what that means personally.

Another way to think about God was articulated by Protestant theologian Paul Tillich. How do we relate to ultimate values in our life? Our ultimate values are those values that matter the most to us. They are the values that we will not sacrifice for anything else. Where do we stand in relation to our ultimate values? If, for example, an ultimate value for us is having a deep, loving relationship with our family, but we have been neglecting family for our job, we may find ourselves out of sorts in life, feeling like something important is missing.

If we know what our ultimate values are and we have aligned our lives in such a way that we are in harmony with them, it’s unlikely that we will need external validation in order to feel good about ourselves. It is even possible that in pursuit of our ultimate values we come into conflict with Church policies. It’s possible to be a very moral human being, a human being who has high standards of ethical behavior, and be in conflict with Church policies. This has happened many times in the history of religious institutions. It is my personal conviction that eventually those kinds of conflicts will be resolved through divine mediation. But in the meantime, we may have to be prepared to find ourselves in inconvenient or uncomfortable situations. If we act with integrity, from an eternal perspective we have nothing to fear.

If, on the other hand, we do not know what our ultimate values are, or we know what they are, or have a vague sense of what they are, but we’re not sure if our life is in harmony with them, external invalidation can be devastating to us. Others invalidating our choices can heighten the buried sense of doubt and fear that we already might have about the well-being of our souls.

For me, the most effective way to get in touch with my ultimate values is through spiritual practice such as scripture study, meditation, and especially fasting and prayer. It is important to approach these things in a completely open way, in a way of letting go of what we think we know and letting in what we don’t know. We may think we already have the answers to critical questions in our lives, because somebody else has told us what they think those answers are. It doesn’t matter if the people who have told us this are Church leaders or not. We need to figure these things out for ourselves. If we’re experiencing doubt or conflict about something, it is precisely because we don’t have answers that are compelling and we need some broader perspective. And as we get in touch with that, we will get the right answer, even if it is an answer that is unexpected.

There are other ways to get in touch with our ultimate values in addition to fasting and prayer. What matters is taking the time and making the effort to know our own mind and our own heart and then to reflect on our place in the larger scheme of things.

This can actually be a lifelong process. So we shouldn’t be surprised if we get answers and still have to wrestle with doubt about whether these are truly our ultimate answers. It’s OK to make mistakes. It’s OK to get an answer and to try that answer on for size and then discover further down the road that it’s not the right answer. That’s the nature of life, and to use the language of the Church, that’s why we have the Atonement. That’s why this mortal coil is defined by agency as well as by trust in the mercy and the atonement of Jesus Christ: so that we can learn through experience.

It can take time and work, but if we seek to get good with God (or our higher self), everything else will make sense and fall into place.

Family Relationships

My excommunication from the Church created a profound crisis in my relationships with my parents, my grandmother, and with other family members. It resulted in, among other things, my parents temporarily withdrawing their financial support of me in college. I mentioned that my father attended the Church court resulting in my excommunication. I’ve subsequently discussed that experience with him and learned that it was one of the most heartbreaking moments in his life as a father.

I was fortunate in that I managed to come to terms with being gay and figured out a way forward for myself before getting involved in a heterosexual marriage and having children. I know many, many gay men and lesbians who exercised faith as they had been instructed to by Church leaders and married in spite of strong same-sex orientation, resulting in family situations that eventually became unbearable. Dealing with the full reality of being gay or lesbian and simultaneously facing the prospect of excommunication and divorce is something that I never had to deal with. And I recognize how damaging excommunication can be under those circumstances.

The most important thing we can do is to open our hearts and communicate with our loved ones. I say this knowing well that we may find ourselves in a predicament with our loved ones precisely because what is most important to communicate with them is also that which we have been most afraid to communicate with them. We may have been lying to ourselves and to them for years. So this often requires us to get as aligned as we possibly can with God, with the Holy Spirit, or with our ultimate values. But fully open-hearted and honest communication is the only chance we have at salvaging and strengthening these relationships that are and will always be the most important relationships that we can have in our lives.

It is possible that despite our best efforts to communicate openly and with integrity, our sharing results in some sort of a break. We cannot control how we will be received by others. Sometimes loved ones will respond harshly and unkindly and without understanding. Our mental health and well-being may require distancing from them at least for a time.

Family relationships, however, are different from other relationships in that they are the relationships that we will often ultimately need to keep working out even when there are breakdowns and failures that are long-lasting and damaging. So my second bit of advice would be to always find some way to keep a door or a window open to these relationships, even when we need to take a break from them. And we should always keep hope that redemption in these relationships is possible.

An open door or window could be an occasional letter or a phone call. It could be an appearance at a family reunion. It doesn’t matter as long as it is a non-judging and authentic act of love expressing a desire for a positive relationship. We might need a therapist to help us figure out what our appropriate boundaries should be in relationships that have been or become abusive. Having an open door or window doesn’t make sense if our house is in shambles or if we are not taking care of ourselves.

After a break with my parents that lasted for several years, over time we were able to start over and eventually come to a point where my family are among my most loyal and committed allies and supporters in my journey as a gay man. I know gay men and lesbians who have beautiful relationships with former spouses and with children, despite being divorced and excommunicated.

These are the kinds of outcomes I would hope for everyone. It may take a lot of patience, faith, and a little long-suffering in order to achieve them.

Church Relationships

I want to start here by bearing testimony that it is possible to completely break with the Church and live lives that are fulfilling and happy. Many of us grew up in Church cultures that taught us to believe that without the Church we could never be happy. In fact, we can be very happy. If we desire, we can find other religious or spiritual communities that will sustain us in our life journey, that will help us connect with our ultimate values and live our lives in alignment with those values. It is also possible to be quite happy without any church at all in our lives.

If you are peculiar in the way that I am peculiar and you have a desire for a positive relationship with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, despite being excommunicated from the same, I have a few additional bits of wisdom to share about this.

First of all, make sure that your desire for a relationship with the Church comes from an authentic place deep within. If you are making the effort as a default, because you can’t imagine being happy in any other church, you may find church an increasingly frustrating and unsatisfying experience. If you have any doubt about your testimony of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, even the slightest doubt, being excommunicated is an excellent opportunity to explore other religions and to learn more about how other people view faith and see if it works for you. If you find something that brings you equal or greater joy than that which you experienced as a Latter-day Saint, it’s a win!

If you’ve explored and come back, or you are 110 percent sure that this is where your heart is, the rest is relatively easy.

Yes, you will encounter skepticism about you and your motives and your testimony. If you find yourself demoralized by every off-putting comment, by everybody who stares at you when they think you’re not looking, by words over the pulpit that you disagree with, by Sunday School discussions that are less than uplifting, church participation becomes an exercise in masochism. But if your motive for being there is because you have a testimony of the gospel, because you know this is where you belong, and you’re eager to learn what the Holy Spirit has to teach you in the context of relationships with other believing and imperfect Saints, what to do in the various situations you encounter will be relatively easy to discern.

You will know that when somebody says something that offends you, the moment to deal with that is never a moment when your response is coming from a place of anger. You might know that a response should be put off indefinitely until your relationship with that individual is deeper, when an opportune moment presents itself and you feel the Spirit prompting you to speak. You will know that the most important purpose of gathering as a church is in fact to deepen our relationships with one another.

If that is your understanding, whether you are a formal member or not, you will be engaged in ministry. You will serve whenever and wherever and in whatever capacity opportunities for service present themselves. You might help vacuum the sanctuary on a Saturday morning, or show up when the elders quorum asks for volunteers to help somebody move, or bake a meal for sharing at the annual ward Christmas party.

You will stop worrying about whether your relationships with members of your ward are reciprocal. The question will always be: Are you becoming a more loving person? What are the areas in your life that you need to work on? Which way is the Spirit leading you? And you will find that as those things become your focus, members of your ward and your church leaders will open up to you. You will find yourself in surprising situations where members of your faith community become your advocates and your defenders and your best friends, the people who, in the whole world, make you feel most safe and most loved.

And added to that depth of human love you will experience divine love. You will feel the sweet and distinct and irreplaceable and unique presence of the Holy Spirit, whispering love and divine approbation. There will be moments when you can call upon priesthood blessings by worthy priesthood holders in your ward and you will feel those blessings coming not from men but directly from loving heavenly parents.

If we go into any ward situation with an evangelistic agenda, with the idea that we know what and where the Church should be and we are here to teach people, we will lose the Spirit. It doesn’t matter if the Church does need to change. The fact remains that however or in whatever way your fellow Saints and leaders are imperfect, from the viewpoint of our Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, we are imperfect in exactly the same way. We might have certain lessons down pat, but there are other things we struggle with that others don’t. Some of the lessons that they have down pat are things we need to work on. Until we have that recognition, there can be no Zion. And the attitude that we are there to fix things will militate against that recognition. In fact, it will lay for us the same traps of judgmentalism that many others fall into in relation to us as LGBTQ folks. Our sole agenda in the framework of the gospel is to learn and apply the lessons of the Atonement.

As we all learn those lessons, the Church becomes that which we all pray and yearn for: a place where there is no male nor female, bond nor free, black nor white, gay nor bi nor lesbian nor trans nor queer nor straight. A place where there is no excommunicated, where the walls of separation have all been torn down, where there are no strangers, where we are all fellow citizens as Saints. The Church will become the kind of church where you can belong, because you will belong.

You already belong there, as difficult as it might be to believe. I have learned on this journey that Zion appears when we begin to live in it. It might feel like you are the only one living there at first. But live in it long enough and it will start to spread from you to others.

Social Stigma / Social Support

At the time that I requested that my name be removed from the records of the Church, I had just completed my third year at Brigham Young University and would normally have returned to Provo for my senior year. I had just survived a summer when my intention upon leaving BYU had been to commit suicide. My decision to resign from the Church and to not return to BYU were made knowing of my psychological vulnerability and the risk of plunging back into a deep depression if I returned. I was also very aware of the social stigma that I would face as an ex-member of the Church, not to mention the problems that might pose in relation to my enrollment at BYU.

I don’t know for certain exactly what kind of social stigma I would have faced at BYU or the challenges that would have involved because I chose instead to transfer to Northern Michigan University in the Upper Peninsula (UP) of Michigan, where I completed my undergraduate degree. If there were Latter-day Saints in the UP, I certainly never encountered any! And I didn’t seek them out. I joined a Lutheran congregation with evangelical leanings, and my status as an excommunicated member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was seen as something of a badge of honor. I had transplanted myself into a community and into social circles where I received ample love and support from many new friends who were eager to help in any way they could.

If you are LGBTQ facing excommunication from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and you live in the Intermountain West in a Mormon-majority community, you will definitely be facing some social challenges. My advice to you and to anyone facing excommunication, regardless of where you live, is find your post-excommunication social network. If you don’t have a circle of friends and family who can be a part of that network, it is important to create one.

My story is a bit unique in that I was not excommunicated for being gay, I was excommunicated for requesting that my name be removed from the Church records. I was not out to the Church leadership. My story is also unusual in that my post-excommunication support network were evangelical Christians who also didn’t know that I was gay. Evangelical Christians shared most of my core beliefs about God and Jesus Christ, and they were a very warm, compassionate community where I received lots of love in transitioning out of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But they were not a great support community for coming out, something I learned a few years later. Then I had to find my post–coming-out support network!

No LGBTQ person takes lightly the decisions that lead one to come out or take actions that lead to being excommunicated from the Church. We make these decisions through much heartache and wrestling, often plagued by fear of the consequences and self-doubt about the wisdom of our decisions. Nevertheless, our decision is made with integrity, and we deserve to have a community of people around us who are willing to support us. Unconditionally.

So if you don’t know who those people are, you need to find them as soon as possible. Affirmation: LGBTQ Mormons, Families & Friends is a good place to start. There you will find plenty of people who understand the piece about being excommunicated, as well as the piece about coming out and coming to terms with being L, G, B, T, or Q.

No matter where you go for support, nobody will fully understand all of the nuances of your particular story. Wherever you go for support, the most important kind of support to cultivate is self-support. Take time to look at the aspects of your journey for which you are grateful and begin to imagine the future that you want. Take steps to realize that future. As we learn to do that for ourselves, we will eventually be able to do that with others, and we will find a natural support community growing around us.

I should add, finally, that it is not necessary to write off friends and family in the Church as part of your post-excommunication network. In theory at least, members of the Church are supposed to rally around those who been excommunicated, showing an increase of love. I am aware that that doesn’t always happen. I do know of individuals, though, who have made that work. They communicated with family, friends, and leaders in the Church about their coming out process and their decision to enter into a relationship or to transition. Often members of their church community understood and were supportive. This is not unheard of.

You get to be in the driver’s seat through this process. You get to decide what kind of support you need, and you have a right to seek it.

The Contexts We Bring

I remember having a conversation with Mike Quinn, my former professor and mentor at BYU, shortly after his excommunication in 1993. Mike was one of the “September Six” who was excommunicated for apostasy, for things he had published on the ordinations of women in Nauvoo in the 1840s. Mike had played an important role in helping me to recontextualize things I had learned about Church history in my freshman year at BYU that shook my testimony. In many ways, I credited him with helping to save my faith. What impressed me about that conversation was his lack of acrimony, his generosity and equanimity in the face of an event that most people would consider shattering. Mike later spoke to me about a dream he had had of meeting Boyd K. Packer, the apostle who reportedly had ordered his excommunication, in the afterlife, and the two of them finally embracing. Mike taught me something important.

Recently I was listening to an interview on National Public Radio. In the interview, they were discussing stress and its impact on our well-being. One piece of the discussion caught my attention. They were discussing whether stress is good or bad, or if there are certain kinds of stress that are good or bad. The answer to the question was that our body doesn’t really differentiate between good stress and bad stress. The physiological reaction that occurs when we experience stress as positive is identical to the physiological reaction when we experience stress as negative. Long-term or intensive stress can be bad for us. However, stressful situations can be managed (or not) depending on the context that we bring to them.

If, for example, we see a stressful situation as an opportunity to learn something new, to overcome a challenge, or to see what we’re made of, the likelihood that we will navigate that stressful situation and ultimately manage or deal with the stress positively is much greater than if we view a stressful situation as calamity, as misfortune, or as persecution. The most important variable in how we come out of a stressful situation is our own context for looking at that situation. Certainly that is the only variable over which we can exercise any control.

Some people will call this a cop-out. But if we go into stressful situations telling ourselves we are powerless, we will end up being victims in that situation whether we are truly powerless or not. On the other hand, if we go into a situation acknowledging that certainly there are things we do not have control over but recognizing that there are things we can control and then discerning which choices will be most positive based on what we can control of the situation, we have a fighting chance to manage that situation and come out victorious.

There are any number of contexts that we can use to come to terms with the situation of being excommunicated from the Church. We can look at it as an opportunity to get closure on a relationship in which we have experienced harm. We can look at it as the consequence, fault of no one, of a situation of insufficient understanding of complex issues, and we can forgive. We can see it as a test of faith, an opportunity to deepen our relationship with God.

This is heavy stuff. When we experience an overwhelming blow, asking ourselves to take a step back and recontextualize the situation might be asking too much in the moment. Our brains seldom work like that when we are in intense pain, and few things in life can be more painful than the rejection we experience when our church takes action to cut us off, including in that cutting off a message that we are unacceptable to God. There is no shame or wrong in simply acknowledging that a situation is too much and seeking support or help wherever we can find it. There are many individuals and communities within our reach who are there for us. If you don’t know who to turn to, reach out to me and I will help.

I encourage allies or supporters of the LGBTQ community, either in or out of the Church, to be proactive in reaching out to LGBTQ individuals. It’s always OK to ask someone how they’re feeling, to get to know them better, and to find ways to be there for them, advocate for them, and stand with them as they speak their truths.

The most important thing that I’ve remembered through my own process of excommunication and the various contexts that I’ve applied to try to make sense of it is that God looks at the heart, and God never abandons us.

Prior to my excommunication, my fear of rejection by God and rejection by the Church left me terrified and even suicidal. Realization that God knew me intimately, knew the desires of my heart, knew who I was and how I was made, and loved and blessed and claimed me as his own, enabled me to face my excommunication, an event I once considered the ultimate failure, with equanimity.

In time, as I felt God calling me to reengage with the Church even as an excommunicated person, I experienced something new. I saw my excommunication and the circumstances surrounding it as a time of trial through which both I and the Church, as we came to understand it and the conditions that produced it, were growing into a deeper understanding of God‘s plan for all of us. And that recognition made possible by the Spirit leaves me with profound hope and anticipation. I now see my excommunication as a symbol of God‘s grace in my life and as a finger pointing toward something greater. And as my wise trans Latter-day Saint friend Sara Jade Woodhouse once said, reflecting on her own storied relationship with the Church, I can’t wait to see what God does next.

---

Note: The Dialogue Foundation provides the web format of this article as a courtesy. There may be unintentional differences from the printed version. For citational and bibliographical purposes, please use the printed version or the PDFs provided online and on JSTOR.

[post_title] => Excommunication and Finding Wholeness [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 54.1 (Spring 2021): 69–79
Five years after my excommunication, I met and entered into a relationship with the man who is my husband to this day. We became a couple in 1991; we held a public commitment ceremony in 1995, a time when same-sex marriage was legal nowhere in the United States; we purchased a home together in 1996; and we legally married in California in 2008. Regardless of how or why I was excommunicated in 1986, current Church policy is such that if I were a member, my bishop would have grounds for excommunicating me now, and I cannot currently be reinstated into membership. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => excommunication-and-finding-wholeness [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-07-19 14:56:43 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-07-19 14:56:43 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=27876 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 27870 [post_author] => 3032 [post_date] => 2021-04-24 04:14:06 [post_date_gmt] => 2021-04-24 04:14:06 [post_content] =>

In their 2010 book America’s Four Gods: What We Say About God—And What That Says About Us, sociologists of religion Paul Froese and Christopher Bader argue that Americans harbor four conceptualizations of God.^[1] These conceptualizations sit on two axes: the degree to which God is involved in the world and the degree to which God judges the sinner. Put together, these four quadrants include the so-called “authoritative God” (who is active in the world and judgmental of the sinner), the “benevolent God” (who is active in the world but less judging of the sinner), the “critical God” (who is less involved in the world but nevertheless judgmental of the sinner), and the “distant God” (who is neither involved in the world or judging of the sinner).^[2] These four ideas of God do not always evenly match up with a particular denomination. For instance, as Froese and Bader argue, Roman Catholics are just as likely to believe in the so-called “authoritative God” as they are the “benevolent God.”^[3] This suggests that understanding the subtle nuance of a practitioner’s belief should go far beyond simply evaluating whether or not they attend a certain church and suggesting further that two attendees at the same church service may be speaking together about “God” while unknowingly possessing two varying conceptualizations.^[4]

The present study is a small-scale replication of Froese and Bader’s method within the Latter-day Saint community, a group neglected in their initial research. There is within this community the (possible) theological justification for any of these four models of the divine. For instance, Latter-day Saints seem to harbor a certain ambivalence regarding the extent to which God is involved in the world. On one hand, Latter-day Saints affirm the theophanies of their founder Joseph Smith Jr., suggesting their belief in a god who is capable and willing to participate in revelatory visitations.^[5] Additionally, Latter-day Saints place continual and repeated emphasis on the influence of the Holy Spirit in their life as a guide and prompter. The Holy Spirit, acting as an emissary from God, is sometimes referred to as a “constant companion” for the baptized and has been cited as warning of danger, comforting, and passing on communication from God.^[6] On the other hand, Latter-day Saints also stress the role of agency in human life and God’s unwillingness—or perhaps even inability—to interfere in one’s life non-consensually. As one Latter-day Saint hymn puts it, “For this eternal truth is giv’n: That God will force no man to heav’n.”^[7] Terryl and Fiona Givens describe a God “who weeps” because he (God is gendered male in Latter-day Saint thought) is unable to change his children’s ways and, more to the point, experiences vulnerability because of this limitation.^[8] In other words, Latter-day Saint theology would postulate (in contrast to Calvin’s irresistible grace) that, for them, God is met and experienced on the believer’s terms rather than God’s, suggesting that perhaps Latter-day Saints might understand God as being less involved. Thus, it is in the interest of scholars to ascertain how these varying factors come together to create the Latter-day Saints’ understandings of God.

The present study was interested not only in what sort of God LDS people believed in but what type of variation might be found within the community. To that end, active LDS men and women, LGBT members of the Church, and former members were polled and interviewed. Each section in the paper addresses one of these subgroups of respondents. In summary, the following was found:

1. Generally, members of the LDS Church believe in the “benevolent God,” stressing God’s love and involvement.^[9]
2. In keeping with national trends, LDS women believe God to be more loving (less judgmental) than Mormon men.
3. There was a positive relationship between church activity and belief in the “benevolent God.”^[10] As church activity increases, belief in God’s involvement and love also increases.
4. There is a positive relationship between belief in LDS doctrines and belief in a benevolent God.
5. There is a positive relationship between a feeling of community in one’s local congregation and belief in a benevolent God.
6. Non-LGBT members of the Church tend to believe God is more involved and loving (non-judgmental) than LGBT members do.
7. LGBT members are more likely to describe God as “critical,” but those who attend church regularly still reported God as loving and involved.
8. Former members of the Church have previously believed in the “benevolent God.”^[11]
9. Former members of the Church feel their experiences in the Church cut against their understanding of a deity who is both involved and loving.

Description of Survey and Interviews

The survey I administered asked the same questions with the same scale as Froese and Bader asked originally, but it was expanded to include questions unique to the Latter-day Saint experience. These additional questions included inquiries regarding the rate at which participants attended church meetings, the frequency with which they paid tithing, and their level of belief in Latter-day Saint doctrine. It also asked for participants to rate the extent to which they believed Joseph Smith was a prophet as well as the extent to which he was a role model. Lastly, the survey included additional questions meant to gauge the extent to which the respondent considered themselves a member of the Latter-day Saint community, including a question regarding the extent to which they “fit in” with the Latter-day Saint community and another asking the extent to which they are “similar to” other Latter-day Saints.

Each semi-structured interview began with me asking the same questions asked by Froese and Bader. These questions included:

1. Do you believe in God? [If not, do you believe that something exists beyond our physical world?]
2. Please describe God as best you can. [Is God a “he” or a “she”? What does God look like? Can you describe God’s personality?]
3. Is God active in your daily life? In what ways?
4. Are there specific things that you have experienced that you believe were acts of God?
5. Are there world events that you believe were acts of God?
6. How does God deal with sinners?
7. Is there divine justice? What is it and how is it accomplished?
8. Does God have an opinion about moral issues? [e.g., abortion, homosexuality, the death penalty]

The second half of the interview was rather unstructured, beginning with my simply saying, “Tell me about your experience in the Latter-day Saint community.” In most cases, this request was sufficient to prod data regarding the extent to which the participant felt like a valued member of the organization. Each interview lasted roughly forty-five minutes, and each was transcribed and thematically coded. The respondents were also asked for basic demographic information including their gender, age, place of residence, sexual orientation, and race.

This study does not argue itself to be conclusive and there are obvious limitations to the research conducted. The link to the survey was distributed primarily via social media, especially Facebook and Twitter. As such the respondents tended to be under the age of forty. In addition, most of the survey respondents were female. After some interview participants were identified using social media, a snowball approach was employed to find subsequent participants. This study attempted to collect a stratified sample for interviews based on the demographic ratios existing within the Latter-day Saint population. This proved problematic on at least two fronts. For the study it was assumed, as some sources have suggested, that 60 percent of Latter-day Saints are, as they would say, inactive, meaning they no longer attend church regularly.^[12] In addition, in a true stratified sample, there would have been only one or two interviews conducted with LGBT Latter-day Saints. However, in order to gain greater representation, that particular demographic was expanded. The study also assumed that Latter-day Saint women outnumber Latter-day Saint men at a rate of 6:4, as has been reported by the Pew Research Center. This sample is not statistically representative of Latter-day Saints as a whole because most of the survey respondents were female. Note also that the names of all interviewed participants have been changed.

With these assumptions in place, the final sample group for interviews can be viewed in table 1.

Demographic	Number of Participants
Church-attending LDS Men	11
Church-attending LDS Women	8
LGBT Latter-day Saint Men	7
LGBT Latter-day Saint Women	9
Post–Latter-day Saint Men	8
Post–Latter-day Saint Women	3
Total	45

A Loving Heavenly Father: A Look at Latter-day Saints Generally

Overwhelmingly, church-attending Latter-day Saints believe in a “benevolent God”: a God who is involved in the world but not angry or judging of the sinner.^[13] Latter-day Saints who regularly attend church rank God’s love highly and his critical and wrathful nature very low. The clear majority either agree or strongly agree that God is ever-present and either disagree or strongly disagree that distant is an appropriate classifier for deity. In short, the Latter-day Saints believe in a God who is both benevolent and helpful.

Survey Data

Looking at the survey data, there are some interesting disparities between genders. My survey found that Latter-day Saint women view God as more involved and more loving than do their male counterparts. This is not necessarily a surprising finding. Froese and Bader also found that women, on average, tend to lean toward the “benevolent God,” who is both highly involved and highly loving.^[14] Additionally, Latter-day Saint women are more likely than men to believe God is involved. For instance, 71 percent of women reported that the term ever-present describes God very well. This is compared to just over half of Latter-day Saint men who reported the same.

The data suggest that belief in a loving Latter-day Saint God is correlated with belief in Latter-day Saint teachings, activity in the Church, and social stability within the organization. Whenever any of those three indicators rise, the respondents’ belief in a loving God seems to rise in turn. For instance, 99 percent of respondents who agreed that Joseph Smith was a prophet also found God to be loving.^[15] In contrast, only 48 percent of those who either strongly disagreed or disagreed that Joseph Smith was a prophet felt that God was loving. The same trend can be seen when one does not believe Joseph Smith to have been a good role model or that the current Church leadership receives revelation.

Perhaps most striking, when respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “The majority of Latter-day Saints are similar to me,” they reported believing in a loving God at 97 percent. However, the same can only be said of 78 percent of respondents who either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement. A similar trend is found in response to the statement “I ‘fit’ in the Latter-day Saint community.” More than 98 percent of respondents who strongly agreed with that statement also reported that loving described God very well. However, only 47 percent of those who strongly disagreed that they fit in the Mormon community said the same. In other words, simply not fitting into one’s congregation seems to find a correlation with the love they perceive—or don’t perceive—from deity.

Interview Data

Furthermore, Latter-day Saints believed that when God’s presence was not felt regularly, it was likely due to their own lack of trying. More than one interviewee stated so explicitly. “I haven’t felt God in my life . . . because I haven’t been doing what I need to feel God,” said one, typical of the wider trend. In other words, even if God did at points feel distant to Latter-day Saints, the situation was not irreconcilably so. God could be brought back into full high involvement in an individual’s life if they performed religious duties (e.g., reading Latter-day Saint scripture, saying a prayer, church attendance, etc.). Some participants took this further. It wasn’t that God became less involved necessarily, some reported back—rather, when Latter-day Saints were not engaged in religious behaviors, they were, as they stated, less likely to notice God’s acts in their lives. In other words, the “benevolent God” was still loving them and highly involved in their lives, they just didn’t see it.

For Latter-day Saints, there might be scriptural, historical, or theological justification for a harsh, judging God. However, this does not seem to factor into Latter-day Saints’ lived religious experiences with deity. God’s benevolence continues to the point that he doesn’t personally inflict punishment. One respondent, typical of wider trends, describes divine punishment by making a comparison between the effects of sin and the law of gravity. He explained:

Is God himself bringing down a hammer? Oh my goodness, you lied to your mother, you did some unpardonable sin, you need to be punished for that—I don’t think so. I think there are divine laws set in place, and if you go against those laws, then there is justice. So that’s the same things as gravity. . . . If you jump off a cliff, you’re going to be punished for it. I don’t think it’s technically God; it was God that invented gravity, but it was still your fault if you’re stupid enough to jump off a cliff.

Joleen, an active Latter-day Saint living in the Philadelphia area, is a good example.

I asked, “Does God inflict punishment?”

      “I don’t know. . . . I don’t think so,” she replied.

      I asked her to explain her thinking.

      “I mean, in the Book of Mormon, like, there are people who clearly are not doing the right things and clearly, they’re despised tons and it’s clear that it’s a result of their wickedness, but . . . So, I guess that, like, doctrinally, I would say yes. But I don’t know.”

This anecdote illustrates the reluctance of a Latter-day Saint woman to believe in God’s willingness to inflict punishment. Significantly, Joleen realized that what she nominally believed about God was at odds with her experience with God. God, as she experienced him, was too benevolent to inflict punishment, despite his doing so in the scripture she believed in. The question of God’s punishing was cognitively dissonant for her and remained unresolved. This idea, of sin being its own punishment, was a nearly universal response to this question. In short, in widely held Latter-day Saint belief, God doesn’t punish you for your sins—your sins punish you for your sins; God is too benevolent to do it.

The church-attending Latter-day Saint can conceptualize a more loving, more involved God than other demographics that will be discussed. For the church-attending Latter-day Saint, there are not the same obstacles disabling their belief in such an involved figure, in contrast to other demographics. For LGBT Latter-day Saints as well as post–Latter-day Saints, there is a cognitive cost to believing in high levels of God’s involvement. While those who attend church can maximize their benefit by believing in their highly loving and highly involved deity, other types of Latter-day Saints minimize these costs and increase their cognitive benefit by adapting God to the needs of their individual identity.

LGBT Mormons

This section discusses the data surrounding the LGBT Latter-day Saint community. It explores not only what kind of God LGBT Latter-day Saints believe in but also how that understanding of God keeps them involved in a church that would mark any of their romantic relationships as an act of sin. The sample size from which this section pulls is small. As such, in this section I seek only to make claims regarding those polled, not LGBT Mormons generally.

Survey Data

The LGBT Latter-day Saints polled are less likely to identify as believing Mormons. Remaining in the denomination is no easy task given the belief in the sinful nature of sex outside of a heterosexual marriage. Remaining a Latter-day Saint as an LGBT person often means living a life of celibacy. These high demands are likely the reason that the percentage of LGBT respondents who strongly agree that they are believing Latter-day Saints drops nearly in half: 30 percent of LGBT Latter-day Saints compared to 65 percent of heterosexual Latter-day Saints.

Active heterosexual Latter-day Saints generally believe in a highly loving and highly involved God, what Froese and Bader refer to as the “benevolent God.”^[16] According to the survey data, LGBT Latter-day Saints do not consider God to be as loving as heterosexual Latter-day Saints do. This is not to say that LGBT Latter-day Saints believe in Froese and Bader’s “critical God,” who is described as being uninvolved and unloving.^[17] They simply do not believe that God is as involved and loving as the heterosexual Latter-day Saints report.

For instance, when those who responded very well and somewhat well to the question “How well do you feel the word ‘loving’ describes God?” are totaled, 68 percent of LGBT Latter-day Saints report believing in a loving God. However, they are less enthusiastic about that belief than heterosexual Latter-day Saints, who responded very well to that same question at 86 percent and had no respondents report not at all. Additionally, LGBT Latter-day Saints have more diversity of opinion on the extent to which God is loving, with a combined 31 percent of participants responding undecided, not very well, or not at all to the question. This is compared to 7 percent of heterosexual Latter-day Saints who responded the same.

Additionally, while LGBT Latter-day Saints do not believe in the “critical God,” they are more likely to describe God as critical when compared to heterosexual Latter-day Saints.^[18] LGBT Latter-day Saints generally are much more ambivalent about the question; just as many responded very well as did not very well when asked “How well do you feel the word ‘critical’ describes God?”

LGBT Latter-day Saints’ comparative ambivalence to the question of God’s love may be more a product of their mixed levels of church attendance than their sexuality. As the interview data will show, church-attending LGBT Latter-day Saints continue to believe that God is highly loving and not at all critical.

Lastly, LGBT Latter-day Saints are much less likely than heterosexual Latter-day Saints to believe that their beliefs about God are similar to other Latter-day Saints. The qualitative data will expand on this point and show that in order to continue to attend church, LGBT Latter-day Saints often have to rely on their own interpretation of Church teachings.

Interview Data

One question in this study was why LGBT Latter-day Saints would choose to remain active members of the religion and, in addition, how they find space for themselves within the community. In answering these questions, the LGBT Latter-day Saints interviewed gave replies that fell along several themes. Tony is a believing though now inactive (meaning no longer church-attending) gay Latter-day Saint living in a small studio apartment in the middle of LA. He was unassuming but excited to participate. His family, he told me, was originally from the Philippines and nearly all Latter-day Saints. He “discovered” his sexuality while still in his teens. He began to fall out of the Latter-day Saint lifestyle much to the chagrin and dismay of his very faithful family. The predictive course of this story is interrupted, however, by a spiritual encounter with God.

In something of a last-ditch effort to commune with the divine, Tony took Latter-day Saint truth claims to their source, God, for verification through prayer. Tony did not expound on exactly what he felt during his prayerful encounter with deity; however, whatever it was that Tony felt was sufficient to convince him that, in his words, “it’s all true.” This realization of truthfulness led Tony to serve a mission for the full two-year assignment. Upon returning home, Tony attended a singles ward, a congregation reserved for young single adult Latter-day Saints whose purpose is to provide opportunities for marriage among Latter-day Saints. For a few years, he had decided on a life of celibacy inside the faith. In time, however, the heavy burden of celibacy proved too much for Tony and, while he never stopped believing in the Church’s truth claims, he stopped attending, stopped seeking to live a life of celibacy, and began trying to find a man with whom to start a family.

I asked him explicitly, “Why not stop believing it?” Wouldn’t it be psychologically easier, I reasoned, to find a new system of belief that better fit the life he hoped to lead? He couldn’t, he told me. “It’s all true, the whole thing,” he said. “What will that mean for you in the afterlife?” I asked with curiosity. He had no idea. Whether he would be gay or straight in the life to come, he had no idea. It was here that I took a different turn in my questioning. “If Mormonism is true, why not attend Mormon meetings?” His answer: “It’s too hard.” He explained that when he attends church meetings, “Mormon Tony pops back up” and starts saying things like, “You should try to be celibate again.” In an effort to avoid “Mormon Tony,” it was just easier to not attend. In other words, Tony couldn’t deny his experience, but he could try to forget, and, for him, that has seemed to be the best option.

In the previous section, one participant was able to comfortably affirm God’s love and involvement. Tony, in contrast, believed in those attributes of God—after all, God was involved and concerned enough about Tony to personally tell him that Mormonism was true. But, in the end, the task of continuing to believe in and worship an involved and concerned god was too much for him emotionally.

In contrast, there were other LGBT Latter-day Saints who felt that their sexuality had actually brought them into greater intimacy with God. For example, Brandon, a young man in his late twenties made what was, in the moment, a surprising claim. I asked him to try and explain to me how his being gay may have impacted his understanding of God. Thinking for a moment and looking slightly upward, he suggested, as if realizing it for the first time, “I think my being gay brought me closer to God.” He had felt alienated by his church community, there was no way around that; however, he also felt that in his alienation he had found greater access to the divine.

This was not an unusual claim, and, in fact, it became common among interviewees (though, strangely, this conflicted with the polling data). When another interviewee, Jason, was asked this question, he responded near automatically, “Absolutely . . . for better and for worse.” On one hand, he explained that it “is frustrating that a heavenly parent, a Heavenly Father, would allow continuing things that are . . . incorrect,” meaning the continuation of, as he saw them, false statements regarding LGBT peoples from both lay members and leadership in the Church. Jason’s “frustration” was that God seemed to be working below the standards of benevolence and involvement Jason had come to expect. He could not understand how a loving God could allow the leaders of the Church, with whom God is able to communicate directly, to continue to preach false ideas (as he saw them) regarding homosexuality. Jason’s discomfort and confusion about the Church is therefore rooted in his belief in a “benevolent God.”^[19]

Jason continued, however, by saying, “On the good side, you are forced to engage with God on a drastically more personal level.” The God he discovered through this forced engagement is, in his view, very different from the more judgmental God he found from “General Authorities and prophets.” The God Jason found from this engagement was, in his view, more loving and accepting than how he believed Mormons generally imagined God. This claim is also seen in the quantitative data, where LGBT Latter-day Saints showed they are far more likely to say they do not believe like other Latter-day Saints.

Many of the LGBT Latter-day Saints interviewed in the present study took care to distinguish between the Church and God. In an effort to make church more comfortable and edifying, many interviewed would fall back on their personal conviction of God’s benevolent nature over any judgement (perceived or otherwise) from members in their congregation. Ian was a fine example of this. I met him in a small coffee shop, an ironic location given the Latter-day Saint prohibition against coffee. He entered excitedly, ready to share his story. Ian was a gay man and a believing Latter-day Saint, still very active in his congregation. I asked him if he was out to his congregation, “I’m sure they suspect,” he said, “but I haven’t come out to anyone.” We then discussed the discomfort he feels on the typical Sunday. While he has found not coming out to his fellow churchgoers a more manageable scenario attending his Latter-day Saint congregation, church attendance was nevertheless sometimes rather stressful. I asked him, “So, going to church is hard, but it’s still important to you. How do you get through church?” He paused, and after taking only a moment replied, “Well, I go for me.”

Responses like this were given frequently as I discussed this question with active and believing LGBT Latter-day Saints. For those who were able to make space for themselves within Latter-day Saint worship, it was imperative that they make the communal experience into an individualized one. By this I mean: for this group who was able to find a balance between being queer and being active Latter-day Saints, they needed to find a way to be selective in what in the faith was of value and what was not. Put into words more in tune with their own description, it became necessary to differentiate between what was real and what was simply other Latter-day Saints’ opinions. In this vein, Ian continued, “Every now and again I sit in Sunday School and I tell myself, that’s just what she thinks.” God’s accepting benevolence outranked any side comments from fellow members of the Church.

In conclusion, for these LGBT Latter-day Saints, there is a separation between church and God. Where the Church is faulty, God is perfect. Where the Church doesn’t understand, God has compassion. It must be noted, however, that, in their view, this does not delegitimize the Church. Rather, God becomes the standard that the Church simply hasn’t yet met but might shortly. God’s seeming unwillingness to debunk prohibitions about homosexuality remain confusing (especially given their perception of God’s direct involvement in the Church), however, God remains benevolent, even when his Church falls below that standard.

Post–Latter-day Saints

For post–Latter-day Saints, the data suggests a God who couldn’t be more different from Froese and Bader’s “benevolent God.”^[20] Post–­Latter-day Saints report belief in a God who is, when compared to the believing Latter-day Saint, far more distant and critical and less loving. Occasionally, post–Latter-day Saints, due to a difficulty of reconciling the Church’s faults with an involved and loving God, abandoned the idea of God altogether. Furthermore, others saw the God displayed in Latter-day Saint scripture or worshiped in Latter-day Saint meetings as far more oppressive than benevolent.

The data, therefore, might be interpreted both in terms of post–Latter-day Saints’ actual belief as well as their disappointment with the God they encountered in Latter-day Saint worship. Furthermore, as has been seen previously, the Latter-day Saints’ image of God is often sculpted by their experience at church.

Survey Data

This section compares the survey data from those who report having left the LDS church with two other groups: those who report never thinking about leaving and those who report occasionally thinking about leaving. The intention is to showcase trends across a spectrum of satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) with the LDS Church.

Thirty-nine percent of those who report having left the LDS Church agree that loving describes God well. In contrast, that number increases to 77 percent for those who occasionally think about leaving the Church and 97 percent for those who never think about leaving the LDS Church. Froese and Bader argue that most everyone who believes in God believes God to be loving.^[21] Therefore, it is possible that this low number represents the God post–Latter-day Saints found unsatisfactory within the LDS Church rather than a god they continue to believe in. The same explanation might be applied to those who occasionally think about leaving the Church. Whatever the explanation, post–Latter-day Saints did not experience a loving God within the walls of LDS Churches.

The opposite trend occurs as participants engage with the extent to which God is distant and critical, as we see in figure 8. A combined 60 percent of post–Latter-day Saints report that distant describes God either very well or somewhat well. This is in sharp contrast with those who never think about leaving the LDS Church, none of whom felt it described God very well and 76 percent of whom felt the term did not describe God at all. Those who occasionally think about leaving fell between the two.

In contrast, the extent to which God is critical drew more ambivalent results from post–Latter-day Saints; 23 percent report that it describes God very well, 22 percent say not at all, and 27 percent are undecided. Their ambivalence is matched by only a little more certainty among those who never think about leaving and those who occasionally do. It seems that while Latter-day Saints generally believe in a highly loving and highly involved God, there are many who harbor the possibility of God also being critical.

Interview Data

For many post–Latter-day Saints, their experience as a member of the LDS Church was self-reported as being dysfunctional, oppressive, or domineering.

For Anne, a respondent typical of others, her de-conversion began when the Church stopped working for her.

I felt like a lot of what was being taught in church was actually quite counterproductive. . . . There’s a lot of teachings that lead you to think, “Well if you’re sad you must be sinning,” you know, “if you’re having a hard time you must be doing something wrong,” and then there’s so much expectation with church involvement that I think that can make people a little more anxious or perfectionistic. So, this kind of stuff. . . . I saw a lot of damage to women from the Church or what I perceive as detrimental stuff for women. And then the stuff with homosexuality and the Church’s involvement in that. All that kind of built up to me seeing a lot of things where I felt like the Church was doing a lot of harm.

Note here the conflict between Anne’s lived Latter-day Saint experience and what one should expect from the “benevolent God.”^[22] A highly loving deity, Anne believed, would not head a system that detrimentally affected her mental health. She continued:

I kind of started to feel like there wasn’t a lot of solid ground for some of the Church’s truth claims. And it kind of came down to, like, I felt like if the Church had really solid truth claims [and] then there was some kind of negative collateral damage happening, like I could maybe stick with it. Like the true points were kind of tricky but like if everything the Church did turned out great, that would probably be okay too. [But] then also I felt like, you know, the crux of the Church’s truth points kind of comes down to . . . you pray about it, you feel that it’s true and . . . it comes out a lot to what I perceive as [an] emotional response. And I didn’t feel like that was enough . . . to justify the harm I saw being done.

Anne’s expectation of a more forceful response from God rather than just an “emotional one” makes sense given Latter-day Saints’ assertion that God is involved enough to answer prayers with clarity. And her dissatisfaction with the lived reality of the Latter-day Saint experience is made worse by her prior conviction that God is both benevolent and involved enough to make the Church better than what it is.

As seen in the data, typified by Anne’s narrative, the challenges of faith experienced by post–Latter-day Saints are rooted not only in their experience in the Church or with its history but also in the perceived contradiction between all those things and the Latter-day Saint understanding of God as involved and loving. That is the cost, it seems, of a highly involved and loving deity.

Spencer, another respondent, was asked what the most influential factor was in his leaving the LDS Church. He replied, “I would say it came down to . . . Joseph Smith’s character and the things that he did and said that I find very immoral and very questionable. I guess the plausibility theories that the Church offers versus the theories that historians offer up in naturalistic explanations were just much less convincing. This man is not who I thought he was.” George has a similar experience. He grew up in a devout Mormon family in Utah. Once he was a young adult, George realized he was starting to have questions related to the Church’s history and policies. Eventually, he began to investigate other internet sources including an ex-Mormon subreddit, despite a warning from a friend. Once on the subreddit, he discovered racist quotes from former Church leaders and became increasingly interested in the Church’s former policy of not allowing men of African descent to hold the priesthood. He asked rhetorically, “God is totally cool with leaders being super racist? It’s just all really [weird].”

To understand the concerns of these post–Latter-day Saints, it is imperative to remember that their quandaries were not simply with Church history or policy but also in the difficulty of reconciling the “benevolent God” with their respective concerns.^[23] In Anne’s case, if she had not expected such a forceful and clear witness from deity, her cognitive dissonance when met with feelings would have been less so. For Spencer, it was not simply an issue of Joseph Smith lacking in character, it was also the question of how an involved and loving God would allow an immoral man to be his mouthpiece. For George, while his faith crisis had its origin in issues of Church history and policy, it became a concern about the nature of God. How could a God who is involved and loving allow the leaders of his Church to be overtly racist? That question, left unanswered for George, became a catalyst that ultimately motivated his departure from the LDS Church.

In Summary

In each section, I have argued that the experiences and identity of each Latter-day Saint has impacted their conceptualization of God. Among the post–Latter-day Saints, we see those who could not bear the cost of believing in a “benevolent God.”^[24] Reconciling this God with the lived realities of Latter-day Saint worship, the darker shades of Latter-day Saint history, or their own feeling of distance from deity proved to be a task far too complex to undertake. The cost required to make this reconciliation led them away from church and, in many cases, from the idea of God altogether.

For others, God could still be found outside of the LDS Church. They perceive God as more distant and uninvolved, far from the loving Heavenly Father described in the contemporary LDS understanding of Joseph Smith’s experience. What seems very clear in the reflection of this data is the reality that, for Latter-day Saints, the image of God is sculpted and molded in the shadow of their church experience.

This project found that active Latter-day Saints believe in a highly involved and loving God. They were freer than other LDS groups to believe in such a God, as there was no cognitive dissonance to satisfy, in contrast to the LGBT and post–Latter-day Saints. Additionally, it was found that the more engaged a person was in the LDS community, the more they believed God to be involved and loving. In contrast, post–Latter-day Saints tended to believe in a God who was not only less involved but less loving as well.

Active LGBT Latter-day Saints faced daunting questions regarding cost and reward and had to reframe their understanding of God in order to ensure that their cost did not outweigh their reward. Many did this by creating a God who was highly loving but less involved to explain why Church leaders could be “wrong” about homosexuality. Others nuanced the idea of God’s level of involvement by supposing that the degrees of involvement could vary from person to person. The strength of their personal connection to deity gave them the self-assurance to disregard what other Latter-day Saints said about issues of gender and sexuality. Interestingly, while post–Latter-day Saints view God either as the source of their oppression or the apathetic bystander to an irrevocably faulted church system, LGBT Latter-day Saints (at least the active and believing LGBT Latter-day Saints interviewed) view God as their ally. While both have significant struggles with the Church—whether in terms of history, policy, culture, or all the above—for one group God was their tether to faith while for the other he was the final straw.

The present study has expanded on Froese and Bader’s work by including the Latter-day Saint community, a denomination ignored in their initial study. Additionally, with its inclusion of LGBT and post–Latter-day Saints, it incorporated an additional group Froese and Bader ignored: the marginalized and the unbelieving. It reveals that their framework is effective not just for those sitting in the center of the pews but also those standing at the margins.

---

Note: The Dialogue Foundation provides the web format of this article as a courtesy. There may be unintentional differences from the printed version. For citational and bibliographical purposes, please use the printed version or the PDFs provided online and on JSTOR.

^[1] Paul Froese and Christopher Bader, America’s Four Gods: What We Say about God—And What That Says about Us (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 27–31.

^[2] Froese and Bader, 35

^[3] Froese and Bader, 52.

^[4] Froese and Bader, 41.

^[5] Jan Shipps, Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1987), 21.

^[6] For instance, see Gary E. Stevenson, “How Does the Holy Ghost Help You?,” Apr. 2017; Henry B. Eyring, “The Holy Ghost as Your Companion,” Oct. 2015.

^[7] Michael Hicks, Mormonism and Music: A History (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2003), 102.

^[8] Terryl Givens and Fiona Givens, The God Who Weeps: How Mormonism Makes Sense of Life (Salt Lake City: Ensign Peak, 2012), 21.

^[9] Froese and Bader, America’s Four Gods, 27–31.

^[10] Froese and Bader, 27–31.

^[11] Froese and Bader, 27–31.

^[12] Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 3 (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 13–14.

^[13] Froese and Bader, America’s Four Gods, 28.

^[14] Froese and Bader, 28.

^[15] Note that this is a merged total of respondents who agreed and strongly agreed with the statement regarding Joseph Smith.

^[16] Froese and Bader, America’s Four Gods, 28

^[17] Froese and Bader, 31–32.

^[18] Froese and Bader, 31–32.

^[19] Froese and Bader, 28.

^[20] Froese and Bader, 28.

^[21] Froese and Bader, 80.

^[22] Froese and Bader, 28.

^[23] Froese and Bader, 28.

^[24] Froese and Bader, 27–31.

[post_title] => Variety of Perceptions of God Among Latter-day Saints [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 54.1 (Spring 2001): 29–68
Non-LGBT members of the Church tend to believe God is more involved and loving (non-judgmental) than LGBT members do. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => variety-of-perceptions-of-god-among-latter-day-saints [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-07-26 14:06:10 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-07-26 14:06:10 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=27870 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 27476 [post_author] => 3035 [post_date] => 2021-03-23 17:55:24 [post_date_gmt] => 2021-03-23 17:55:24 [post_content] =>

The Family Tree and Nation

“And again, let all the records be had in order, that they may be put in the archives of my holy temple, to be held in remembrance from generation to generation, saith the Lord of Hosts.”

Doctrine and Covenants 127:9

Each of the following sections relates to a document that aids in the construction of the Mormon family tree: the birth certificate, the temple recommend, the marriage certificate, and the death certificate. Each of these is a document of high theological and social importance to Mormons. They are not innocent documents; they are created by institutions like the State or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and enable a variety of rituals, like the bestowing of citizenship and the priesthood. I will briefly explore how each document functions in the archive, the ramifications of those functions outside of the archive, and the inability of the archive (in theory and praxis) to encompass narratives of the human experiences it claims. Queerness may present itself in the archive as “scraps,”[1] but it also sits in the space between papers, the glitches in the data, the pew closest to the door. If the archive is organized to hide certain bodies and actions, but not necessarily exclude them, then we can find them without having to look elsewhere. Sometimes, we might even find pieces of ourselves.

The Church has modeled itself after nation—states since its inception in the nineteenth century. Early and contemporary models of LDS authority have assumed heteropatriarchal, Western, democratic structures. Despite early communitarian efforts like polygamy and the united order, the necessity to assimilate for survival has minimized much of what made Mormonism unique and hated, socially and theologically. Communal land ownership gave way to corporatism. Polygamy to the nuclear family. Speaking in tongues to silent reverence. I don’t mean to imply that the Church hasn’t always been patriarchal and hierarchal (it has), only that it has conformed more and more to a specific model of hierarchy that reflects the state structure of the United States. Its biopolitical and disciplinary practices have evolved in accordance. These practices are built with the power of the archive.

I was born into this latter tradition. My grandparents are Church genealogists. Their den is our family archive and they are aging and frail archons standing on strength of faith and heart medication alone. For my tenth birthday, they gave me three floppy disks and an early version of the family history mapping software later popularized as Ancestry.com and FamilySearch.org. My parents had left the Church several years before, but to me the floppy disks were evidence of our belonging to the Mormon faith and to God himself. My grandparents gifted me with maps, stories, charts, and moral lessons, all the details of how my ancestors’ actions in the 1800s resulted in my birth on the edge of the twenty-first century. I believed in the ontological truth that, despite my breaking family and my internal struggle to believe in Heavenly Father as I was taken geographically and morally further and further from my hometown in Arizona, we were Mormon by blood. Our blood was transposed into text on my computer monitor and the words there told me I belonged.

Of course, any relationship involving blood is complicated. The Victorian milieu in which the faith is rooted required theological reconciliations with new scientific reproductive logics. Mormons self-describe as the children of Ephraim, the literal descendants of one of the lost tribes of Israel. Descendance not only justified adherence to parts of the Old Testament, like polygamy and communitarian economics, but also declarations of sovereignty against the United States government and Protestants who balked at their “peculiar” ways. The Mormon ability to trace one’s family tree to the Bible itself literalized the covenant, asserted Truth, and justified violent colonization of Native Americans.[2] But not all converts, particularly the theologically all-important Native American ones, could trace their ancestry to Ephraim within the historiographical structures of the Church. Blood had to be created and re-created in accordance with the proclaimed universal theology of the Book of Mormon.

The Mormon faith quite literally created its own blood. In their struggle to maintain whiteness, nineteenth-century Mormons developed the ability to speak the language of proto-eugenics in the dialect of faith; that is, how to maintain essential difference and substance-specific convenance with God while conforming to their own claims of universalism and democracy.[3] In addition to the constant infusion of good (read: white) blood into the Mormon community through the labor of conversion, Mormon blood was made through ritual.

For those to whom the blood of Israel was not given by their parents, it was created through baptism. Joseph Smith stated that “the effect of the Holy Ghost upon a Gentile, is to purge out the old blood, and make him actually the seed of Abraham. That man that has none of the blood of Abraham (naturally) must have a new creation by the Holy Ghost.”[4] Out with the old, in with the holy. Intermarriage with non-Ephraites did not endanger purity because the option of baptism made Mormon blood as universally viable as O negative. The transmutation of blood ensured that lineages went unbroken and the logic of the Book of Mormon was preserved. New branches could be continuously grafted onto the family tree.

Of course, this new plasma need only be made for those who cannot claim Ephraim through their own agency. A white person, specifically one raised in the Church, can justly assume a blood connection within Mormon genetic logics whereas converts of color cannot.[5] The process of acquiring holy blood requires purging of the natal past and adopting of a new celestial pre-mortality. In this light, conversion is not only about interiorized faith, like other Protestant Christian traditions, but a new formulation of bodyhood that is inextricably connected to voluntary natal alienation and the adoption of a specific population of dead.

This is why my grandparents are genealogists. The “archive fever” experienced by Max and Maurine is a sickness of spirit, a longing for the eschaton. It is homesickness for their pre-mortal lives with Heavenly Father. As living Mormons, they have a responsibility to the dead: to provide them with the choice of exaltation only possible through baptism. The work of the family tree, in the faith, is not only to reflect on one’s righteousness as a descendent of Abraham—even if it feels like that is what they’re doing most of the time. Investigating the family tree provides the information necessary for baptisms for the dead. It is to make all aware of the possibility of their place in the family tree, if not by their own blood then by transfusion and transmutation.

The Birth Certificate and Authority

I was born in Phoenix, Arizona. My birth certificate is blue with the outline of the state faintly in the background. The floral border is interrupted in the bottom left corner for a circle containing the logo for the Arizona Department of Health Services, the keepers of the state’s natal archive. The department requires that certificates list the hospitals children are born in, the time and date, their given names, the names of their parents, and their parents’ birthdates. In contrast to the newer birth certificates being adopted post–June 2015, there are two slots for my parents and they are labeled “MOTHER” and “FATHER.”

It seems to me that the mission of queer and transgender millennials like us is to make as much of the listed “data” on our birth certificates irrelevant as possible. It’s our way of proving to ourselves that the state can’t really know us. I, as a non-binary person, can never have my felt gendered experience reflected on paper without a change to the foundation of Arizona’s stance on gender assignment. And, to be honest, I would not want the state to know, or attempt to approximate, my internal and external conceptualization of my soul and body.

The birth certificate functions as a declaration of an individual’s categorical belonging with the family. This applies to both the biological family as well as the categorization of archived documents into “families.” Cataloguing methods are designed to preserve lineage following heteropatriarchal logics of reproductivity, ownership, and capital.[6] Correctly identifying biological relationship and sex is central to the identification of heirs and thus the relationship between the living and the dead. Incongruencies between one’s birth certificate, license, and other documents places one at social and legal risk with the living. Each piece of identification that bears a separate name, gender marker, or photo reduces one’s archived existence to “scraps”: fragments of experience that are an incongruous inconvenience to the state’s overarching project of population management.[7] For example, a trans person’s birth certificate, license, passport, and school ID cards might each show a moment in their process of self-development that are related only through their own retroactive narrativizing of their life and the continuity of their internal self, not through their physical bodily presentation. These documents as a collection are largely incomprehensible to a cisheteronormative taxonomy of experience. There are obvious real-life benefits for binary trans people to change their birth certificates, even if they refuse the state’s authority to define her gender or sex. Access to healthcare, licenses, adoption, and non-violent treatment by the state itself is much more easily obtained, though not guaranteed, by aligning gender presentation with archived sex. The state accommodates the transgender person in this way as a reflection of its interest in assimilation and the transgender person accommodates the state’s interest in their genital/gender dynamic in the interest of self-preservation: this tension is worked out in the archive and its bureaucracy.

Of course, this job is never done. Socially constructed gender and sexual identities are phased out, continuously complicating the ability of the archive to maintain categorical continuity and cohesion and periodically demonstrating its own inherent inability to not only encompass but to even conceptualize the ephemeral queer (or genderqueer).[8] Various states have attempted to solve this archival difficulty through the creation of bureaucratic processes to change the original marker (thus denying the mistake at the source) or including third-gender options.[9] These band-aid solutions are obviously insufficient to cover the festering wound splitting the state’s interest in population management and individual and communal interests in self-definition. These problems exist on their own without even beginning to broach the complex topic of genital variety and intersex conditions that largely disprove bifurcated models of sexed bodyhood.[10]

Regardless of these complications, the birth certificate is a key component of baptisms for the dead. Place, date, and time of birth, gender, and parents’ names are necessary for everyone baptized by proxy. This information can be gathered elsewhere, but it is most conveniently located in the forms provided by, and required by, the state for each person born on its soil. This alliance with the state enables the ritual to be as prolific as it is today. However, this dependency reveals itself to be as fallible in its reliance on the information as it is coherent with Mormon conceptualizations of bodily truth. Thanks to many of the trans-normative and homonationalist projects of largely white, middle-class activists in the United States, the state archive has revealed itself to be willing to incorporate and work with certain kinds of queer and transgender people.[11] But while the state may be willing to accept “deviancy” in specific, elsewise conforming gendered situations, the Church is not.

In 1995, the leadership of the LDS Church published “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” in Ensign and Liahona and read it aloud on the globally televised annual general conference meeting.[12] In defense of cisheteronormative logics it unequivocally states:

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.[13]

This statement theologically essentialized gender to the body as signaled by sex.[14] The assumption of sex as gender, already taken for granted in discourses of the state and the Church, was sanctified. The proclamation goes on: “We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.”[15] And later that: “Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, . . . observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live.”[16] The proclamation rhetorically connects religious and civic duty. If one of the responsibilities of essentially gendered souls/bodies is “lawful” marriage, then the Church relies on the state to provide mechanisms with which to manifest each person’s “divine nature and destiny.”

As such, the state determines which life-path each Mormon child will take at birth. The Church relies on the state to reconcile the sex/gender relationship and adheres to that decision as a matter of theological principle. Deviations from gendered predestinations are explained through individual accountabilities to God’s plan rather than as a problem of the limitation of the archive’s ability to encapsulate the full range of gender and sexual experience. Divinely/legally inspired marriages also require divinely/legally inspired gender role affiliation in their children. The LDS Church’s self-published A Parent’s Guide states:

Gender identity involves an understanding and accepting of one’s own gender, with little reference to others; one’s gender roles usually focus upon the social interaction associated with being male or female. Parents can help children to establish during these years a good foundation for later intimacy by helping them understand true principles about how a son or daughter of God should relate to others in his or her gender roles.[17]

Parenting children to adhere to their gender roles relies on the determination of the state as catalogued in the archive, as well. This paragraph also reveals the circumvention of the body that the essentialization of gender to the soul allows. Gender identity becomes about “understanding and accepting of one’s own gender” (gender here meaning biological sex) as assigned by the state. The Church trusts in the state specialist and archives to reveal the correct gender of each child and borrows the state’s archival authority to reinforce its theological claims. As Judith Butler states, “There is no reference to a pure body which is not at the same time a further formation of that body.”[18] This is especially true for restatements of state-sponsored biological truths. The state’s revealed gender becomes the yardstick by which each person’s moral virtue is measured as well as the justification for biopolitical discipline enacted upon children’s bodies for the sake of later heterosexual reproduction and celestial exaltation. Additionally, the Proclamation makes the state a necessary mechanism for revealing vital characteristics of a person's soul.

The recent shifts in state policies discussed above indicate an increasing tendency to regard gender markers as symbolic rather than as literal, a view that is incompatible with the relationship the Church has developed with the authority of the archive. Symbols, as Talal Asad discusses, call for interpretations, which are multiple in nature as criteria for their interpretation is socially expanded.[19] Interpretations of the gender marker as “symbol” can be equated to gender performance, e.g., my birth certificate loudly declares “FEMALE” but my baggy pants, compression bra, lack of makeup, disposition, and my fingers intertwined with those of a woman make old ladies do a double take at the “WOMEN” sign on the restroom door when I walk in. This is the cisnormative logic through which many activists and the state justify the ability to change the symbol when the interpretation of gender in performance does not meet any credible criteria for the symbol or better aligns with the opposing one.

For Mormons, however, the gender marker indicates proper forms of disciplinary practice that are not as open to interpretation. There is a specific “way” in which to properly inhabit a gendered body and to parent one’s children to become properly gendered people. “Disciplinary practices,” Asad states, “cannot be varied so easily [as symbols], because learning to develop moral capabilities is not the same as learning to invent representations.”[20] Gender performance among Mormon people obviously varies, but gender variety is less accessible because of the threat of social repercussions that are directly tied to the theological connection between gender, soul, and sex. Parental and ecclesiastic disciplining in accordance with documented gender creates the very capacity for correct gender identification. The birth certificate is not up for interpretation or for revision. Rather, the Church draws on the legal authority of the state archive to indicate the ways in which one should exercise their God-given agency.

The Temple Recommend and Agency

The temple recommend is a formal document given by a local bishop or other male lay leader that indicates one’s worthiness to enter a temple. It is invariable proof of the piety and bodily purity that is required to take part in temple work such as celestial marriages, family sealings, and baptisms for the dead. Certain acts taken upon and by the body violate this purity permanently while others require waiting periods and proof of penance. Most permanent offenses are those that relate to gendered “violations” of the body that conflict with the requirements set forth by the birth certificate.

Handbook 1 is the official guide for local bishops on the management of their congregations.[21] There is no formal ecclesiastic training in the Church, but it does provide a copious amount of literature on how to handle certain situations from budgeting to apostasy. Handbook 1 specifically outlines the moral requirements for entering a temple. It is in the temple recommend that the Church shifts its focus away from the state archive and toward its internal archive. Stake presidents and bishops have access to files on members that record their tithings, Church involvement and responsibilities, baptisms, marriages, sealings, etc. These are no more outstanding than those kept by other Christian denominations with centralized organization like Catholics or Episcopalians. However, the details in these files and their interpretation by the bishop control access to the rituals that determine one’s validity for exaltation after death. Handbook 1 and Church policy situate stake presidents and bishops as literal archons of their local archives. In addition to acting as “presiding high priest,” “he oversees records, finances, and properties.”[22] One of the duties interwoven between the responsibilities of high priest and record-keeper is to control access to the archive as well as its ritual use.

In the foundational text Archive Fever, Jacques Derrida gives an embellished, haunting image of the archons:

The archons are first of all the documents’ guardians. They do not only ensure the physical security of what is deposited and of the substrate. They are also accorded the hermeneutic right and competence. They have the power to interpret the archives. Entrusted to such archons, these documents in effect speak the law: they recall the law and call on or impose the law. To be guarded thus, in the jurisdiction of this speaking the law, they needed at once a guardian and a localization. Even in their guardianship or their hermeneutic tradition, the archives could do neither without substrate nor without residence.[23]

I’ll admit that even as I construct the image of a local bishop as the Mormon archon it is difficult for me to imagine the pudgy, middle-aged Elder Johnson as a mythic Greek angel with glorious wings and omnipotent power over treasured information. However, seeming innocuousness is one of the key ways in which hierarchical power operates. What is at stake here, as Derrida states, “is nothing less than the future.”[24]

Temple work, including sealings and marriage, but most pertinently baptisms for the dead, is necessary for the exaltation of the soul to the highest realms of heaven and the achievement of godhood. In addition to the literal, physical gathering of Zion as required by the tenth article of faith,[25] souls are gathered through rituals that seal heteronormative family units for time and eternity. Although in Mormon cosmology souls preexist their mortal containers, the mortal world is where humans forge the bonds that God the Father desires they preserve for all time. Only in the temple can these sacraments be achieved; only the bishop can give you access to the temple.

As I said before, certain serious transgression can temporarily or permanently disallow one from entering the temple. In these situations, it is up to the discretion of the bishop/archon as to whether the person has adequately repented. Serious transgressions, defined as “deliberate or major offense[s] against morality” include murder, rape, abuse, adultery, “homosexual relations (especially sexual cohabitation),” and various forms of theft.[26] Additionally listed, each with their own separate paragraph for expansion, are abortion and “transsexual operations.”[27]

On the topic of “transsexual operations,” Handbook 1 specifically advises that “Church leaders counsel against elective transsexual operations. If a member is contemplating such an operation, a presiding officer informs him of this counsel and advises him that the operation may be cause for formal Church discipline.”[28] Furthermore, “A member who has undergone an elective transsexual operation may not receive a temple recommend.”[29] Rhetorically, two interesting things happen here: 1) the hypothetical “transsexual” in question is already assumed to be a “him,” ostensibly referring to a transgender woman, and 2) like the Church’s stance on homosexuality, it is not the thoughts of gendered difference that make one unworthy to enter the house of God, but the physical actualization of those thoughts on the body, in this case through the specific act of surgical cutting. The controversial trans theorist Jay Prosser emphasizes this moment of cisnormative thinking in his book Second Skins: “More than the potentially dramatic somatic effects of the long-term hormone therapy that necessarily precedes it, sex reassignment surgery is considered the hinge upon which the transsexual’s ‘transsex’ turns: the magical moment of ‘sex change.’”[30] The pre-operative or non-operative binary transgender person, much less the genderqueer or gender deviant, has not seriously transgressed. They may even be worthy of temple admittance if they do not “elect” to change the genital aesthetics that inspired the state’s original sex categorization—that is, to challenge the authority of the archive, and by extension the Church and God himself.

Ironically, the system set forth by the Church could, on paper, admit me and several of my friends into the temple. Despite years of hormone therapy and even more years disregarding hegemonic standards of gendered and sexual behavior, if they have not undergone operative changes to the surface of their body, they technically don’t qualify as transgender. In a certain Mormon imagining, I have been in a committed, heterosexual relationship with a man, even though she was a transwoman. I am sure my family found this comforting. However, when my older cousin was married, I stood outside the temple with the youngest children and the more distant friends and waited for the newly celestially sealed couple to emerge. My partner chose not to come because she would have had to conform to masculine standards for the ordeal just as I had to shave my legs and don a pink dress for the first time in a decade, acting through a femininity that was not my own.

After the temple ceremony, my younger cousin drove us to the reception in my grandfather’s ancient Cadillac. The windows on the Cadillac didn’t roll down and the air conditioning was broken. The scene was as stereotypical of Arizona as the fact that the reception took place on a local, Mormon-owned farm. The highlight of the night was a fat pink pig that ran through the middle of the outdoor dance floor. Two children and the owner of the farm chased it, apologizing loudly and making more of a scene than necessary. Soon after, I sat at the head table with the other bridesmaids who, though unrelated, knew the bride better than I ever will. My uncle gave a speech. He waxed romantically about the righteousness of a temple wedding, the strength of faith that it takes in the face of an increasingly secular society to remain celibate before marriage. Typical of his personality, the metaphor was financial: marriage is an investment you bank with God himself. “Living with your loved one before marriage,” he concluded, “is like shoplifting from God.” My grandmother caught my eye and sighed sadly. After dinner was served, she encouraged me to rethink my cohabitation with my then-partner and return to the Church.

Reflecting on this incredibly uncomfortable experience demonstrated to me that the theological implications of gendered Mormon worthiness go beyond identity politics. Deviation from the destiny laid out for me by the state’s gender assignment is, theologically, a result of my own God-granted agency. Performance of sex/gender, body/soul congruency is a method of becoming closer to God himself, a vital part of Mormon subject formation. Demonstrating pious gender/soul/sex/body congruency is not about simple identification, as in humanist discourses of gender. Rather, it more closely follows the model of agency discussed by Saba Mahmood in Politics of Piety; the moral disciplining of the Mormon body creates the piety, worthiness, and pleasure in conforming to the gender roles, not the other way around.[31]

In the logic of Mormon theology, an internal lack of faith is in part a result of the mismanagement of my mortal embodiment. Part of the reason that the “born this way” language of the marriage equality movement has had so little effect on the Mormon population compared to others is that it directly contradicts very recent and revered theological claims. Any deviation from assigned gender performance cannot be based on an internal sense of self because the soul, the interior of all interiors, is gendered before birth. The physical body simply forms in accordance. Therefore, gendered “maiming” of the body, through medical procedures like abortion or gender-affirming surgery, is so polluting of its purity that it directly betrays the internally and eternally gendered soul. Such pollution can only result in the denial of a temple recommend. Jasbir Puar might argue that in these forms of religious regulation, the Church is enacting control as well as discipline because “while discipline works at the level of identity, control works at the level of affective intensification.”[32] While the Church would discourage my identification as “queer” because it buys into a secular rhetoric of sexual orientation and desire, the true problem is the misuse of my bodily capacity and agency. As Church leader Dallin H. Oaks has stated, homosexual relations are “a confusion of what it means to be male or female.”[33] In discouraging identification with the Other through the language produced by the queer community and forbidding physical enactment of sinful internal desires, the Church seesaws between discipline and control, identity and affect, public declarations of self and private desires.

The Marriage Certificate and Periodization

When historians speak of the non-normative Mormon past, they often use the term “peculiar.” The epithet was a popular way to signal the oddity, even the spectacle, that Mormonism posed to the mainstream Protestant American East in the nineteenth century. In his famous book The Angel and the Beehive, Armand Mauss proposes that Church history can be described in periods of assimilation—changes to more resemble other American Christians—and retrenchment—self-described opposition to Protestant and secular American values.[34] This ebb and flow of reliance on and opposition to norms reflects external pressures, usually from the state, for the Church to conform to American hegemony. Mormons have taken up a difficult historical position: simultaneously being white and struggling for whiteness; being actively pushed out of Missouri and then pushing Native Americans out of what is now Utah; striving for both mainstream acceptance and religious particularism.[35] In the late nineteenth century, the conflict between Mormons and other white Americans culminated in an ultimatum posed by the government: stop practicing polygamy or leave.[36] Many, including members of my family, fled to Mexico when the Church leadership issued a statement declaring that polygamous unions were no longer compatible with the faith.[37]

The history of polygamy was largely covered up by Church historians between its denouncement in the 1890s and Leonard J. Arrington’s term as Church Historian in the 1970s. He is often recognized as the first person to “open up” the Church archives to non-members and to release more sensitive information regarding the history of prominent figures like Joseph Smith.[38] Today, some of the archives are also digitized; the Church curates the Joseph Smith Papers, where one can find documents relating to the early history of the Church. Some information on your (the reader’s) family members, Mormon or not, can be found on the Church-members-only FamilySearch.org or its more popular, “secular” cognate, Ancestry.com. While not owned by the Church directly, Ancestry.com is owned and operated by Mormons who became invested in genealogy through their faith.[39] The site allows users to create profiles for deceased relatives and find, label, or upload their own documents that prove relationships between the dead.

Each profile, however, only allows one spouse per person. Ironically, figures like my great-great-great-grandfather have multiple profiles, one for each spouse. Some contain all available information about him on the website, and some do not. The problem of polygamy (or of monogamy, depending on how you look at it) pervades the site’s cataloguing system. The inability of the Church to either hide or reconcile its own past is evident in this discrepancy. As a result, the lives of some of the most important and influential early members[40] are distorted and misrepresented. The heteronormativity that the Church today so desperately clings to in its mission to both be accepted by outsiders and bring outsiders in skews its ability to catalogue its own peculiarity. This crisis in the catalogue is like the one posed by the ever-changing standards and practices of gender and sexuality that make cataloguing and finding queer experience so difficult.[41] It’s clear here that the organization of the archive itself is political: if Mormons were to design a user interface that allows more than one spouse, they would reignite the spectacle, or for some even confirm the suspicion, that they still believe in and practice polygamy. Instead, the spouse for which there was a legal marriage certificate is featured on the profile. Spiritual marriages with no proper legal documentation are disregarded.

There is no solution for this problem in terms of Ancestry.com that does not expose the website’s affiliation with the faith, risking its profit and user rates in the process. However, Church officials and members find comfort in the largely accepted historical divisions between the “early” Church and the “modern” Church. Mormonism is centered on the claim of ongoing revelation. Beginning with Joseph Smith, the mantle of First President has been passed down with all theocratic authority over the Church. It is similar to the power of the pope: not entirely unchecked (quorums of apostles also contribute to theological, political, and official positioning), but incredibly effective. Their claims to sovereignty simultaneously rest on liberal humanist discourse embedded within the teachings and culture of Mormonism as well as in the careful periodization between Mormons who were “peculiar” and Mormons who are almost unbearably normal.

Mormon leadership’s claim to sovereignty lies in this historically insufficient and politically intentional archival organization. Kathleen Davis argues that modern claims to statehood are based in logics of juridical precedent in which the details that affirm historical presence and ownership are acknowledged while details of transhistorical difference between the past nation and present nation-state are grounded in a carefully constructed division.[42] This division, in her study, marks the difference between the “medieval” and the “modern” in categorizations and interpretations of English literature for British national interests. In the case of the Mormons, however, demarcating the “early” Church from today’s Church separates the faith from the racialized and politicized practice of polygamy that historically barred access to whiteness and normative sociality, according to scholars of race and Mormonism like Max Perry Mueller and W. Paul Reeve.[43] The Church’s periodization takes President Wilford Woodruff’s declaration against polygamy as its turning point. Rhetorically, the 1890 Manifesto, and the loss of one of the key tenets of the faith, marks an early commitment to assimilation and the entrance into the privileges of nineteenth-century whiteness that had eluded the faith community since before Missouri.[44]

There’s a nebulous community of people in the United States that I lovingly refer to as the Bitter Ex-Mormons. Many of them (us) are academics, punks, activists, queers. Whether our difference from our families is innate, manifesting from the inside out, or our own agential misgivings, failing to internalize exterior discipline and control, most of us consider ourselves traumatized or disgraced by the Church. Many us no longer identify as “faithful” or “practicing” Mormons, but as “ethnically” or “culturally” Mormon.[45] Mormons and non-Mormons outside the community tend to take this phrasing offensively; after all, it’s understood that there is no one whiter than Mormons, and “ethnic” is often perceived as coded language for “brown.” Non-Mormons think that by using this term we’re playing into the Mormon claims to victimization, appropriating the aesthetics and pathos of histories of ethnic cleansing and racial discrimination. These non-Mormons tend to associate Mormon history with polygamy, which is more easily imagined as a story of Mormon patriarchal violence against women than as a story of state violence against Mormons, or even as part of the history of the creation of a racially coded Mormon culture.

Polygamy is still the fascination of historians and feminist theorists of Mormonism today. Often, the field recreates the centuries-old question of “was polygamy good for Mormon women?” Reading through this literature, from the 1800s polemics like Metta Victor’s Mormon Wives, which calls polygamy “a thing more loathsome and poisonous to social and political purity”[46] than slavery, to Salt Lake Tribune articles that vehemently deny or affirm just how many wives Joseph Smith sealed himself to before his death, can become tiresome. The history of Mormon sexual deviance (it was, in fact, so deviant as to “require” government intervention and the incarceration of practitioners in Utah) presents a specific kind of pleasure to a Bitter Ex-Mormon like me; the ability to cross-identify with my own ancestors is the only chance I feel I have left to identify at all with my biological family, to reclaim Mormonism for myself on my own terms.[47]

The first Mormon in my family, Parley P. Pratt, was a famous early apostle. He wrote several hymns and the famous A Voice of Warning, was an excellent missionary, and even ran a newspaper in New York City in the mid-1800s called The Prophet.[48] I got a job at the Brooklyn Historical Society shortly after moving to New York. Their archive and library consist only of Brooklyn history, including a prominent genealogy section. Out of sheer habit, I checked the P’s for any record of my line. I audibly yelped when I found a manila folder labeled “Parley Parker Pratt” on the bookshelf. I opened it and carefully slid the only item, an actively disintegrating, small blue book, onto a nearby table. This first edition copy of The Autobiography of Parley Parker Pratt is older than the building that houses it. I go back to visit it occasionally when I’m homesick; I must admit that’s not very often.

There’s a special joy in my family’s legacy crumbling in my fingers, a perverse pleasure I take in watching the memory of the man who I learned to respect highly as a child sit idle and unnoticed on a shelf next to the Pratt family that really matters in New York. Carolyn Steedman in Dust states that “there is a particular pleasure in willfully asserting of a text so intimately connected by its authorship to the practice of deconstruction.”[49] In this case, I find pleasure in the intimacy of the life and death in that book; it is literally deconstructing itself before my eyes, a process I encourage every time I lay the oils of my queer fingers on its pages, even as I find new ways to bind my own narrative to the one it houses on the bottom shelf of the genealogical section.

It was this draw of the archive that first inspired my interest in genealogy when I was a child, the reason I was gifted floppy disks of dead peoples’ personal information while my cousins received gift cards to the mall. Today, I love to declare to my friends, “I’m a better Mormon than anyone else in my family.” It’s a joke, mostly, because by today’s standards, I’m a horrible, awful, unworthy Mormon. But in the archive, I found the connective tissue between my life and the lives of my ancestors and began, unwittingly, to identify with them in new, more peculiar ways than I ever imagined possible as a child.

Most notably, about five or six years ago I became interested in the women in my lineage who were in polygamist marriages. When I came out as queer in my first year of college, I also started practicing polyamory. This more recently developed attack against monogamy is usually cited as specifically juxtaposed to the heteronormative institution of marriage, but I was inspired to “convert” to it because of the autobiography of my great-great-grandmother Bertha Wilcken Pratt.[50] After an abusive monogamous marriage to a man in Salt Lake City, she was granted divorce by the Church and moved to Chihuahua, Mexico to marry her sister’s husband, Helaman Pratt. In the account of her life she wrote shortly before her death in 1947, she said, “Now began a great contrast between this marriage and that other one. I have been recognized, respected, loved, and esteemed as much as any wife could desire without infringing upon the rights of others.”[51] Before I read this, it had not occurred to me that being loved could infringe on anyone else. Since then, it is all I think about when I talk to my partners or anyone else that I or they become involved with. There is something I find conceptually queer in considering love, like the Foucauldian concept of power, as something that exists in a dynamic between entities rather than as something one can simply have, give, or take away. In a way, it is a more significant formation of love because a dynamic is something you must continuously choose to maintain and nourish rather than relying on stagnant incarnations of past selves’ desires. Polygamy and polyamory force us to ask ourselves: do we want love to be an object?

In all reality, Bertha Wilcken Pratt would think me a sinful and disturbed woman—a woman, specifically, even though I haven’t thought of myself as such in years. I have no delusions about the relationship between me, as a living polyamorous queer partner, and her, a deceased heterosexual polygamist wife. I allow myself to be enchanted by this trace of a familial connection between us and extrapolate that trace to a political stance because, as Zeb Tortorici says, “that process of extraction [of queerness from the archives] is more effective if we understand all that we seek through them, and all that we are never quite able to locate, uncover, or grasp within the archives themselves.”[52] I knew going into her story that I was looking for family. I may never be able to find a “real queer” in my family archive because the Mormon archive is built on the heterosexual logics of reproduction as resembled by the family tree itself. This archival structure forbids any affirmation that my experience of my gendered sexual body is comparable to those of my ancestors. However, when I take into account that family history archives are mutually constituted by Mormon theological and state legal conceptualizations of how humans should relate to one another (and themselves) and not necessarily how they did, I open the possibility for myself to reclaim pieces of the past that the Church itself has surrendered in its own mission of self-preservation.

My joke-not-joke that I am the best Mormon in my family is not appreciated by my cousins or grandparents. Unlike my family, I have not abandoned the communitarian economics, non-monogamy, or vegetarianism that were so important to nineteenth-century Mormons. Sodomy aside, my lifestyle is arguably more “correct” than the socially isolated capitalist, monogamous, middle-class lives of my cousins when compared to those of our common ancestors like Bertha. Neither my family, nor the modern Church, can get out of the archive what I as a queer person can. In fact, they go to great lengths to cover up the same past I revel in.

The Death Certificate and Consent

“Let us, therefore, as a church and a people, and as Latter-day Saints, offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness; and let us present in his holy temple . . . a book containing the records of our dead, which shall be worthy of all acceptation.”

Doctrine and Covenants 128:22–24

Baptisms for the dead, like polygamy, are Mormon practices that are rooted in the often-unused parts of the New Testament, what we might call a highly curated archive. Early Church leaders like Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery led the Church in the revival of these practices as part of the larger return to a select covenant with God. While speaking of the logics of physical resurrection, Paul asks, “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?”[53] In section 127 of Joseph Smith’s Doctrine and Covenants, where the ritual is most discussed, he places emphasis on the importance of record-keeping: “When any of you are baptized for your dead, let there be a recorder, and let him be eye-witness of your baptisms; let him hear with his ears, that he may testify of a truth, saith the Lord.”[54] In the cases of the birth certificate, the temple recommend, and the marriage certificate, the power of the state archive is drawn upon to supplement the power of the Church itself. The records of baptisms for the dead, however, institutionalize a separate archive. This archive is carefully guarded from secular intrusion by being created and stored in the temple itself.

Organizing and performing ordinances for the dead still rely on the outside archives, however. For baptisms or sealings of the family to be done, state-archived information like birthplace, death place, dates, parents’ names, names of spouses, and dates of marriage are necessary. The state information is drawn upon and, through ritual, transformed into another, more sacred archive. This archive deals in the dead exclusively. In a much more literal way than Achille Mbembe intended, these rituals “keep the dead from stirring up trouble” in the present.[55] A posthumous baptism does not automatically convert a deceased person to Mormonism. Rather, the theology states that it gives their post-mortal soul the opportunity for conversion in the afterlife. Eternity, through the archive and its uses, is collapsed onto the present. The dead retain their ability to consent, make decisions, and relieve their spirit even after death.

Surprisingly, baptisms for the dead cause relatively little legal trouble for the Church. It’s difficult to imagine that the state, which so carefully presents itself the ultimate life-binding force, would meddle in the politics of dead people that the state itself did not kill. This sacred archive is part of the larger project of preparing for the eschaton. “Early” Mormons were millenarians to the core, helping along the coming of the rapture through conversion and the literal gathering of Zion. Baptisms for the dead are a continued part of this project, a solution for the Church’s inability to convert all of the living. A posthumously baptized person can accept or reject the offer of salvation, but they cannot accept or reject their presence in the archive. They are necessarily implicit in the always-already political, sacred, or secular organization the state, the Church, or the lay archivist subjects them to.

Luckily for the Church and the state, it seems that most people are not interested in excusing themselves from inclusion. The intense interest in genealogy that has made its way to mainstream American culture reveals that people are increasingly interested in “where they’re from.”[56] Queer negativity theorists like Lee Edelman would argue that this information does nothing more than play into heteronormative logics of reproductivity and “legacy” and distract from contemporary political concerns by rooting them in historical violence and nostalgia.[57] But it is unlikely that queer theory will detract from the spectacle of death or the greater and more violent spectacle of heterosexuality.

Mormon baptisms for the dead are one of the more eyebrow-raising contemporary practices to the American public. Particularly, my fellow leftists scoff at what seems like an overindulgence of ancestral white pridefulness. At the same time, we read Marx and talk about him as if we had coffee with him last week. We speculate as to what Audre Lorde, Mikhail Bakunin, or Malcom X would do if they were alive now. We argue about archives and museums. We want the mummies to go back to Egypt. We want reparations. We are all obsessed with the dead. Some of us imagine we don’t believe in the afterlife, but there is no denying we believe in something that provides the basis for our righteous indignation when our dead are disrespected. Some people pay the county clerk for a death certificate or search FindAGrave.com for their death tourism, some of us visit Haymarket or Stonewall.

When my cousin and I were eight and six our great-grandfather Emerson Pratt, Bertha’s middle son, died. His funeral was the first I ever went to. It was an open casket, and my cousin and I were too young to understand the severity of Old Papa “moving on.” We became obsessed with his lifeless body. Someone had brought over a stool for the children to step up and kiss him goodbye. We stood next to each other on it.

“I think he’s wearing makeup like a girl,” she cried.

“No, I don’t think so,” I said.

“Yeah! Look!” She wiped some blush from his cheek and showed it to me. We both started laughing loudly at the absurdity of our Old Papa, a man, with makeup on. Our mothers were appalled. They stormed over and pulled us away from the casket and out of the room of women hiding their crying faces in their black shawls. My aunt was the real disciplinarian: “You cannot talk about Papa’s makeup!”

“Why?”

“Because you shouldn’t disrespect the dead.”

Conclusion

Two questions spring from the existence of the archive, both state and Church: does the archive control us? Do we, in our un-categorizable self­perceptions and actions, exist in the archive in any meaningful way at all? For queer people, the desire for inclusion is always in tension with the desire to fundamentally change the operations of society. Is it enough to have a marriage certificate, or should romantic and sexual relationships be defined in new ways that better reflect our lived experiences? When do we declare our gender and to whom? How can we effectively disregard sex? What does it mean to be “Mormon” without a temple recommend? Documentation that supports the heteropatriarchal structure of both the Church and state enforces its power and persuades us to work toward reform, recategorization, and recognition rather than disruption. The family tree, birth certificate, temple recommend, marriage certificate, and death certificate are all part of this cycle. And surely we can all, regardless of identity, find ourselves and stories like ours in the archive if we work hard enough. The theological and political question that is then posed to us is: how should we use the archive as we construct our own worlds around us? As queer people, what do we fight for?

---

Note: The Dialogue Foundation provides the web format of this article as a courtesy. There may be unintentional differences from the printed version. For citational and bibliographical purposes, please use the printed version or the PDFs provided online and on JSTOR.

^[1] See Robb Hernández, “Drawn from the Scraps: The Finding AIDS of Mundo Meza,” Radical History Review 122 (2015): 70–88.

^[2] See W. Paul Reeve, Religion of a Different Color: Race and the Mormon Struggle for Whiteness (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015).

^[3] See John Lardas Modern, Secularism in Antebellum America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011).

^[4] Joseph F. Smith, comp., Scriptural Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1938), 150.

^[5] Modern “Lamanites” can also assume covenant descendance. “Lamanites” is the term used in the Book of Mormon to describe Native Americans. In short, the Lamanites and Nephites were two tribes of Native Americans, each descended from Ephraim. The Lamanites killed the Nephites and fell from God’s grace and, as such, he cursed them with dark skin.

^[6] Hernández, “Drawn from Scraps.”

^[7] Hernández, “Drawn from Scraps.”

^[8] Emily Drabinski, “Queering the Catalog: Queer Theory and the Politics of Correction,” Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy 83, no. 2 (Apr. 2013): 94–111.

^[9] Sweden is one country that has recently added a third, gender-neutral option that is assigned in case of intersex birth or upon request of the parents.

^[10] See Anne Fausto-Sterling, Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality (New York: Basic Books, 2000).

^[11] See Jasbir K. Puar, Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2007).

^[12] “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Ensign, Nov. 2010, 129.

^[13] “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” (emphasis mine).

^[14] It is important to note here that it is assumed based on the binary sexing system that intersex bodies are entirely disregarded or assumed to be “corrected” into one of the two gendered categories. In 1995, medical and popular understandings of intersexuality were limited, however this situation has changed drastically since without a reflecting statement or any guidance from the Church.

^[15] “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” emphasis added.

^[16] “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” emphasis added.

^[17] A Parent’s Guide (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1985).

^[18] Judith Butler, Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex” (New York: Routledge, 1993), 10.

^[19] Talal Asad, Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1993), 79.

^[20] Asad, Genealogies of Religion, 79.

^[21] Handbook 1: Stake Presidents and Bishops (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2010).

^[22] Handbook 1, 1.3–6.

^[23] Jacques Derrida, Archive Fever: A Freudian Impression, translated by Eric Prenowitz (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), 2.

^[24] Derrida, Archive Fever, 14.

^[25] Articles of Faith 1:10.

^[26] Handbook 1, 4.5.2.1.

^[27] Handbook 1, 4.5.2.1

^[28] Handbook 1, 4.5.2.1

^[29] Handbook 1, 4.5.2.1.

^[30] Jay Prosser, Second Skins: The Body Narratives of Transsexuality (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998), 63.

^[31] Saba Mahmood, Politics of Piety: The Islamic Revival and the Feminist Subject (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2005).

^[32] Jasbir K. Puar, The Right to Maim: Debility, Capacity, Disability (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2017), 122.

^[33] Dallin H. Oaks, “Same-Gender Attraction,” Ensign, Oct. 1995.

^[34] Armand L. Mauss, The Angel and the Beehive: The Mormon Struggle with Assimilation (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1994).

^[35] Reeve, Religion of a Different Color.

^[36] For information on this process, see the Reynolds v. United States Supreme Court case of 1879.

^[37] Wilford Woodruff, “Official Declaration 1,” Doctrine and Covenants (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1979 edition), 291.

^[38] The impact of Leonard J. Arrington and his fall from the graces of Church leadership is described in various essays appearing in Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History, edited by George D. Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992).

^[39] Wikipedia, s.v. “Ancestry.com,” last modified Oct. 9, 2020, 20:11.

^[40] Polygamy was a financial difficulty and thus only a certain few men were able to provide for multiple wives. Polygamous marriage was also considered to be a sort of “special calling” that some men were especially instructed to pursue as part of their religious duty to God.

^[41] Drabinski. “Queering the Catalog.”

^[42] Kathleen Davis, Periodization and Sovereignty: How Ideas of Feudalism and Secularization Govern the Politics of Time (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008).

^[43] For recent scholarship on the racialization of early Mormons, see Reeve’s Religion of a Different Color, Max Perry Mueller’s Race and the Making of the Mormon People (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2017), and Peter Coviello’s Make Yourselves Gods: Mormons and the Unfinished Business of American Secularism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2019).

^[44] Reeve, Religion of a Different Color, 186.

^[45] Devan Mark Hite, “The ‘Queer’ God(s) of Mormonism: Considering an Inclusive, Post-Heteronormative LGBTQI Hermeneutics,” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 64, nos. 2–3 (2013): 52–65.

^[46] Metta Victoria Fuller Victor, Mormon Wives: A Narrative of Facts Stranger than Fiction (New York: Derby & Jackson, 1856).

^[47] The concept of “cross-identify” I take from Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, “Queer and Now,” in Tendencies (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1993), 1–20.

^[48] The title page of the primary source is missing, so here I refer to the republication information: Parley P. Pratt, Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1874).

^[49] Carolyn Steedman, Dust: The Archive and Cultural History (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 2002), 10.

^[50] Bertha Wilcken Pratt, “Bertha Wilcken Pratt,” Jared Pratt Family Association.

^[51] Wilcken Pratt, “Bertha Wilcken Pratt.”

^[52] Zeb Tortorici, “Archival Seduction: Indexical Absences and Historiographical Ghosts,” Archive Journal 5 (Nov. 2015).

^[53] 1 Corinthians 15:29.

^[54] Doctrine and Covenants 127:6.

^[55] Achille Mbembe, “The Power of the Archive and its Limits,” in Refiguring the Archive, edited by Carolyn Hamilton, et al. (Dordecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002), 24.

^[56] Samuel M. Otterstrom, “Genealogy as Religious Ritual: The Doctrine and Practice of Family History in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” in Geography and Genealogy: Locating Personal Pasts, edited by Dallen J. Timothy and Jeanne Kay Guelke (New York: Routledge, 2008), 137.

^[57] For example, see Stephen Best, “On Failing to Make the Past Present,” Modern Language Quarterly 73, no. 3. (Sept. 2012): 453–74.

[post_title] => Archive of the Covenant: Reflections on Mormon Interactions with State and Body [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 53.4 (Winter 2020): 79–107
In the logic of Mormon theology, an internal lack of faith is in part a result of the mismanagement of my mortal embodiment. Part of the reason that the “born this way” language of the marriage equality movement has had so little effect on the Mormon population compared to others is that it directly contradicts very recent and revered theological claims. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => archive-of-the-covenant-reflections-on-mormon-interactions-with-state-and-body [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-07-14 13:38:50 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-07-14 13:38:50 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=27476 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 26372 [post_author] => 3634 [post_date] => 2020-08-26 21:16:04 [post_date_gmt] => 2020-08-26 21:16:04 [post_content] =>

My dad has always been a very political man. Growing up, if he had control of the TV, there was a decent chance that Fox News would be playing. Every morning, we would listen to Glenn Beck on our way to school. At the dinner table, my dad would often rant about whatever political issue was topical at the time. During President Obama’s second term in office, gay marriage was a big issue. Obama came out in support of same-sex marriage a few years earlier when he was running against our fellow Mormon, Mitt Romney, and had been pushing for its legalization ever since.

What a strange concept it was to me. Let two men get married? Or even two women? Why would they even want to get married? I thought. Can’t they just live with each other and be fine with it? Why do they even want to be gay? Why can’t they just choose to be straight like the rest of us? They say it’s not a choice and that they’re just born like that, but that doesn’t make any sense to me. I mean, I could totally choose to like girls if that’s what society taught me was acceptable, but I choose to like boys because that’s what’s right. It’s too bad that these people weren’t taught proper morality growing up. Plus, why would God purposely make anyone anything other than straight?

I felt grateful that I was one of the lucky few to be born into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the only true Church upon the earth, the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. In a time where the world’s morality is subjective and based on the whims and appetites of the natural man, my morality was based firmly on the teachings of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the General Authorities. I reflected on how fortunate I was that I had the complete truth while the rest of the world struggled with trying to find what is right.

Growing up LDS, I had the law of chastity drilled into my mind. Whether it was in Sunday School, seminary, or Young Women, I had a lesson on chastity, modesty, or dating at least once a month. With all the lessons about modesty, dating, and pornography, it felt like we were constantly talking about sex. I often found myself thinking that for a religion that doesn’t like sex, Mormons sure do talk about it a lot.

And to me, all these lessons seemed a bit unnecessary. Even as an older teen, I had never felt sexual temptation for another person before, so I doubted that any of us really needed to hear the lessons. I assumed it’s kind of like teaching elementary kids to say no to drugs just in case they need to in the future.

As I sat in my cold, metal fold-up chair, leaning up against the itchy carpet walls that sometimes caught onto my dress, I would take mental notes of all the things I needed to do to keep my virtue. No dating until sixteen. Easy. Already done. Still no dates yet. No single dating until eighteen. Sounds great. Don’t be alone together after dark. Simple enough. Don’t make out or lie on top of each other. Again, super easy. Anything more than holding hands sounds super uncomfortable and gross. Man, I’m really good at this whole following Christ thing. I’m going to be a worthy Mormon bride in no time.

Up until the age of eighteen, I never really thought that my experience was any different from my peers. Looking back, it becomes obvious. But I was very skilled at pushing my worries to the back of my mind and ignoring anything that made me uncomfortable.

Throughout my childhood and adolescence, I had my fair share of “girl talk.” Any time a group of girls would get together, the conversation would eventually shift to boys. I mean, I like boys as much as the next girl, I thought to myself, but the way some girls are completely obsessed with boys is super weird and honestly kind of disgusting. I would listen to all the girls go around in a circle, blushing and giggling as they went on and on about what boys they had a crush on. Some girls would even go into detail about kisses. As I listened to another Laurel describe her first attempt at a make-out, I was disgusted. Making out at only seventeen? What kind of slut would do such a thing? She knows the rules of dating set up by the Church. She really needs to be a better example. Maybe she needs to read her scriptures more.

Eventually, all eyes would shift to me, and I was expected to give the juicy details of which boy I liked. This was always a hard decision. I would go through the short list of boys that I’d talked to and pick whichever one was nicest to me. “Um . . .” I sat, thinking. “Teddy.” The other girls oohed and giggled at my answer. Then they pressed for what it was that I liked about him. “He sits next to me in art class. He’s a really good artist. Plus, he’s nice to me and tells really funny stories.”

“Are you going to ask him to the girl’s choice dance next month?” My friend Emma asked.

Ew, no, was my gut reaction. I mean, I like Teddy. He’s funny and smart and an all-around nice kid. I like talking to him during art class. But I wouldn’t want to like, hold hands with him or anything. Imagining him holding my hand and lightly touching my waist while dancing seemed so inappropriate. I guess the Church says that fourteen-year-olds are allowed to go to dances, but still, it just feels wrong. What if he wanted to kiss me? Blech! Gross! I would never want to kiss Teddy, or anyone else for that matter! It just seems so weird. I don’t know why all these other people my age seem so obsessed with it. It must just be the over-sexualized media.

But I didn’t want to seem weird by saying I wouldn’t ask my “crush” on a date. That’s what you’re supposed to do when you have a crush, right? So I shrugged my shoulders and said that I was too shy. They moved on to the next girl. I was relieved that they didn’t ask any further questions.

***

In high school, my physical education teacher would take roll and teach a short lesson in a classroom before moving to the gym. The lesson of the day was about heart rate. My teacher was showing us a short presentation about target heart rates when exercising, how to measure your heart rate, etc. While describing different situations that could change your heart rate, a picture of some random dude I didn’t know suddenly appeared on the projector screen. Every single girl audibly swooned over this mystery man. Literally, they swooned! I didn’t know people actually swooned. I wondered, What is wrong with all these adolescent girls that they sigh and squeal and fan their face at the mere sight of some thick-necked, thirtysomething-year-old man with a buzz cut?

My teacher’s face beamed with accomplishment that her lesson had had the intended effect on her class. “You guys all felt that?” She let out a small feminine giggle. “Seeing someone who you think is attractive can also increase your heart rate. I picked Channing Tatum because he’s just so good-looking, he makes everyone’s heart rates go up!” The room was filled with girlish snickers.

Oh, so this is Channing Tatum, I thought. I had heard of him before but never seen him. Wait, isn’t he in that R-rated movie coming out soon? The one about the male strippers? My teacher had just gotten married in the temple a month before. She showed us her wedding pictures in class. I knew she was Mormon. Why is she promoting this guy in class? How on earth could a man who sexually exploits his body ever be attractive to someone who knows the gospel?

In the car ride home from school, my mom asked me if anything interesting happened at school, and I told her about what happened in PE. It was honestly kind of funny to seemingly be the only one out of the loop on something. She chuckled a bit when I described two dozen teenage girls all fawning over some older male celebrity they don’t even know. When I said that I didn’t really get it, she asked me if I had any crushes on boys at school. I thought through all the boys I’d spoken to in my grade, looking to come up with an answer in order to make myself seem normal, like I did with my friends. But I decided that I could be honest with my mom. So I told her that I didn’t really have any crushes.

“Come on, you’ve got to have at least one crush,” she teased.

“No, I don’t think so,” I repeated.

“Really, not one?” She looked slightly confused and also a little bit . . . sad? I shook my head no. Afraid that she wasn’t understanding, I tried to explain a little more.

“I mean, I can tell when someone is ‘attractive,’ but I’m not attracted to them until I get to know them.”

“Well, I guess that’s a good thing . . .” She trailed off, which made me nervous. “Actually, I can kind of understand that. I can admit when another woman is attractive even though I wouldn’t want to actually, like, date her or anything.” She shuddered slightly in disgust at the thought of being with another woman. “But don’t you ever see someone and your heart starts beating and you get butterflies in your stomach?”

“No.”

She quickly turned her head to look at me in the passenger seat. Her confused look was so intense it made my stomach churn slightly. Is this not how everybody else feels? Maybe I’m just not explaining it right.

I panicked slightly, trying to help her understand. “Well, sometimes when I see somebody, I think, ‘That person seems interesting. I’d like to get to know that person.’ But it feels the same way for boys and girls.”

My mother’s head jolted in shock and her eyebrows shot up as high as they would go.

I had said something wrong.

My face flushed red as I attempted to salvage the conversation. “I mean, it’s a little different for boys than it is for girls. It’s just . . . similar . . .” I couldn’t bring myself to lie to my mom, so that was the only thing I could say to try to convince her I wasn’t bisexual.

The look on my mom’s face told me she still didn’t get it, but she had realized that I was embarrassed, so she simply said “Oh” and dropped it.

***

Another common lesson I was taught in Young Women was about modesty. The discussion would go something along the lines of becoming walking pornography for boys to look at and be tempted. Modesty seemed like such an easy doctrine to follow. Most of the stores I went to had plenty of cute modest clothing, so I didn’t understand what was so hard about it. Even though my high school had a dress code, I would still see girls with low-cut shirts exposing a surprising amount of cleavage. Once during the school year, my friend Emma and I were complaining about it and she mentioned the typical response of immodest clothing being distracting for boys.

“They’re distracting to me too!” I exclaimed. Emma looked strangely at me, almost accusingly. She said she didn’t want to know that information. I knew what she was insinuating and tried to defend myself, but she was uncomfortable and didn’t really seem interested in my explanation for why boobs were distracting to me.

Oh, no! I exclaimed internally. What if I actually am bisexual? Or worse, a full-on lesbian in denial? Is there any way to fix it? There has to be, right? God wouldn’t purposely make me that way without some way to overcome it. How do I know for sure I have same-sex attraction? I may be distracted by boobs, but I would never want to kiss a girl, would I? Maybe I really do deep down inside, and I was just taught that it was gross. Is attraction just wanting to be friends with girls? Because that’s what it feels like when I have a crush on a boy. Would I ever kiss a boy? I’d like to think so. Maybe some hypothetical boy, but when I think of the boys I have crushes on, I would never want to kiss them! Oh no, I definitely am a lesbian. Oh no, oh no, oh no! I tried to control my panic.

Thoughts of being a secret lesbian would swirl around my head as I tried to calm myself of this fear. I don’t like girls. I don’t like girls. Like I said, I would never want to kiss one. Yuck! That definitely means I’m not a lesbian, right? I mean, I wouldn’t really want to kiss a boy either . . . but that’s not the point! Maybe I don’t like any boys yet, but one day I’ll meet The One and I’ll fall in love and then everything will be fine. I just need to be patient. I like boys, just not any of the ones I know. I like boys. I like boys.

But I didn’t like boys. I thought I liked boys. I always assumed I was straight just like everybody else. But as I got older, I got more uncomfortable with the silly girly talks. And the girls camp songs. Oh my, the girls camp songs!

Every morning and evening, we would gather around the campfire for our devotional. But before we went into the actual spiritual lesson, we sang camp songs. I loved all the classics like “The Princess Pat” and “I’m a Nut.” And nothing got me more pumped in the morning than singing “Rise and Shine,” which was my personal favorite. Even if I was still tired, I would jump up every time the chorus came and clap enthusiastically: “Rise and shine and (clap) give God your glory, glory. Children of the Lord!”

But of course, you can’t flip through an LDS girls camp songbook without coming across a song about boys. Three songs specifically always made me uncomfortable whenever it was time to sing them. The least offending song was “Mormon Boy,” which went like this:

I know a Mormon boy
He is my pride and joy
He knows most everything from Alma on down
Someday I’ll be his wife
We’ll have eternal life
Oh how I love that Mormon bo-o-oy!
I am a Mormon Girl
I wear my hair in curls
I wear my skirts way down to my knees
I wear my daddy’s shirts
I am the biggest flirt
Oh, how I love that Mormon boy
M-O-R-E-M-E-N
More men, more men, sing it again!

The song was unrelatable to me. I would sing the lyrics devoid of emotion or excitement. But it didn’t really make me uncomfortable, unlike the next song:

I looked out the window and what did I see?
Three returned missionaries looking at me!
Spring has brought me such a nice surprise,
Tall, dark, and handsome right before my eyes!
I can take an armful and kiss all three,
But only one for eternity.
It wasn’t really so, but it seemed to be
Three returned missionaries looking at me!

The “Popcorn Popping” song I had learned in Primary was officially ruined now. The imagery of hugging and kissing a group of twenty-year-old men sounded disgusting. Even imagining boys my own age was gross to me. I felt icky. But the next song was by far the worst. It was to the tune of “Baby Got Back.”

I like Mormon boys and I cannot lie!
You other sisters can’t deny!
When a boy walks in with a scripture case
And a big smile on his face
You get a date
An eternal mate
But wait
He’s going on a mission
Leaving you wishin’
That you had a man
Someone to hold your hand
Deacons, what?
Teachers, what?
We don’t like your features!
Your brothers are hot
But you are not
So bring us those righteous priests
HUH!

That “Huh!” ended in an enthusiastic group pelvic thrust, which made me indescribably uncomfortable. They were singing about righteous sons of God the same way Sir Mix-a-Lot sings about big butts! How is this song allowed? I would think. There are children among us for crying out loud! Those sweet, innocent Beehives are being exposed to pelvic thrusts! This is so inappropriate. Singing “How Great Thou Art” immediately after felt extremely strange.

Eventually I did notice the difference between my experience and the experiences of others. I was “not like other girls.” I looked at other women’s sexuality with disgust. Everyone was a slut except for me. I was the normal one, following God’s commandments, refusing to even be tempted by so-called worldly pleasures.

***

When I was eighteen years old, I was very active in an online art community filled with teens and young adults who were very socially liberal. In the summer of 2015, I watched my LGBT peers celebrate the legalization of same-sex marriage. By this time, I had met several gay, bisexual, and transgender people, who told me that their identity wasn’t a choice, and all they wanted was to be treated equally to everyone else. I didn’t quite understand. I still felt like being straight was a choice, but telling my queer friends that they were wrong was none of my business, and I was glad to see them happy.

The teens on the site seemed to be constantly coming up with new words for different genders and sexualities. I found it all pretty silly but ultimately harmless. Scrolling through the recent drawings, I came across a comment where someone mentioned the word “demisexual.” Having no idea what the word meant, I searched the word online and was taken to the Asexual Visibility and Education Network website. The definition of demisexual read: “Someone who can only experience sexual attraction after an emotional bond has been formed.” I rolled my eyes. Sounds completely normal to me. Jeez, these kids think that having standards makes them special. I kept reading the website. I had heard of asexuality before but never really learned much about it.

According to the website, about one percent of adults are asexual, and that it means not having any sexual attraction at all. But asexual people could still have sex even if they don’t feel attraction. That confused me. I clicked on all the different links and tabs to better understand. The site explained that asexuality is a spectrum. Apparently, you can be attracted to a small handful of people and still call yourself asexual. The website distinguished between sexual attraction and wanting to have sex. But what was sexual attraction if it didn’t mean wanting to have sex? I then had to search what sexual attraction is and what it feels like. Apparently, it’s some weird magnetic pull to want to touch their privates or something, which sounds absolutely disgusting. Wait, I thought as the realization hit me, people can feel that way without an emotional connection to a person? Like, they just look at someone and want to touch their boobs? Yuck! What the heck? Is this how most people feel? Even Mormons? Is this what people talk about when they say they have a crush? Why would people admit to that? That’s so gross. Then apparently there’s also romantic attraction, which is somehow different. There’s sensual attraction and aesthetic attraction and platonic, and just how many different types of attraction are there? This is all too much and it’s way too complicated. How do I even know for sure if I’ve felt any of these?

I spent several hours looking at different websites and forums all about asexuality. I took several different asexuality quizzes, all of which said that I was likely asexual. The only thing that gave me a shred of hope that maybe I was actually normal was the fact that I was only eighteen. Maybe I’ll finally feel it in a few years and I’m just a little late, I hoped. But everyone else my age seems to have feelings for other people. I know one of my friends was literally counting down the days until she turned sixteen so she could finally date. I’ve even seen seventh graders making out in the halls sometimes. But maybe thirteen is a bit early. Maybe I’m just a bit slow to mature in that specific field. I’m probably just a late bloomer.

But what if you’re not? the little voice in my head remarked. That would make a lot more sense. The voice was probably right. I thought back to the conversation with my mom. Why would she be so surprised that I didn’t have any crushes at fifteen if it was normal? Why would I feel so uncomfortable when my friends would talk about boys? I always thought it must have been because I was more righteous than they were, but that wasn’t true. They were good people who as far as I knew hadn’t done any super serious sins. There was some kind of cruel irony in finding out that I was the weirdo all along after years of labeling every other normal human being a sexual deviant. Suddenly my holier-than-thou attitude regarding sex was crushed with my ego. How did I not realize this sooner? Why did nobody tell me?

After a few days of continued research, I finally felt like things were falling into place. Suddenly, all of these experiences I had were beginning to make sense. And I started to feel guilty about all of the silent slut-shaming I did. As I accepted the fact that I was likely somewhere on the asexual spectrum, I felt a sense of relief. Suddenly, chastity lessons at church had a different feel. Instead of feeling holier-than-thou, I felt blessed.

Maybe being asexual isn’t so bad, I thought. I mean, I feel like a freak for not feeling the way most people do and not realizing it until just a few days ago. I feel like I’m missing out on some sort of essential human experience. But maybe this is one of those blessings in disguise. I mean, chastity is one of the biggest issues facing our generation. Fourteen-year-olds are out getting pregnant. Even members of the Church break the law of chastity all the time. It’s a huge deal. Members of my family haven’t been able to get married in the temple because of it. They end up getting sealed later, but it’s still really awkward when someone has a civil wedding and everyone can guess why. If I’m asexual then I don’t have to worry about any of that! Maybe this is Heavenly Father’s gift to me. He realizes I have enough problems going on right now that I don’t need any chastity issues coming up.

Well, I still don’t know what I’m going to do if I don’t get married and have kids like every other Mormon I know. That’s sort of your main goal as a Mormon, especially if you’re a woman. Am I going to be that one old maid in the family ward that everyone feels bad for? I guess I could find an asexual man to marry me. But what are the odds of that? Finding another Mormon asexual man who I love and get along with is a very rare and specific combination of traits I’m not sure how to find. Or maybe I’m actually in the gray area and I can get married and have kids the old-fashioned way like everyone else? It’ll just take longer, that’s all.

I don’t know. I don’t know what to hope for. I’d like to fall in love, get married, have sex, and make babies just like everyone else, but I don’t know if that’s something I’ll actually want. Sure, the fantasy of it all sounds nice, but I can’t imagine that ever happening in real life. As soon as I imagine myself in that scenario, it feels gross. I don’t know. I guess I’ll just have to wait and see. I’ll deal with it later. For now, I guess I should just be grateful that I don’t have to worry about committing the third worst sin ever.

And for a while, that was that. I had finally discovered and accepted my asexual identity. I posted on the forums often, where I learned that asexual people often refer to themselves as “aces” for short. Soon, I was confidently using the cute nickname for myself while still holding out hope that I could have the perfect Mormon family one day.

I started college soon after my self-discovery. During my first few weeks at Utah Valley University, I discovered that free breakfast was served on Monday and Friday mornings. I was pretty stoked to say the least. As I excitedly chewed my waffles, a young man approached me and started making small talk. I was in such a good mood from the thrilling discovery of free waffles that my social anxiety didn’t give me too much trouble. After some discussion about ourselves, what we were studying in school, what music we liked, our hobbies, etc., he asked me out on a date. At eighteen years old, this would be my first date ever. No boy had shown any interest in me before, and I was flattered. I gave him my phone number, and we set up a date a few days later.

My asexuality wasn’t a concern at the time. After all, I still wasn’t sure if I was completely asexual or somewhere else on the spectrum. If there was any hope at all of eventually having a normal life with a husband and kids, I figured I might as well give dating a shot. There was nothing remarkable about our first date. He told me some stories about his mission. We chatted some more about our lives while we bowled, and at the end, he said that he’d like to go out again, and I politely agreed. Second date was the same story. Now that I had gone on two successful dates, I felt a great sense of accomplishment for being a normal human being. Look at me! Going on dates now that I’m in college. Everything is going according to plan. This whole relationship stuff is easy.

Several days later, I walked into my Ethics and Values class. The class was small, with only a dozen people or so. It was unusual for a general education course, but I liked that I really got to know how my classmates felt about all of the pressing moral issues we covered in the class. The day’s lesson was on moral relativism, and our professor started off the discussion by demonstrating how some Utah cultural norms are very different from other places.

“Ladies,” the Professor asked, “how long do you have to date before you feel comfortable kissing a guy? Like, how many dates?” The room was silent for a moment as I looked around the room and saw that there were only two women in the class. I had never kissed anyone before and had only been on two dates. I was not qualified to answer this question at all. So I stayed quiet until the other girl answered the question.

But if I were to answer the question, I asked myself, what would I say? Gosh, I have no idea. Maybe like, six? That seems like enough time to get to know someone well enough. Or, is that not enough? Depending on the frequency, someone could go on six dates in about month. There’s no way that’s enough time to develop the kind of emotional relationship necessary to do something as intimate as kissing. Maybe like two months. Sure, two months sounds good.

“Well,” my female classmate spoke up, “I guess I’d say around the third date is when I would usually kiss a guy.”

What?! Three dates?! And you’re already kissing? You barely know each other! What kind of person kisses on the third date?

The professor chuckled at the answer. “That’s funny you say that, because in most other places, the third date is the sex date.”

I was breathless. Turns out, my sense of reality and what is normal was way off base from everyone else’s. Like sure, being LDS, I was raised with more conservative ideas about romantic relationships, but my opinions were even further away from the norm than my mostly Mormon classmates. The professor stated that he had asked this question to a lot of his classes, and they all gave similar answers. In Utah, you kiss on the third date. Everywhere else, that’s when you have sex. When were people going to tell me about this? How did everyone else know about this unspoken third date rule? How did I get this far out of the loop?

My complete shock slowly turned to anxiety as I thought about my upcoming date. This would be our third official date. What if he thinks you’re supposed to kiss on the third date? What if he tries to kiss me? Or even just hold my hand? What do I do? Do I say no? Do I go along with it to be nice? Do I just awkwardly scoot away from him? My stomach churned as I ruminated on what to do.

Soon, the dreaded third date came. We went to the UVU student center to play games. We rented a pool table, and after a few failed attempts at hitting the balls properly, it was obvious I couldn’t play at all.

“Here, let me show you how to aim,” my date said as he walked over to me. I stopped what I was doing, stood straight up, and backed up a few steps so that he could demonstrate proper technique. As I watched him bend over to show me how to hold the cue stick, I suddenly realized that he might have wanted me to stay there so that he could wrap his arms around me as he showed me how to shoot. I was filled with the same anxiety again that maybe he and I had different expectations about dating.

Thankfully, we made it through the third date with absolutely no physical contact whatsoever. As far as I was concerned, the date was a success.

For our fourth date, he invited me to see The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2. I was excited. I loved the Hunger Games series and was eager to see the final film. I was completely preoccupied with the movie, paying no attention to my date. After it was over, I told him what I liked about the movie and how it compared to the books. He listened but didn’t seem as happy about the movie as I was.

He never texted me back asking for another date. And to be honest, I was completely unbothered. I enjoyed the activities we did together, and he was a decent person to talk to. But that was it. I wouldn’t want him to be my boyfriend. Just a regular friend would be nice. I had no interest in hugging or kissing. In fact, I spent our last two dates specifically trying to avoid it. Oh. I had figured out why he didn’t ask me out again. It was so clear that I wasn’t interested in him, and he didn’t want to waste his time and money on me. Even though I wasn’t attracted to him, this thought hurt. I wanted so badly to be in a relationship and fall in love eventually, but I worried that most people wouldn’t stick around long enough for me to maybe hopefully develop feelings over time. If I do at all, that is. I still don’t know if I’m even capable of falling in love. Maybe if I try to date anyone, I’ll just be wasting their time.

Suddenly, the goal of having a husband like I was supposed to seemed a lot harder to reach. But I didn’t give up. The next fall, I went on another date. The date went fine. We ate lunch and talked for a while. Then at the end of the date, he offered to drive me home, and I reluctantly agreed. When we arrived at my apartment, he parked the car and told me how much he liked me. That he really, really liked me. I was a little caught off guard. I didn’t know what to say back, so I just said nothing and nodded.

“Do you want me to walk you up to your door?” he asked.

I thought that was a weird thing for him to ask. I could walk up there by myself. I didn’t know why he would want to come along, but I said, “Sure.”

He smiled excitedly and jumped out of the car. I walked up the stairs to my second-floor apartment door while he followed behind me. As soon as I reached the top of the stairs, I realized I had made a terrible mistake. I stood outside my door, knowing the awkward moment that was coming any moment now.

“I had a good time today,” he smiled. “We should do this again sometime.”

“Yeah,” I lied.

We stood there silently for a moment, and then he stuck out his hand. I grabbed his hand and shook it, feeling relieved. Yes, shaking hands. Shaking hands is great. But the handshaking only lasted for a moment before he hugged me. After releasing each other, we said goodbye and I went inside.

Thoughts raced around my head as my stomach started to form a tiny knot. It was only a hug. It could have been much worse. Why am I feeling like this? I took a deep breath as I tried to untangle my thoughts. It was something about the way he gushed about how much he liked me, while I felt nothing. He seemed so happy to be around me, while I just wanted to hang out like friends getting to know each other. He seemed so sure and passionate in the way he felt about me. He didn’t even know me, but he was still attracted to me. Was he . . . sexually attracted to me? Ew. I don’t want to think about that.

Even though his forwardness made me uncomfortable, I almost felt jealous. He didn’t need time. He knew right away who he wanted to pursue and who he didn’t. But here I was, trying to date without feeling any strong feelings one way or the other, hoping that one day I might feel what everybody else feels. But every time it always ended in frustration. Can’t these boys realize that not everyone is like them? That maybe some of us need more time and you just have to be patient? But then again, maybe I shouldn’t expect everyone to be like me either. It’s not fair to make others wait for something that might never happen. A few months ago, I thought that people who kissed on the third were floozies. But apparently, they’re actually just normal. Maybe I should learn some patience. I mean, they didn’t choose to feel the way they feel any more than I chose not to. I don’t think I would have chosen this even if I could. Oh man, is this really how gay people feel? Now that I really think about it, I doubt very many people would choose to be gay or bi if they also had to feel like they weren’t normal, or that they couldn’t have the same life as everyone else. But if people are born like this, why would God do that to them? Why would God make anyone anything other than straight? Heterosexual marriage is one of the key parts of the plan. Why would he ruin that for anybody?

Dread started to overcome me. What if I’m like this for the rest of my life? If I never fall in love, then what? Am I just stuck with my friends? I mean, I like my friends, but they’re not as good as a husband. That’s why people say “just friends.” Friendship isn’t the same as romantic love. It’s not as good. It’s not as real. I felt crushed at the thought that no one would ever love me.

I sat in my room, shaking, letting the same thoughts run around my head over and over. Worried about how I could ever be as happy as all those couples smiling and holding hands in the halls, shoving their heterosexuality in everyone else’s faces. I trembled, feeling like I was about to cry, until the little voice in my head told me, You’re gonna be okay. I tried to calm myself, listening closely to the words of the voice. It didn’t say anything else, but I was suddenly reminded of the information I had been consuming over the last several months in my online community, all the frequently asked questions and the frustrated forum posts from confused and worried people. There were so many options for me! Romantic love and sexual desire were two separate things. You could have one without the other. And even if I was aromantic as well, platonic love is just as strong and meaningful as romantic love. Some people even have platonic life partners! If I couldn’t find that, maybe someone who’s sexual will care about me enough to compromise. Plus, I could always adopt kids if I want. Who knows what would happen? Who knows who I’d meet? Maybe I would always live alone and still be happy. I didn’t need to figure it all out right then. I could just go wherever life took me. God may have a plan, but that doesn’t mean the plan is the same for everyone.

I felt free. I felt empowered. I might fall in love and get married, or I might not. Either way would be fine. I didn’t need to have the same life path as all of my friends and family. I realized that I am the way I am, and I couldn’t change it. I needed to respect it. I had to listen to myself, and not to everyone around me, including Church leaders. I had to follow my heart and do what makes me happy, and it would all get figured out in the end.

Thanksgiving came a few weeks later, and my grandparents invited everyone over for dinner. My mom and I shared stories from our respective jobs, relating our similar bad customer experiences. My sister showed me the poster she made to ask a boy to the school dance. I was excited for her. All the adults talked around the table as my younger cousins ran around the house. Even though the children were loud and rambunctious, there was a sense of peace throughout the house. One of love, gratitude, and kindness. We laughed and played games until the sun went down. When it was time to leave, I hugged my relatives goodbye. A few of my little cousins stood in a line, waiting to give me a quick hug. My grandma gave me a big warm embrace as she told me, “It was so nice to see you! Come visit us again soon. We love you!” My parents echoed the same sentiment.

I didn’t need to date in order to find love. I already had it.

---

Note: The Dialogue Foundation provides the web format of this article as a courtesy. There may be unintentional differences from the printed version. For citational and bibliographical purposes, please use the printed version or the PDFs provided online and on JSTOR.

[post_title] => Ace of Saints [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 53.2 (Summer 2020): 108–123
I felt free. I felt empowered. I might fall in love and get married, or I might not. Either way would be fine. I didn’t need to have the same life path as all of my friends and family. I realized that I am the way I am, and I couldn’t change it. I needed to respect it. I had to listen to myself, and not to everyone around me, including Church leaders. I had to follow my heart and do what makes me happy, and it would all get figured out in the end. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => ace-of-saints [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-07-26 15:11:37 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-07-26 15:11:37 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=26372 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 26375 [post_author] => 2980 [post_date] => 2020-08-26 21:24:33 [post_date_gmt] => 2020-08-26 21:24:33 [post_content] =>

Listen to the audio version here.

On general conference weekend a few of my queer friends and I stand at the southeast corner of the Conference Center and offer hugs to fellow Latter-day Saints as they pass. Dressed in my Sunday best, I hold a sign that says, “Hug a Queer Latter-day Saint” and wait for the hugs to come.

The purpose of this is not to discourage anyone from their faith. The purpose is to build bridges and extend an olive branch in the spirit of peace and healing. The aim is to increase the compassion and love between seemingly oppositional groups. I have found that a simple hug can be a powerful act of trust and charity for both parties.

I’ve hugged hundreds of people from all over the world over the years, and this is a short collection of memorable hugs that I jotted down in my journal. I have experienced such significant peace, joy, healing, and commiseration from these experiences that I wanted to share them with others. These hugs have helped heal me, and I’m hoping they will help heal you too.

***

A woman with two children approaches me in a bit of a rush. She has her hands full and obviously has no time to chitchat. Yet, she makes hugging me a priority. She hugs me without inhibition and says, “There ain’t nothing wrong with you, sweetie.” She and her children leave just as quickly as they came.

***

A gorgeous woman with dark espresso skin approaches me. As she gets closer, I can see she has a sleeping baby swaddled against her chest to free both her arms. She is an experienced mother whose beauty and warmth radiates as she moves. She reaches out to hug me and says with an accent, “Hello. I am from Africa. In my country, we love all God’s children.”

We hug with her precious newborn nestled between us. The scent of her newborn baby reminds me of the truthfulness of her words. We are all God’s children.

***

I hug a stylish bisexual woman who enthusiastically tells me, “I’m so happy you’re doing this! I’m one of you! I’m not really ‘out’ yet because I’m going on a mission soon. They are going to have to deal with us sooner or later. I hope you get lots of hugs today!”

She quickly moves along and heads into the Conference Center with her spiral notebook and pen. I get the distinct impression she is an avid notetaker and has plans of her own to fulfill.

I smile at the thought of bisexual missionaries serving in the field. She has her work to do and I have mine. I whisper to myself as she walks into the Conference Center, “Godspeed.”

***

I hug a man who asks me if I have “boy and girl parts,” which leads to a lengthy discussion about accurate terminology. All things considered, he receives the first queer discussion quite well.

***

A young man and his girlfriend approach me warmly and give me a hug. They don’t leave, though. The young man has about a thousand questions on his mind and asks me if I could discuss them with him. I answer, “Of course, that is what I’m here for.”

After he finishes asking me his questions he says, “I could be wrong about this, but you tell me what you think. I feel like the younger generations, like us, are ready for new revelation. I don’t have a problem with gay people. I’d be totally happy if they could be sealed in the temple. Sometimes it feels like people are just waiting around to be told how to love each other. Sometimes it feels like we’re just waiting around for the brethren to tell us what to do. Am I wrong in saying that?”

I smile and assure him, “I have felt many of those feelings myself. I don’t think you’re wrong for thinking that.”

He looks relieved to know he isn’t the only one eager for more from his religion.

***

An old man, roughly in his eighties, is working as a conference usher. He slowly walks toward us with an official badge on his jacket. I assume he’s going to ask us to leave. Instead he says, “I love you. I don’t know how this is all going to work out, but I love you. Keep doing what you’re doing.”

He hugs me so tightly that it seems he has no inhibition about hugging a queer woman. I am just another child of God to him. I nearly cry as he slowly walks back into the Conference Center.

***

A man in a hurry rushes past me. He bumps my shoulder and turns and says, “Oh! Sorry.”

He sees my sign and his demeanor changes. He smiles and says, “Hey! My daughter is queer!”

He hugs me like a father longing to hug his queer daughter, just before hurrying away into the Conference Center. He calls back, “Thank you for all you do!”

I smile.

***

One woman has tears in her eyes before she even has a chance to hug me. She comes out of the Sunday afternoon session visibly distraught. She throws her arms around me and cries softly on my shoulder. She tells me in broken English, “My son is gay and has left the Church. I love my iglesia and I love my son. I don’t know what to do.”

I have no words of comfort. I hold her a little longer as she cries and tell her, “It’s okay to cry. I’m a mother too.”

***

A man and his son, a BYU student, give me a hug. The father looks around as if he’s about to tell me something he shouldn’t. He leans in, glances over his shoulder, and says, “These things take time. Try to be patient with the knuckleheads who just don’t get it yet.”

I grin from ear to ear and assure him, “I’ll do my best.”

He and his son leave and go into the priesthood session.

***

A Church security officer makes his way toward us. He asks, “How is everything going here? Are people being nice to you?”

I cautiously respond, “For the most part, yes. You can tell there are many people uncomfortable with our signs, but no one has been overtly unkind.”

He nods his head and says, “That’s good. Just wanted to make sure folks weren’t being mean to you. I’ll be over here if you need anything.”

I don’t get a hug, but the encounter still makes me smile. I wouldn’t be surprised if he gives me a hug in six months at the next General Conference. These things can’t be rushed.

***

A guy hugs me with surprising intensity. He pulls back and says, “I’m sorry. You don’t know me, but my wife loves your work. She’s bi and she was afraid to come out while being married to a guy. She didn’t think anyone would believe her.”

I respond, “I’m so glad my work has been helpful!”

He assures me, “Oh, it has. More than you know.”

***

I’ve been standing at the southeast corner of the Conference Center long enough to lose track of the time. I haven’t eaten anything since breakfast. It’s just before two and my stomach is growling. I look to my right to see a large man with white hair walking toward me with a plate of chocolate chip cookies. He asks me, “Would you and your friends like some cookies? They’re homemade.”

I too eagerly reply, “Yes!” He smiles, hands me the cookies, and is off on his way. I don’t get a hug, but I am still grateful for his kindness.

***

A woman in her eighties approaches us slowly with her walker. She’s looking directly at me as she carefully makes her way over. She smiles and gives me a big, warm hug.

She says, “Darling, I have something to tell you. I don’t think there is anything wrong with you.”

I reply warmly, “Well, thank you very much. I appreciate that.”

She looks dissatisfied and continues, “But it hurts my feelings you callin’ yourself queer. There is nothing wrong with you. You don’t need to call yourself that.”

I smile and respond, “That’s understandable why you would feel that way and I genuinely appreciate you looking out for me. I agree that there is nothing wrong with me. In the past, the word ‘queer’ was used as an insult, but I don’t find my queerness insulting. I’m queer and there is nothing wrong with me. Anyone can call me queer and I take it as a compliment.”

She looks at me as if I don’t understand her and continues, “But there’s nothing wrong with you. You’re a lovely girl.”

Her husband, who has been standing next to us listening intently, chimes in, “That’s what she’s trying to tell you, dear. There’s nothing wrong with her AND she’s a queer.”

He turns to me, gives me a big hug, and says, “We’re here to support you and we love the queers. And we’re happy to call you a queer if that’s what you like.”

I give the woman another hug and thank her again for being concerned with my welfare. They slowly make their way across the street, and I can hear them chatting with each other.

“I just don’t understand why her sign says ‘queer.’”

“That’s what I’m telling you. Being a queer isn’t bad anymore.”

They remind me of my own grandparents, and I smile at their willingness to understand that “Being a queer isn’t bad anymore.”

***

A beautiful woman with copper skin and long black hair hugs me and smiles. Around her neck is a turquoise necklace and I wonder if she is indigenous. Before I can ask, she says with peace and wisdom, “I wanted to tell you that I’m indigenous and a member of the Church. In my culture, we are encouraged to learn from the queer members of our tribe. Don’t stop teaching. That is why you are here.”

***

A young woman in her twenties is visibly upset as she exits the Conference Center. Her eyes are red and wet. She walks over to me and throws her arms around me. I can feel her body shaking as she fights back tears. She tries to speak but is too flustered to manage a complete sentence, so I hold her until she decides to let go. She pulls away and says, “Keep doing this. You are so brave. I don’t think I could be that brave. Please, keep doing this.”

I assure her, “I will do my best.”

 She pulls back and disappears into the crowded sidewalk. She never told me why she was crying.

***

A woman with tan skin approaches me with a radiant smile. She can barely speak English but is eager to communicate with me. With her delightful enthusiasm and Portuguese accent, I can understand her saying, “Your sign. It means you hug! Yes?”

I match her enthusiasm and reply, “Yes! Hugs!”

 Just when I think her smile couldn’t get any bigger, she widens her grin and embraces me with full force. She pulls back and says, “Oh, thank you! I am from Brazil and we love hugs! This is my first time in your country.”

I respond, “In that case, welcome to America!” I wish I could speak Portuguese to greet her in her own language, but it appears we both speak the language of hugs and that is enough.

***

Just as I think the day is over, a mother and her three-year-old daughter come over and hug me. The little girl points to my sign and says, “I like your rainbows. What does it say?”

I crouch down to my knees so we are at eye level as I read her the sign: “Hug a Queer Latter-day Saint.”

She asks, “What does that mean?”

I feel like a Primary president again talking with one of our little Sunbeams. I explain to her, “It means that Jesus taught us no matter how different we are we always need to love each other. That’s why I used rainbow letters. When I see rainbows, I am reminded of how important it is to love one another.”

She smiles. Her mother approves and says to her, “That’s right. We love all people.”

Her mother gives me another hug and says, “Thank you. All God’s children need to feel loved.”

---

Note: The Dialogue Foundation provides the web format of this article as a courtesy. There may be unintentional differences from the printed version. For citational and bibliographical purposes, please use the printed version or the PDFs provided online and on JSTOR.

[post_title] => Hug a Queer Latter-day Saint [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 53.2 (Summer 2020): 33–44
“Queer Polygamy,” is an innovating mashup that looks beyond monogamy as the only authorizing type of same-sex relationships—it really pushes the boundaries of what queer scholarship had done. Drawing on contemporary polyamory to critique the limitations of heterosexual monogamy, and putting that into conversation with the LDS tradition of plural marriage, Ostler imagines a new type of polygamy, queer polygamy, that sheds the patriarchal baggage of the 19th century version and its continuation in fundamentalist Mormonism, as well as thinking beyond its presumed heterosexulity. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => hug-a-queer-latter-day-saint [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-07-19 14:12:03 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-07-19 14:12:03 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=26375 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 23346 [post_author] => 2980 [post_date] => 2019-05-12 02:56:11 [post_date_gmt] => 2019-05-12 02:56:11 [post_content] =>

According to many accounts of LDS theology, polygamy, also called celestial marriage, is a necessary mandate for the highest degree of celestial glory. Doctrine and Covenants sections 131 and 132 tell us that celestial marriage and the continuation of the human family will enable us to become gods because we will have endless, everlasting increase (D&C 132:20). The Doctrine and Covenants gives a direct warning that if we do not abide by the law of polygamy, we cannot attain this glory (D&C 132:21). Likewise, prophets have stated that theosis and plural marriage are intimately intertwined. Brigham Young, the most notable advocate for mandated polygamy, stated, “The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.”[1] However, he also wrote, “if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained you will be polygamists at least in your faith.”[2] It is interesting that he uses the words “at least in your faith.” Was this to suggest that if a man cannot practice polygamy on earth, he will in heaven? Or is this to suggest a man may never enter into a polygamous marriage, but may live the spirit of polygamy in his heart? Later, Wilford Woodruff recorded in his journal that “President Young said there would be men saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God with one wife with Many wives & with No wife at all.”[3] Woodruff also wrote, “Then President Young spoke 58 Minutes. He said a Man may Embrace the Law of Celestial Marriage in his heart & not take the Second wife & be justified before the Lord.”[4] What is to be made of these statements? How can one embrace the spirit of polygamy, the law of celestial marriage, but remain monogamous with one wife or even no wives?

This paper will refer to the sex-focused, androcentric, patriarchal, heteronormative model of polygyny as the Standard Model. At a glance, the Standard Model is highly problematic. Though the Standard Model tends to dominate discourse, a more creative interpretation of what the spirit of polygamy includes may offer new insight into what celestial relationships might look like. I’m suggesting a way to reconcile diverse desires for celestial marriage under a new model I call Queer Polygamy, which encompasses the spirit of polygamy without mandating specific marital relations. I will begin with an expository of the Standard Model of polygamy followed by an expository of the Queer Polygamy Model and demonstrate how plural marriage may be redeemed to accommodate diverse relationships and desires, as Brigham Young suggests. I will then point out five common concerns with the Standard Model of polygamy and how the Queer Polygamy Model address them.

The Standard Model of polygamy is often and reductively described as one man having multiple wives. The man will continue to increase in power and dominion according to the number of wives and children he accumulates. This means he is eternally sealed to all his wives and children as a god, like Heavenly Father, who also must have entered into plural marriage. To attain the highest degree of celestial glory and have eternal increase, a man must enter into polygamy. The Standard Model focuses exclusively on the man or patriarch with little regard to what others, especially women and children, desire.

This aesthetic of God and godhood is problematic for many reasons. This view paints a rather androcentric and domineering perspective of what polygamy might look like. Additionally, this makes God a patriarchal monarch whose power and glory aren’t shared with his family and community but used at the expense of his family and community. If God evolved into godhood as a lone patriarch, his power is not holy but tyrannical. This patriarchal model of God, polygamy, sealings, celestial glory, and heaven are not a vision of glory most of us would aspire to as Saints in Zion. The Standard Model also neglects doctrines concerning the law of consecration, theosis for all, and other communal practices of Zion. The people of Zion live together as one in equality (D&C 38:24–27; 4 Ne. 1:3), having one heart and one mind (Moses 7:8). The Saints of Zion together enjoy the highest degree of glory and happiness that can be received in this life and, if they are faithful, in the world to come. Zion can be thought of as a template for how gods become gods. Yet the Standard Model of polygamy doesn’t resemble anything Latter-day Saints might want to strive for. The God of the Standard Model sounds more like a venture capitalist accruing wives and children for self-glorification rather than the leader of a collective group of Saints living in pure love with one another. Community, diversity, nuance, and even sometimes consent[5] are lost in this simplistic narrative.

I believe queer theology is ripe with possibilities to reconcile our diverse aspirations toward Zion in a model I call Queer Polygamy, a model that can accommodate a potentially infinite number of marital, sexual, romantic, platonic, and celestial relationships. The phrase Queer Polygamy almost seems redundant. Polygamy is inherently queer according to contemporary monogamous marital expectations.[6] It is, by Western standards, a deviation from the norm. The word queer may also seem to imply that a person must necessarily be a member of the LGBTQ+ community for these ideas to apply, but this is not the case. Rest assured, heterosexual monogamous couples are an important subset under the umbrella of Queer Polygamy, just as Brigham Young suggested. A person with many, one, or no spouses may be included in this model. The use of the word queer in Queer Polygamy is to signify a more thoughtful and thorough interpretation of polygamy that would be inclusive of such diversity, and many of its manifestations would be rightly considered queer. You may initially find this model strangely foreign, but I believe it is in harmony with LDS theology, both logically and practically, as both scripture and past prophets have taught. The word polygamy is used to convey the plurality of relationships we engage in and to suggest that celestial marriage and eternal sealings include far more practices than heterosexual monogamy or androcentric polygyny. Eternal sealings among the Saints are inherently plural. Queer Polygamy is not in opposition to LDS theology but rather the fulfillment of the all-inclusive breadth that LDS theology has to offer.

The Standard Model of polygamy is problematic for multiple reasons, as many LDS feminists and queer theologians, like myself, have pointed out.[7] I will review five of the most common problems with the Standard Model, then demonstrate how they might be reconciled by adopting the Queer Polygamy Model. The five common concerns are that the Stand Model does not leave room for the following: (1) monogamous couples;(2) women, and other genders, who desire plural marriage; (3) asexuals, aromantics, and singles; (4) homosexual relationships; and (5) plural parental sealings.

First, an unnuanced reading of Doctrine and Covenants section 132 appeals to a patriarchal and androcentric model of polygyny built upon a hierarchy of men who will be given women, also called virgins, as if they were property (D&C 132:61–63). This exclusively polygynous model is a major concern for women who do not wish to engage in plural marriage without their consent, such as the case with “the law of Sarah” (D&C 132:64–65). By extension, the Standard Model does not leave room for couples who wish to remain romantically and/or sexually monogamous. However, there is room for monogamy in the Queer Polygamy Model. To demonstrate this, I’d like to refer to queer sexual orientations not as universal orientations or socio-political identity labels but as specific practices in specific relationships. For example, I identify as pansexual; however, in my relationship with my sister I am asexual and aromantic. Though I am pansexual by orientation, I engage in a specific asexual, aromantic, platonic relationship with her. This is not intended to mean that our relationship is void of depth, intimacy, love, commitment, and loyalty—quite the contrary. I feel all those things for my sister and more, but we have no desire for a sexual or romantic connection. This does not mean my sister is any less important to me than my husband, with whom I do desire a sexual and romantic relationship; it simply means the relationship dynamics are different between my sister and me and my husband and me. In the Queer Polygamy Model, I could be sealed to my sister in a platonic sealing for all eternity while also being sealed to my husband in a relationship that does include sex. I would be sealed to two people plurally, but I would still be practicing sexual monogamy. Thus, for couples who desire to practice heterosexual monogamy with one partner for all eternity, they may still be sealed to other persons they love plurally and engage in those other relationships asexually and aromantically. It is in this way that we can be sealed to our children. I am not only sealed to my husband, but I’m also platonically sealed to our three children. Not all sealings include sex, nor should they. Plural marriages, unions, and sealings among adults could also include plural, platonic sealings among several persons while the core couple still practices exclusive heterosexual monogamy.

Second, the account given in Doctrine and Covenants 132 does not explicitly address women who also wish to engage in plural marriages alongside their husbands. The exclusively polygynous model of polygamy can create a disturbing and problematic power imbalance among the sexes—especially for women in heterosexual relationships. Under the Queer Polygamy Model, plural sealings would be available to all consenting adults, not just men. As stated above, women are sealed to multiple people, such as children and parents, but I suggest that the policy allow women to be sealed to multiple adults whom they are not related to, just as men are afforded that privilege. Though the scriptures do not state that women may have more than one husband, that does not mean they can’t have more than one husband. In fact, more than one of Joseph Smith’s wives was also married to other men.[8] This shows there is room in our religion for women who desire to be married to multiple men, including heteroromantic, sexual, or asexual relationships. It would be up to the participants to decide the relationship dynamics of their sealing or marriage, just as Joseph Smith engaged in sexual relationships with some, but not all, of his plural wives. There are various reasons for plural marriage and/or sealings that do or don’t involve sex. Granted, legitimizing sexual relationships through sealings and/or ritual is important to avoid promiscuity in sexual relationships. Honesty and open communication are key to respecting the autonomy and volition of all participants—though not all past participants of polygamy practiced it in such a manner, namely Joseph Smith.

Third, a traditional interpretation of the doctrine of celestial marriage does not leave room for persons who do not desire marriage or are asexual and/or aromantic. However, there is room for asexual and aromantic sealings under the Queer Polygamy Model. Sealings of kinship, friendship, and love may be offered between persons who wish not to have a sexual or romantic relationship with others. Plural marriage for asexual persons could take the form of an asexual woman married to a heterosexual couple, or three asexual persons who wish to be sealed together in a plural marriage that doesn’t include sex. Again, sealing and/or marriage is not tantamount to sex. Asexual persons, or persons who wish to remain single, could be sealed to parents, siblings, friends, and other partners without committing to sexualized or romanticized notions of marriage and sealings.

Fourth, the Standard Model is aesthetically heteronormative—leaving out the experiences and desires for homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, and other queer persons. This may be one of the more difficult huddles to overcome, because the common perception of Mormon theology implies there is no such room for homosexual unions in celestial cosmology. I do not see why this must necessarily be the case. I have written several pieces about how we could reenvision our reductive views of creation to include homosexual relationships, creation, reproduction, procreation, and families.[9] In my view, homo-interactive creation, which includes homosexuality, is a required aspect of godly creation. If there is anything evolutionary biology has taught us, it’s that the creation of life and flourishing of the human species is far greater than heterosexual monogamy. I have no reason to think that God wouldn’t use natural means of creation to enable all life, goodness, relationships, parenting, and flourishing. If this is the case, it is possible for plural homosexual relationships to exist under the model of Queer Polygamy.

The Queer Polygamy Model leaves room for same-gender and same-sex sealings, whether they are platonic, such as with my sister and me, or homosexual, such as with two wives. Under the Queer Polygamy Model, plural marriage may include multi-gendered partnerships, such as sealings among sister wives that may or may not allow sexual relations between them. If a man is married to two women and the women are bisexual, they may choose to be sealed to each other and have a romantic and sexual relationship with each other as well as with their common husband. Likewise, a transgender woman might be married to a cisgender man and cisgender woman. If all identify as pansexual, it could be the case that they are all in a romantic and sexual relationship with one another. The takeaway is that gender is irrelevant to whether or not there is sexual activity in plural sealings—assuming there is no abuse, neglect, or harm being done to the participants. The purpose of the sealing isn’t to legitimize sexual behavior; the purpose of sealing is to legitimize the eternal and everlasting bonds that people share with one another, be they homosexual or otherwise.

Fifth, the Standard Model doesn’t leave room for children to have autonomy to be sealed or unsealed to diverse parents. In the Standard Model, children are property of their fathers and have little say about whether or not they may be sealed or unsealed to other parents. For example, a child born into a heterosexual marriage may be sealed to the parents, but if the father is gay, divorces his wife, and both marry other men, the child of the first marriage would have four parents—one biological father, one biological mother, and two stepfathers—but would only be sealed to the biological father and mother. Under the Queer Polygamy Model, the children could be granted plural sealings to both the biological parents and their husbands. The child would be sealed to three fathers and one mother, though the dynamics of the relationships are diverse and fluid among the parents. Essentially a child should be able to be sealed to all the parents they love. This is not the case under the Standard Model, which focuses on who the child belongs to in the eternities instead of whom the child desires to be sealed to. A child should not be forced to choose between fathers by mandates of heterosexual monogamy or patriarchal polygyny. Children with plural parents should be granted plural sealings for those who desire them. No child should have to divorce a parent eternally just to be sealed to another, just as no wife should necessarily have to divorce a husband to be sealed to a second. It is to the detriment of the child to assume they are inherently “owned” by their biological father alone when the child has the capacity to love more than one father and mother. Likewise, a child born to a family with three mothers and one father should have the opportunity to be sealed to all her mothers. Heaven isn’t heaven without all the people we love, and I trust God feels the same. If not, heaven becomes hell.

Now that we have a broader understanding of what diverse families and sealings could look like under the Queer Polygamy Model, the words of LDS prophets about families begin to taste sweet again. The family really is central to God’s plan—it is ordained of God. We are all part of one big family—God’s family. The family is far more than just one mom and dad. It is siblings, cousins, spouses, aunts, uncles, friends, grandparents, and the generations of persons who came here before you or me. The family is about creating bonds that extend into eternity as we connect with one another to become something greater than ourselves. Family is everything, yet too often people perceive family to mean something so narrowly defined. It is really a grand and beautiful quilt that envelops us all. Sealings under this broad quilt might include, but are not limited to, spouse-to-spouse sealings, parent-to-child sealings, law of adoption sealings, friendship sealings, and many more. Under the family quilt of Queer Polygamy, we are all interconnected in an infinite number of complex and beautiful relationships.

The spirit of polygamy is love of community. This is the law we must embrace as Saints in Zion if we are to become gods. The spirit of polygamy encompasses the diverse unions of the gods in all their complexity and intricacies. The spirit of polygamy includes, but also reaches beyond, the legitimization of sexual relationships. The spirit of polygamy means I might be sealed to my best friend regardless of whether or not we also share a sexual relationship. It means children may be sealed to all their fathers and mothers, be they biological or adoptive. It means it takes a village to raise our children. It means I may be sealed to a sister wife, not through my husband but with my husband. It means my husband may be sealed to his best friend while they enjoy a platonic, asexual, aromantic relationship. It means an asexual woman may choose to be sealed with a gay couple, independent of sexual activity, but still have a relationship full of meaning, emotional intimacy, and purpose. The spirit of polygamy means heaven isn’t heaven without all the people we love. It means infinite possibilities fulfilled by our infinite love—just like the gods, filled with a multiplicity of heavenly mothers, fathers, and parents that we have yet to imagine. I cannot imagine any God more beautifully Mormon than a God of both plurality and unity who welcomes all families into Zion as we strive to join the gods above.

---

[1] Brigham Young, Aug. 19, 1866, Journal of Discourses, 11:269.

[2] Ibid.

[3] “I attended the school of the prophets. Brother John Holeman made a long speech upon the subject of Poligamy [sic]. He Contended that no person Could have a Celestial glory unless He had a plurality of wives. Speeches were made By L. E. Harrington O Pratt Erastus Snow, D Evans J. F. Smith Lorenzo Young. President Young said there would be men saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God with one wife with Many wives & with No wife at all” (Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, edited by Scott G. Kenny, 9 vols. [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1985], 6:527 [journal entry dated Feb. 12, 1870]).

[4] Woodruff, Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 7:31 (journal entry dated Sept. 24, 1871).

[5] “The revelation on marriage required that a wife give her consent before her husband could enter into plural marriage. Nevertheless, toward the end of the revelation, the Lord said that if the first wife ‘receive not this law’—the command to practice plural marriage—the husband would be ‘exempt from the law of Sarah,’ presumably the requirement that the husband gain the consent of the first wife before marrying additional women” (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Plural Marriage in Kirkland and Nauvoo,” Oct. 2014).

[6] In this paper I will use the word queer according to its broad definition as anything strange, peculiar, odd, or deviating from conventional norms or societal expectations. If I am using the word queer as a referent to the LGBTQ+ community, I will use queer persons or queer community.

[7] Blaire Ostler, “A Feminist’s Defense of Polygamy,” personal blog, Oct. 27, 2017; Blaire Ostler, “The Problem is Patriarchy, Not Polygamy,” personal blog, Feb. 5, 2018.

[8] “Several later documents suggest that several women who were already married to other men were, like Marinda Hyde, married or sealed to Joseph Smith. Available evidence indicates that some of these apparent polygynous/polyandrous marriages took place during the years covered by this journal. At least three of the women reportedly involved in these marriages—Patty Bartlett Sessions, Ruth Vose Sayers, and Sylvia Porter Lyon—are mentioned in the journal, though in contexts very much removed from plural marriage. Even fewer sources are extant for these complex relationships than are available for Smith’s marriages to unmarried women, and Smith’s revelations are silent on them. Having surveyed the available sources, historian Richard L. Bushman concludes that these polyandrous marriages—and perhaps other plural marriages of Joseph Smith—were primarily a means of binding other families to his for the spiritual benefit and mutual salvation of all involved” (“Nauvoo Journals, December 1841–April 1843,” introduction to Journals: Volume 2, The Joseph Smith Papers). “Another theory is that Joseph married polyandrously when the marriage was unhappy. If this were true, it would have been easy for the woman to divorce her husband, then marry Smith. But none of these women did so; some of them stayed with their ‘first husbands’ until death. In the case of Zina Huntington Jacobs and Henry Jacobs—often used as an example of Smith Marrying a woman whose marriage was unhappy—the Mormon leader married her just seven months after she married Jacobs and then she stayed for years after Smith’s death. Then the separation was forced when Brigham Young (who had married Zina polyandrously in the Nauvoo temple) sent Jacobs on a mission to England and began living with Zina himself” (Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997], 15–16).

[9] Blaire Ostler, “Sexuality and Procreation,” personal blog, Feb. 22, 2016; Blaire Ostler, “Queer Mormon and Transhuman: Part I,” personal blog, Dec. 8, 2016; Blaire Ostler, “Queer Mormon and Transhuman: Part I,” personal blog, Jan. 26, 2017; Blaire Ostler, “Queer Mormon and Transhuman: Part I,” personal blog, Aug. 24, 2017.

[post_title] => Queer Polygamy [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 52.1 (Spring 2019): 33–43
Ostler addresses the problems with what she terms the “Standard Model of Polygamy.” She discusses how these problems might be resolved if it is put into a new type of model that she terms “Queer Polygamy.” [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => queer-polygamy [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-01-28 19:51:55 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-01-28 19:51:55 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=23346 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 19014 [post_author] => 3119 [post_date] => 2018-10-26 00:10:52 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-10-26 00:10:52 [post_content] =>

Perhaps no other social issue in recent times has experienced such rapid change in public opinion as that of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. To many, it has been the civil rights struggle of our time, to others—particularly conservative religious people—it is seen as a sign of the moral decay of our time. The LDS Church has been greatly affected by this issue, garnering much negative attention in the media due to its public fight against same-sex marriage and the perception that it treats LGBT people unfairly.[1] Its positions and policies, particularly the November 2015 policy that labels members in same-sex marriages apostates and prohibits their children from receiving Church ordinances, have caused some members to question the Church’s stance and others to leave the Church.

As an active, believing member of the Church, I have struggled with the Church’s positions and policies that have affected so many of the LGBT people I love. In the thirteen-plus years since our oldest son came out as gay, followed by a second son five years ago, I have studied, read, prayed, and pondered extensively on this subject. More importantly, perhaps, I have gotten to know hundreds of LGBT people on a very personal level. I have observed their lives and struggles, and I feel like I have come to know and understand the unique challenges they and their families face as Mormons. Because of this experience and the relationships I have with my LGBT family and friends, I felt compelled to write this article. Recognizing that many of the questions I raise and observations I make in the article may challenge the current thinking of some Church members, I feel that the words of President Dieter F. Uchtdorf at a recent worldwide leadership training conference are particularly appropriate:

Unfortunately, we sometimes don’t seek revelation or answers . . . because we think we know the answers already. Brothers and sisters, as good as our previous experience may be, if we stop asking questions, stop thinking, stop pondering, we can thwart the revelations of the Spirit. Remember, it was the questions young Joseph asked that opened the door for the restoration of all things. We can block the growth and knowledge our Heavenly Father intends for us. How often has the Holy Spirit tried to tell us something we needed to know but couldn’t get past the massive iron gate of what we thought we already knew?[2]

The purpose of this article is to examine the LDS Church’s position on homosexuality and same-sex marriage from a doctrinal, moral, and empirical perspective. I hope that through such an examination the thoughtful reader may: (1) gain a better understanding of the Church’s justifications for this position even as it faces mounting criticism and membership loss; (2) gain a more empathetic understanding of what it means to be LGBT in our church; and (3) sincerely and humbly consider our current state of knowledge about what we as a Church community believe to be God’s will for our LGBT brothers and sisters.

Like opinions held by society in general on this issue, the Church’s position on homosexuality has evolved quite significantly in recent years, although much of the general membership is likely unaware of the shift. The current official position on homosexuality is perhaps most concisely summarized in its recently updated gospel topic entry on homosexuality (which redirects to “same-sex attraction”) on LDS.org:

The Church distinguishes between same-sex attraction and homosexual behavior. People who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual can make and keep covenants with God and fully and worthily participate in the Church. Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin and does not prohibit one from participating in the Church, holding callings, or attending the temple. . . . We may not know precisely why some people feel attracted to others of the same sex, but for some it is a complex reality and part of the human experience.[3]

The Church’s position on same-sex marriage is likewise succinctly stated in Handbook 2:

As a doctrinal principle, based on the scriptures, the Church affirms that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

Sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same gender, are sinful and undermine the divinely created institution of the family. The Church accordingly affirms defining marriage as the legal and lawful union between a man and a woman.[4]

Before examining why the Church believes that being a homosexual who is naturally and instinctively attracted to those of the same sex is not sinful, but expressing homosexual feelings and desires is a sin—even within lawful, monogamous marriage—it is helpful to first understand the origination of the Church’s position and how it has changed over time.

Historical Background

For much of recent history, the Church’s views on homosexuality have reflected those of the larger American culture. In the nineteenth and most of the twentieth centuries, homosexuality was generally viewed by society, including the medical profession, as a mental disorder or a sexual deviancy. The American Psychological Association’s DSM-I, published in 1952, classified homosexuality as a “sociopathic personality disturbance.” The revised DSM-II of 1968 reclassified it as a “sexual deviation.” In December 1973, the APA removed homosexuality from the DSM but allowed for a diagnosis of Sexual Orientation Disturbance for individuals who were uncomfortable with their same-gender attractions and wanted to change.[5] This legitimized sexual conversion therapies that the APA has since determined are “unlikely to be successful and involve some risk of harm.”[6] By the 1900s, most states had criminalized homosexual behavior by enacting sodomy laws, which drove homosexuals deeper into the closet.[7] However, by the 1970s, LGBT people began to assert their rights to live authentically and without persecution, mainstream media started portraying homosexuals more favorably, and societal views slowly began to shift.

As opinions began to evolve in the larger culture, the Church’s stance remained unchanged, with Spencer W. Kimball, Mark E. Petersen, and Boyd K. Packer being the Church’s primary voices on this topic throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Reflecting their generation’s view of homosexuality, they spoke about the subject with disdain and disgust. They saw society’s softening views on homosexuality, including decriminalization, as evidence of its moral deterioration, as a rapidly spreading contagion that was infecting society and even the Church and was thus a dangerous threat to marriage and family.[8] However, in demonizing homosexuality, they also demonized homosexuals, which caused untold despair and self-loathing among young gay Latter-day Saints.

Spencer W. Kimball’s popular book The Miracle of Forgiveness, first published in 1969, devoted an entire chapter entitled “Crime Against Nature” to homosexuality. One LDS historian called it “the earliest and most comprehensive treatment on homosexuality by an apostle, and the foundation from which Mormon thought, policy and political action on homosexuality grew for the past 45 years.”[9] Using terms like “ugly,” “repugnant,” “ever-deepening degeneracy,” “evil,” “pervert,” deviant,” and “weaklings,” he taught that it was a spiritual disease that could be “cured,” and to those who felt otherwise, he responded: “How can you say the door cannot be opened until your knuckles are bloody, till your head is bruised, till your muscles are sore? It can be done.”[10]

This “curable-disease” mindset—based on obsolete psychological thought from the 1950s and 1960s—was embraced by Kimball and other Church leaders because it aligned with their spiritual views of homosexuality.[11] Seeing homosexuality as a psychological or spiritual malady, they taught that the cure was intense repentance, self-mastery, and even marriage to the opposite sex. This belief informed the Church’s ecclesiastical approach and leadership training, as well as the thinking of Mormon mental-health therapists, for years to come—and it was probably the most psychologically and spiritually damaging of all the Church’s teachings on homosexuality.

While the curability mindset has since been mostly abandoned by the Church, it still persists among those who cannot believe that God would create gay people without providing a means to be cured. They simply cannot see a place for homosexuals in the Mormon concept of eternal families. Boyd K. Packer famously expressed this sentiment in his October 2010 general conference address: “Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?” The statement was revised days later in the Church’s official transcript.[12] With the passing of Elders Kimball, Petersen, and Packer, and the continued evolution in our understanding of homosexuality, many fundamental aspects of the Church’s position, such as cause and curability, have changed.[13] In addition, the harsh, condemning rhetoric of Elders Kimball, Petersen, and Packer gave way to the softer, more compassionate tone of Elders Oaks, Holland, and Christofferson. Many in the general Church membership also began to soften their stance as they observed openly gay coworkers, neighbors, and their own family members living happy, productive lives once they cast off the shame and condemnation they were raised with. While most Mormons continue to believe that homosexuality should be discouraged by society, a 2015 Pew Research Center survey shows that acceptance among Mormons grew by twelve points—from 24 percent to 36 percent—between 2007 and 2014, the largest increase among all other denominations.[14]

However, as Church leaders saw their members following society’s trend toward greater acceptance of homosexuality, including same-sex marriage, they began to speak out strongly again—focusing their atten-tion on the evils of same-sex marriage, which they saw as a threat to traditional marriage. The Church also began entering the political arena, fighting same-sex marriage legislation and lobbying for ballot initiatives and legislation that defined marriage as only between one man and one woman. The political action started with Hawaii in 1994 and culminated with a bruising public battle over California’s Proposition 8 in 2008, which sought to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. The Church and its members were the largest donors in the Prop 8 fight, which won at the ballot box but was soon overturned in court.[15] Ironically, this political fight may have done more to garner sympathy for gay people and galvanize public support for same-sex marriage—including its ultimate legalization in the US—than any other event.

After Prop 8, the Church tended to stay out of the public political arena on these issues, and instead focused on teaching the doctrine of traditional marriage and family with greater emphasis and frequency within the Church, although it continued to quietly file amicus briefs in anti-gay-marriage court cases around the country. Rather than getting involved in public lobbying itself, the Church has encouraged its members to stand up for traditional marriage as a necessary foundation for religious freedom, its recent rallying cry.

While still reaffirming its stance that same-sex marriage and homo-sexual behavior are grievous sins, the Church in the last few years has taken a number of steps that demonstrate improved understanding of, and greater compassion for, its LGBT people. In 2012, the Church quietly released its original mormonsandgays.org website that acknowledged same-sex attraction as “a complex reality” but not a sin unless acted upon. The following year when the Boy Scouts of America changed its policy allowing gay youth to participate (and after some previous mixed messages indicating the Church might pull out of the BSA), the Church affirmed its support for the policy change.[16] In 2015, the Church began to argue for a “fairness for all” approach to housing, employment, and transportation laws, balancing religious freedom with reasonable safe-guards for LGBT people.[17] It released a public statement and employed lobbyists in support of a proposed LGBT nondiscrimination and religious rights bill in Utah and applauded its passage.[18] That same year, Elder Christofferson announced that Church members could publicly advocate for gay marriage without having their membership threatened, as long as their effort didn’t attack the Church.[19]

This progress came to a halt on June 26, 2015 when the US Supreme Court issued its decision that made same-sex marriage legal in the United States. On that very day, the Church responded with a press release stating, “The Court’s decision does not alter the Lord’s doctrine that marriage is a union between a man and a woman ordained by God. While showing respect for those who think differently, the Church will continue to teach and promote marriage between a man and a woman as a central part of our doctrine and practice.”[20] From that point on, the tide seemed to turn. The doctrinal emphasis on traditional marriage and the proclamation on the family became a constant theme. The previous messages of tolerance and empathy were drowned out by the familiar refrains of the gay agenda and destruction of the family.

To make matters worse, on November 5, 2015, the Church issued the policy that labeled members in same-sex marriages apostate and barred their children from receiving Church ordinances and serving missions, effectively pushing their families out of the Church. The policy was spiritually and psychologically traumatizing to the Mormon LGBT community. As John Gustav-Wrathall, the president of Affirmation, described it, “In the months since the policy I’ve seen widespread signs of trauma and depression within the LGBT Mormon community, including documented suicides. Many feel the Church just wants to get rid of LGBT people.”[21] A sharp increase in LDS youth suicides raised significant concerns among parents of LGBT children and garnered much media attention.[22] As if to balance the recent hardline rhetoric, the Church finally responded with a conciliatory statement and an unprecedented series of articles in the Church-owned Deseret News on LGBT issues, including references to resources it had previously not endorsed.[23]

In October 2016, the Church released an entirely new version of its mormonandgay.org website, which many in the Mormon LGBT community regarded as a significant improvement over the prior version.[24] However, given the existence of the November policy, many felt the new website was a minor step toward rapprochement.

With this backdrop, we must acknowledge how, perhaps more than ever, we as a Church community need to confront our position and beliefs about homosexuality head on. We need to ask hard questions about why depression, suicide, and loss of faith seem to be the outcomes of a position that is believed to be of God. While the official position has improved vastly from President Kimball’s generation, have we gone as far as the Lord wants us to go? Is there still more he would tell us if we had the humility and courage to ask?

As noted, Church leaders have drawn a very clear line in how far their position on homosexuality can evolve, stating that the current position on marriage is God’s will and therefore cannot and will not change.[25] However, we are, like other Christians, selective in which biblical commandments we take literally. Certainly, we do not accept other ancient biblical commandments the way we do those pertaining to homosexuality. Among scriptural passages that are no longer accepted are those that uphold slavery, mandate capital punishment for dishonoring parents, specify female purity rituals, and decree which foods are kosher. For example, Deuteronomy 22:23–29 stipulates that if a man rapes a married or betrothed woman, he is subject to the death penalty; but if he rapes an un-betrothed virgin he can make reparations simply by paying her father fifty shekels of silver and marrying her. Surely, we no longer accept this biblical law as just.

Furthermore, even within its short history, the LDS Church has changed many of its doctrinal positions, deemphasizing or repudiating teachings once thought to be doctrine.[26] The ban on Black Latter-day Saints from holding the priesthood was thought to be the mind and will of God, but now many of the teachings that supported that ban are passed off as “speculation and opinion.”[27] Even after the ban was lifted, interracial marriages were discouraged, which is no longer the case.[28] General Authorities once soundly condemned birth control, but now Church leaders counsel that “the decision as to how many children to have and when to have them . . . should be left between the couple and the Lord.”[29] Certain doctrines and moral standards that were once considered God’s will have been dropped, while others once considered against God’s will are now held to be moral and acceptable by the Church.

How do we know if a doctrine or standard taught today is an unchangeable eternal truth or just a sociocultural tradition that will one day change? Given the above precedents, we must be willing to ask some sincere and probing questions about the Church’s current stance on homosexuality. Are we justified in resisting societal acceptance of homosexuality, or are we simply holding to past traditions and views that are causing harm to those affected? Is it really God’s will that his children born with a homosexual orientation be required to live their entire lives in celibacy without the emotional, physical, and spiritual attachment of someone they are naturally attracted to? Do we have the courage of a President Kimball to ask these questions and consider whether the current position is truly God’s will or whether it, too, could be in error?

To take these questions seriously and to understand the reasoning and logic that follow, I assume the reader already understands and accepts two basic premises:

1. Being gay is not a choice. A person’s sexual orientation, or attraction to one sex or the other, is instinctive and innate. It typically begins to manifest at an early age and grows in great intensity with sexual maturation. While the etiology of sexual orientation is not yet fully understood (although strong evidence exists of a biological/genetic component), we have the testimony of countless gay people—including members of our own church—who have told us that their sexual orientation is innate and not chosen, and that intensive and persistent effort to change it has not succeeded.
2. Homosexuals are just as capable as heterosexuals of forming committed, love-based relationships with a person they are naturally attracted to. And those relationships can be just as edifying and meaningful as the relationships formed by heterosexual couples. (Note: acceptance of this premise does not require a belief that it is acceptable to God.)

If you do not know any gay people personally and have not had the opportunity to really talk to them about their life experience, particularly those who are in committed same-sex relationships, I would encourage you to educate yourself.[30]

II. Examination of the Doctrinal Basis for the Church’s Position

The primary source of doctrine in our church is canonized scripture (the four standard works) and continuing revelation from the words of latter-day prophets, seers, and revelators. With respect to canonized scripture, there is very little content on homosexuality and nothing that addresses the modern development of love-based same-sex relationships and marriage. The latter-day scriptural canon—consisting of the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price—contains no prohibition against and is completely silent on homosexuality. In the four gospels of the New Testament, Jesus spoke of marriage, divorce, and the sin of adultery, but he never directly addressed homosexuality.

The two most direct passages in the Bible come from the law of Moses and an epistle of Paul. Leviticus 18:22 states: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” In Romans 1:26–27 (NIV), Paul speaks of women who “exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones,” and of men who in the same way “abandoned natural relations with women” and “committed shameful acts with other men.” While much of the conservative Christian world cites these scriptures as primary evidence of God’s prohibition of homosexual behavior, perhaps somewhat surprisingly LDS Church leaders rarely do. For instance, the Church’s mormonandgay.org website, its most comprehensive resource on this topic, does not cite the Romans and Leviticus passages. Nor does the LDS.org Gospel Topics entry for “Homosexuality” (which redirects to “Same-Sex Attraction”). A search of general conference talks in the last forty-five years yields only five references to the Romans and Leviticus passages—three were from Elder Russell M. Nelson, two were from Elder Boyd K. Packer, and one from President Spencer W. Kimball.

Why is it that current Church teachings on homosexuality and same-sex marriage rarely cite the two main biblical passages that most evangelicals (and likely most Mormon laity) rely on as evidence of God’s prohibition of same-sex relationships? Perhaps Church leadership (and correlation) recognize that more rigorous biblical scholarship does not adequately support the conventional interpretation, or at least that those scriptures do not really address the modern development of love-based same-sex relationships. While it is beyond the scope of this article to engage in a thorough exegesis of these passages (there are many other sources that do this quite ably), I will give a brief summary of some of the arguments made by some biblical scholars as to why these passages should not be used as evidence against same-sex marriage.

The Leviticus passage is one of many prohibitions given to the children of Israel to set them apart from their Canaanite and Egyptian neighbors as God’s covenant people (Leviticus 11:9–12). Like other ancient moral codes, the law of Moses had specific restrictions pertaining to diet and sexual relations. Some of them we follow today; others we do not. For instance, menstruating women were considered unclean, as was anything or anyone they touched. Having sex with a menstruating woman was strictly forbidden and required excommunication of both participants (see Leviticus 15:19–27; 18:19; 20:18).[31] No Latter-day Saint considers these laws to be binding today, even though they are in the Bible. The belief in biblical inerrancy is what allowed generations past and present to cite scripture in support of such atrocities as slavery, genocide, treating women as property, and putting homosexuals to death. The Mormon belief that the Bible is “the word of God as far as it is translated correctly” allows some latitude for us to discern God’s word from the cultural trappings. Therefore, we need not be inextricably bound by the Leviticus passages on homosexuality any more than we are by the passages regarding ancient dietary codes and sexual mores.

Paul’s discussion of homosexual sex in Romans (and in a few other places) was likely addressing the sexual practices common in his time and culture. Greco-Roman society did not view homosexuality as a distinct sexual orientation. Indeed, the Greeks and Romans accepted forms of homosexual behavior that would be unacceptable by today’s standards, including prostitution, master-slave sex, and pederasty.[32] It is these practices that Paul was speaking against, not the modern development of egalitarian, love-based homosexual relationships, a concept unknown in those times. By decrying various forms of sexual promiscuity, including the homosexual behaviors common in his time, Paul was calling for Christians to reject lasciviousness and promiscuity in favor of chastity.

Other biblical teachings on marriage (and celibacy) can help us understand how we might be able to accept a departure from biblical tradition. Jesus explicitly taught on three separate occasions, including in the Book of Mormon, that anyone who divorced and remarried, or even someone who married a divorced person, was guilty of adultery (Matthew 5:31–32; Matthew 19:3–9; Mark 10:2–12; 3 Nephi 12:32). This teaching is straightforward and unambiguous, yet our church does not prohibit divorce (even of a temple sealing) as the Catholic Church does. Why has our church been willing to make exception to this clear teaching from the Savior himself? Nothing in the LDS canon or latter-day revelation changed what Jesus taught about divorce. Historically speaking, this acceptance is likely related to our past practice of polygamy, which allowed quite liberal divorce policies. But it may also relate to evolving cultural attitudes and an acknowledgement that mortal life and relationships can be messy and imperfect, often falling short of the ideal. The Church allows mercy and understanding for members who fall short of the ideal of life-long marriage to the same person. Might the same mercy be extended to our gay brothers and sisters whose situation does not fit the heteronormative ideal?

After hearing Jesus’ condemnation of divorce, his disciples observed, “it is not good to marry” (Matthew 19:10), which prompted further teaching from Jesus on the subject of celibacy. Jesus’ response to his disciples’ observation was that “All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given” (Matthew 19:11). In other words, celibacy is not a universal requirement but can be a gift to some people. He then explained how some eunuchs (or those who have no desire or attraction for a woman) were born that way, some were made eunuchs of men (a common station in the ancient world) and, perhaps most interestingly, some “made themselves eunuchs [or celibate] for the kingdom of heaven’s sake” (Matthew 19:12). He again reiterated that this was not a universal principle, stating, “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it” (Matthew 19:12). What might this mean for our gay brothers and sisters? Perhaps there are some who feel they are among the few “to whom it is given” to live a life of celibacy in order to fully devote themselves to Christ and his gospel and willingly make themselves celibate “for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.” But we must remember that the ability to make this great sacrifice is a gift given to few and not a universal requirement—at least it is not required of any of our heterosexual members. Most of us believe that “it is not good that . . . man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18) and that marriage and lifelong companionship with the one we love is a crowning experience of mortal life. Should it be any different for our gay brothers and sisters?

Are the biblical prohibitions against homosexual relations applicable to those in loving, committed relationships or are they similar to the biblical and religious traditions that have not stood the test of time? Perhaps with some of these ancient laws there are underlying doctrinal concepts that are eternal even if the specific laws themselves are not. For instance, biblical prohibitions against usury (interest) are not relevant by today’s standards, but the underlying concept of not taking financial advantage of others would seem to be an eternal principle. And while we no longer judge suicide as equivalent to murder, we still believe in the underlying concept of the sanctity of human life. By the same token, perhaps the eternal principle underlying biblical prohibitions on homosexual relations is to teach us that the greatest and most meaningful expression of human sexuality is found in an exclusive, committed, love-based relationship (i.e., marriage). Therefore, in studying any of the Bible passages that regulate sexual conduct, we should consider how the law of chastity informs them and whether the deeper meaning of that law applies to all who abide by it, regardless of sexual orientation. Regardless of how we view biblical mandates on homosexuality, the Church’s teachings on the subject of homosexuality and same-sex marriage generally do not draw on the scriptural prohibitions. Rather, Church leaders have developed a theological argument based on teachings about eternal marriage, the plan of salvation, and gender complementarity. These themes are set forth in various documents, including “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” (1995), “The First Presidency Statement on Same-Gender Marriage” (2004),[33] “The Divine Institution of Marriage” (2008),[34] and the letter from First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve to all Church units in the US and Canada after the US Supreme Court’s ruling legalizing same-sex marriage (2015).[35] Of these documents, “The Divine Institution of Marriage” is the most comprehensive and, in the Church’s own words, “outline[s] its doctrine and position on marriage.”[36]Therefore, my examination of the Church’s position will focus on the concepts contained in that document.

One stated purpose of the document is to affirm that “intimate relations are acceptable to God only between a husband and a wife.” In response to that statement, one might ask, “why?” Why is sex between a married man and woman acceptable to God, while sex between two married men or two married women is not? Are we absolutely certain of God’s will on this subject? How can we require celibacy of them exclusively? To these questions, the Church has given no direct answer. Have they asked God in humility for an answer? Some members of the Church may cite the proclamation on the family as the revelatory answer to these hard questions. But it has never been canonized as scripture, and when President Packer referred to the proclamation as a “revelation” in his October 2010 conference address, that reference was deleted from the official transcript (along with other incorrect statements).[37]

Celibacy—what the Church requires for gay people—has been, ironically, called a false and apostate doctrine by some Church leaders.[38] All members are expected to be sexually abstinent until marrying, but only gay people are required to be celibate all their lives. As one concerned father of a gay son describes it:

Celibacy is the prescribed solution for the question to which we have no revelation. It is not mentioned in the Proclamation. It is not [taught] in the Bible. Neither celibacy nor homosexuality is mentioned in any work of modern scripture   There is no modern apostle or prophet who has expounded on how to live a celibate life. There is no handbook, guide, or Church website addressing the subject. It is just expected. It is what you are left with when the commandments leave you nothing else.[39]

In sum, celibacy appears to be the fallback position when prophetic vision, theological innovation, and godlike empathy fail. Rather than envision what might be possible, it is easier to default to “that’s how it’s always been.” This same reasoning was used by those who once defended slavery, objected to women’s suffrage, feared the civil rights movement, and upheld the priesthood/temple ban as God’s will. This way of thinking is aptly described by the proverb “Where there is no vision, the people perish” (Proverbs 29:18).[40] And in this case, we see people literally perish.

The celibacy requirement made logical sense with the old way of thinking about homosexuality—when it was thought to be like a contagion that would ensnare others unless it were essentially quarantined by forced celibacy and public opprobrium. But with the greater light and knowledge given by both science and listening to gay people’s lived experience, society—and the Church—have mostly abandoned that line of thinking, realizing that gay people do not choose their sexual orientation and that there is nothing inherently immoral about being attracted to one’s own sex. Nevertheless, the Church’s doctrine has evolved to a point that leaves gay people in a kind of no-man’s land where their being gay is, thankfully, not considered sinful anymore, but giving expression to their natural affections and capacities for love and human intimacy—even in lawful monogamous marriage—is still considered a “grievous sin.”[41]

Having abandoned, for the most part, the old view that homosexuality is a chosen condition, the Church’s rationale for lifelong celibacy now focuses on the “divinity” of marriage and the divine roles of husband/ father and wife/mother, declaring that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. In “The Divine Institution of Marriage” (referred to hereafter as “the Marriage document”), the Church makes three chief arguments in support of this declaration and in opposition to same-sex marriage. None are new or unique—all have been cited in legal briefs and in non-LDS sources by parties opposed to same-sex marriage at one time or another.

1. The Procreation Argument: Marriage is closely linked to procreation and only a man and a woman have the biological capacity to procreate; therefore, only men and women should be allowed to marry.

The first problem with the procreation argument is that it is only applied to homosexuals but not to heterosexuals. Heterosexual couples who do not have the biological capacity to procreate (due to menopause, disease, injury, etc.) are still able to marry. Even couples who do not desire children can be married. According to the Church’s position, God still accepts these marriages that are entered into solely for love and companionship. The Church’s handbook of instructions emphasizes that “sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a way of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife.”[42] Thus, the Church does not require marriage and sexual relations within marriage to be solely for the purpose of procreation with respect to heterosexuals. If heterosexuals who have no ability or intention to procreate are allowed to marry solely for love and companionship, why can’t homosexuals also be allowed to marry solely for love and companionship? If they have the same capacity as heterosexuals to form loving, lasting unions, and their intimate relations within those marital unions also serve “as a way of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds,” then how do we know that such unions are not divinely approved?

Another problem with the procreation argument is that it is inconsistent with the Church’s prescription of celibacy for gay people. The Church argues against same-sex marriage because a gay couple is unable to procreate and propagate the species, yet the Church’s prescription of celibacy has the same outcome. Whether in a same-sex marriage or living in celibacy, a gay person’s ability to procreate doesn’t change. Therefore, it seems illogical to tell a gay person, “You should be denied the blessings of marriage to the one you love because you can’t procreate” and to follow that with, “Our answer for you is to live a celibate life.” Finally, there is the unfounded fear that because gay people can’t procreate, society’s acceptance of same-sex marriage would result in rapidly declining birthrates and the depopulation of nations.[43] This logic seems to be based on the old “contagion” view of homosexuality and that acceptance of same-sex marriage would somehow influence heterosexuals to change their sexual orientation or stop procreating. This view is hard to fathom. For those of us who are heterosexual, can we imagine becoming attracted to our own sex and losing all attraction to the opposite sex simply because we know happily-married gay people? Whether married or single, gay people—who have always existed as a small minority of the population—aren’t going to affect national birthrates and aren’t going to cause straight people to turn gay.

2. The Complementarianism Argument: Only marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God because of the complementary natures of male and female.

The Marriage document states that “[t]he special status granted marriage is nevertheless closely linked to the inherent powers and responsibilities of procreation and to the innate differences between the genders. By contrast, same-sex marriage is an institution no longer linked to gender—to the biological realities and complementary natures of male and female.” Complementarianism is the theological view that men and women have different but complementary roles and responsibilities in marriage, family life, religious leadership, and elsewhere. The Church appears to accept complementarianism as doctrine and further holds that the complementarity of male and female provides a rationale for denying marital unions to those of the same sex.

The first problem with this rationale is that it seems to imply that true romantic/emotional/spiritual love can only exist between male and female, and that a same-sex couple—because they do not have complementarity of biological sex—are incapable of that kind of love. Simple observation of gay couples, particularly those who have been together many years, easily dispels this myth.

The Church frequently cites the creation narrative in making its argument. In Genesis, we read of God creating Adam and stating, “It is not good that the man should be alone,” then making a woman as a “helpmeet” for him, who is later referred to as Adam’s wife (Genesis 2:18). But is it correct to interpret this account as an edict against same-sex marriage? Such an interpretation reads more into the narrative than is actually there. Just because God created a man and woman in the beginning and intended for them to pair up and procreate doesn’t mean that the gay people he created aren’t also intended to be able to pair up according to their natural-born attraction. Some may argue that this account illustrates a divine pattern for marriage that same-sex marriage violates. But that divine pattern—a marriage between one man and one woman—was broken repeatedly in the Bible (and of course in our own church) by the practice of polygamy. In addition, that original biblical pattern had to allow for incestuous marriage among Adam and Eve’s children and posterity, which was later strictly prohibited in the law of Moses and by the standards of most societies. We must avoid taking this story too literally or extrapolating it to situations to which it does not apply (a practice known as proof texting).

Some look to the future state of an eternally married man and woman, the potential to become like our Heavenly Parents, and the mention of “continuation of the seeds” in Doctrine and Covenants 132:19 as evidence of some kind of spiritual procreation that precludes same-sex marriage in the afterlife. Even if these theological ideas are taken literally, they are not weakened or negated by allowing a small number of God’s children who do not fit that mold the opportunity to marry in this life. Moreover, there are three degrees in the celestial kingdom, and only one requires the “new and everlasting covenant of marriage”(D&C 131:1–4, which early Church leaders and members took to mean plural marriage but has now been defined as eternal marriage between one man and one woman). So even taking a very literal approach to this scripture, there are still two degrees in the celestial kingdom that do not require marriage between a man and a woman (or women), which could leave room for same-sex married couples as well as single individuals. While I do not favor interpreting Doctrine and Covenants 131 this way, since it puts people on a different standing through no fault of their own regardless of their faithfulness and character, it nevertheless reminds us that there is more to the celestial kingdom than we typically focus on.

Perhaps most importantly, the limited extent of our knowledge of the afterlife regarding sex, procreation, marriage relationships, and becoming heavenly parents should cause us to be more humble and cautious in how we interpret and apply this knowledge. Terryl Givens’s exhaustive treatment of the genesis of these doctrines shows how little we really know. For example, he states:

The impossibility of establishing with certainty Smith’s position on spirit birth as opposed to spirit adoption is one of many points of indeterminacy in the Mormon past, and a reminder of how much fog enshrouded a narrative that is at times depicted as clear and unfailingly linear in the modern church. It is possible that Smith was undecided relative to two scenarios of human creation. More likely, perhaps, is the fact that neither adoption nor procreation is an adequate human analogue for the process by which Smith believed eternally existing intelligent element (or beings) to be transformed into individual human spirits.[44]

Are we justified in imposing such a drastic restriction on our gay brothers and sisters in this life based on doctrinal speculations that may be more metaphorical than literal and about which we have little to no actual revelation?

Allowing gay people the right to love and marry in accordance with their “biological reality” need not threaten the doctrines that spring from the creation narrative of Adam and Eve or the eternal nature of the family or eternal progression. Those doctrines still apply to the vast majority of God’s children who are heterosexual. Allowing gay people the same blessings and benefits that heterosexuals derive from marriage would not negate, devalue, or change in any way these doctrines as they apply to heterosexuals. We would just have to humbly acknowledge that at the present time we do not have answers for how those doctrines relate to God’s LGBT children but that we are confident he has a wondrous plan for them and loves them as much as he does his heterosexual children.

3. The Families and Children Argument: Redefining marriage will further weaken the institution of marriage and undermine the family.

For this argument, the Marriage document cites a number of academic studies, books, and articles that are frequently cited by conservative religious and political groups opposed to same-sex marriage and LGBT rights. While General Authorities and Church members have traditionally distrusted academia—particularly the social sciences—on issues of family and marriage, the Church has embraced sources that align with its position. However, by citing only those sources and ignoring the numerous studies and personal experiences that reach different conclusions, the document lacks intellectual integrity.

Moreover, if the Church is going to step out of the realm of doctrine and theology and into the realm of academic research and political punditry, it can no longer hold its position to be inerrant, unchallengeable, or equivalent to the voice of God. To the extent that its position relies on science and reason (which is generally a good thing in my opinion), it should be subject to thorough examination such that, ultimately, “truth will prevail.” Or as Brigham Young said, “Be willing to receive the truth, let it come from whom it may”[45]—even if such truth doesn’t support the current position.

Before addressing the specific claims in this section, I should note that using families and children as an argument against same-sex marriage is a non-sequitur. Unlike heterosexual marriage, children do not automatically result from a same-sex marriage. And banning same-sex marriage will not stop some gay couples from having children. Therefore, if the Church opposes gay couples raising children, that should be the subject of its prohibition, not same-sex marriage. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that with the improved social standing, stability, and rights granted by legal marriage, more gay couples who choose to marry may desire to have families than ever before. Therefore, I address the following arguments.

First, the Church states:

Extensive studies have shown . . . that a husband and wife who are united in a loving, committed marriage generally provide the ideal environment for protecting, nurturing, and raising children. This is in part because of the differing qualities and strengths that husbands and wives bring to the task by virtue of their gender. As an eminent academic on family life has written: “The burden of social science evidence supports the idea that gender differentiated parenting is important for human development and that the contribution of fathers to child rearing is unique and irreplaceable. The complementarity of male and female parenting styles is striking and of enormous importance to a child’s overall development.”[46]

This is the gender complementarity argument applied to parenting. The Church cites a number of studies in support of the first statement, which seems like common sense. One could hardly argue that a loving, committed marriage does not provide the ideal environment for raising children; however, such a claim does not demonstrate that two wives or two husbands cannot have a loving, committed relationship that would also provide an ideal environment for raising children. In fact, gay couples who choose to have or adopt children do so with great forethought—it’s not something that can happen by accident as it so often does with heterosexual couples. In my experience knowing a number of same-sex couples who have had children, they are some of the most devoted and loving parents I have ever seen.

With respect to the gender complementarity argument in parenting, this fails to consider that not all heterosexual marriages have distinct gender roles and characteristics. For instance, the man in the marriage may not exhibit all the traits society or the Church considers to be masculine (e.g., emotionally reserved, athletic, career-minded, aggressive) but instead may exhibit many of the traits considered to be essentially feminine (e.g., sensitive, nurturing, artistic, passive). By the same token, two husbands or two wives in a same-sex union may exhibit the full complement of masculine and feminine traits, thereby qualifying for the supposed benefits such traits offer.

Regardless, studies show that children raised by same-sex couples do not differ markedly from those raised by heterosexual parents, as summarized in this research summary by the American Psychological Association over twelve years ago:

Results of social science research have failed to confirm any of these concerns about children of lesbian and gay parents. Research suggests that sexual identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same ways among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents. Studies of other aspects of personal development (including personality, self-concept, and conduct) similarly reveal few differences between children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual parents. . . . The picture that emerges from research is one of general engagement in social life with peers, parents, family members, and friends.  Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and wellbeing of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents.[47]

Social science research simply does not jibe with the Church’s conclusion.

Finally, the Marriage document concludes:

When marriage is undermined by gender confusion and by distortions of its God-given meaning, the rising generation of children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identities as men or women. Some will find it more difficult to engage in wholesome courtships, form stable marriages, and raise another generation imbued with moral strength and purpose.

This is a bold statement—again drawing on the old “contagion” theory—and, not surprisingly, the Church cites no scientific studies for its support. That is because there are no such reputable studies—it is simply opinion. And this opinion demonstrates a lack of basic understanding by conflating sexual orientation and gender identity. Also, it provides no explanation for how same-sex marriage will make it harder for heterosexuals to date and have stable marriages. As previously discussed, such a claim just doesn’t make sense.

Before concluding this section, I feel it is important to address one more doctrinal issue that has been cropping up with more frequency in recent years. It is the doctrinal speculation that a faithful gay person will be “cured” or changed to heterosexual in the next life. This teaching likely stems from the 2006 interview with Elders Oaks and Wickman on same-gender attraction, in which Elder Wickman stated:

One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is . . . “If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?”

Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circum stance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence. . . . [You’re] not stuck with it forever. It’s just now. [48]

Straight people may take some comfort in this doctrine because it helps them reconcile the obvious unfairness gay people face in this life through no fault of their own. If they can just remain celibate in this life, all will be made right in the next when they are changed. However, like the hurtful folk doctrines white Church members fabricated about black people’s lack of valiance in the premortal existence to reconcile the unfair and discriminatory way they were treated in the Church, this belief is actually quite damaging. First, many gay people consider being married to a person of the opposite sex for eternity a horrific prospect. To see it from their perspective, consider how a straight man would feel about being changed to homosexual in the afterlife and being married to another man for the rest of eternity.

Furthermore, many gay people feel that their gay identity is more than just a sexual orientation and comes bundled with a host of gifts such as empathy, artistic expression, and spirituality. They do not want their homosexuality changed because it would feel like giving up an integral part of who they are and losing all the unique gifts that come with being gay. On the other hand, to others whose same-sex attraction feels like a constant weight dragging them down to destruction, this new folk doctrine may make suicide seem like a better choice, or even the only means of finally being rid of their evil desires and susceptibilities. For these reasons, I sincerely hope that the Church will put an end to the teaching of this speculative and unfounded doctrine.

Given these doctrinal considerations, and particularly if we acknowledge that sexual orientation is not chosen, can’t be spread like a contagion, and that gay people are just as capable as heterosexuals of forming committed, meaningful marriage relationships, we must be willing to ask the following questions:

Do we really have absolute doctrinal certainty that God’s will for his children who are born with a homosexual orientation is lifelong celibacy without the emotional, physical and spiritual attachment to someone they are naturally attracted to and can fall in love with?

Are we so certain of God’s will on this subject that we are willing to accept as consequences: depression and personal anguish to the point of suicide in some cases, and loss of faith in God and the Church in the majority of cases?

Are we as a church rightfully resisting societal acceptance of homosexuality, or are we simply holding to past traditions and internal biases that are causing severe harm to gay people, as we previously did with the priesthood ban? Is it possible that society is moving in the right direction, as it generally has over the ages on so many other social issues? In addition to believing that God can provide an answer, any serious consideration of such admittedly difficult questions requires godlike empathy, humility, and courage. President Kimball’s experience leading up to the 1978 revelation provides an instructive model. Once black people became more than an abstract doctrinal issue to him and he came to know and understand them as real people, he developed a godlike empathy for them.[49] It wasn’t until he obtained that empathy, and was humble enough to admit the Church might be wrong, that he had the capacity to actually question the Church’s position and to begin studying the issue and petitioning the Lord for more understanding. As President Hinckley said of President Kimball:

Here was a little man, filled with love, able to reach out to people. . . . He was not the first to worry about the priesthood question, but he had the compassion to pursue it and a boldness that allowed him to act, to get the revelation.[50]

Reflecting back on those times, President Kimball recalled his personal struggle:

Day after day, and especially on Saturdays and Sundays when there were no organizations [sessions] in the temple, I went there when I could be alone.

I was very humble. . . . I was searching for this. . . . I wanted to be sure. . . .

I had a great deal to fight . . . myself, largely, because I had grown up with this thought that Negroes should not have the priesthood and I was prepared to go all the rest of my life until my death and fight for it and defend it as it was.[51]

Despite years of prophetic precedent and the statements of so many past leaders, he had the courage to question, and even greater courage to begin talking to other members of the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency, which ultimately paved the way for the confirming spirit of revelation and acceptance by the quorum.

Not only was the Spirit working on President Kimball, but it was also working on many faithful members of the Church who knew in their hearts long before 1978 that the Church’s position was not of God. How did they know? An oft-cited example for testing prophetic pronouncements is this statement from President J. Reuben Clark:

I say it illustrates a principle—that even the President of the Church, himself, may not always be “moved upon by the Holy Ghost,” when he addresses the people. This has happened about matters of doctrine (usually of a highly speculative character) where subsequent Presidents of the Church and the peoples themselves have felt that in declaring the doctrine, the announcer was not “moved upon by the Holy Ghost.” How shall the Church know when these adventurous expeditions of the brethren into these highly speculative principles and doctrines meet the requirements of the statutes that the announcers thereof have been “moved upon by the Holy Ghost”? The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are “moved upon by the Holy Ghost”; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest.[52]

How can we know if the controversial positions and teachings of the brethren on homosexuality are from the Holy Ghost? Have the members of the Church received the confirming testimony of the Holy Ghost on this issue, or do they simply accept what our leaders have said because the issue does not affect them personally? How much time must pass, during which gay people continue to suffer and some commit suicide, until “due time” is reached and the truth or error is sufficiently made manifest?

Many members have received answers to this question by the power of the Holy Ghost. They include our gay members who have wrestled for years with this question and have paid the price to know—they have studied, pondered, attended the temple, and pleaded with God in the depths of humility to know what he wants for them. They include faithful parents who have desperately sought answers to help them teach and raise their LGBT children in a way to best balance their spiritual and emotional well-being. They include members who are neither gay nor have LGBT family members but who have hearts that know and feel with a godlike empathy the pains our gay brothers and sisters have had to bear.

For those who feel so certain about our current understanding of God’s will on this subject, we would do well to remember Elder McConkie’s words after having to retract what he said prior to the 1978 revelation: “Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.”[53]

III. Examination of the Moral Basis for the Church’s Position

The Church would likely assert that the moral basis for any of its policies or positions is axiomatic if they are based on true doctrine. However, as explained above, there have been many teachings or doctrines—whether contained in the scriptures or taught by latter-day Church leaders—that have been discarded or modified because they are no longer believed to be true and have even been harmful. As President Dieter F. Uchtdorf said, “to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.”[54] Here I will set aside the question of whether the Church’s current position on homosexuality is God’s will and examine it solely on the basis of moral reasoning. In other words, what conclusion could an honest, moral person arrive at using only her God-given intellect and ability to reason?

First, I have found that those who see same-sex relationships as sinful and immoral focus solely on the sexual aspect of the couple’s relationship. They are generally unfamiliar with gay people and therefore can’t even conceive of a gay person being in a loving relationship similar to that of a loving heterosexual couple. To them, being gay is only about sex. The result is that they see gay people primarily as sex objects instead of whole human beings, and they see their relationships as based only on lust and not on love, kindness, and mutual respect. This view is a twisted and unfair basis on which to make a moral judgment. What if this same perspective were used to view young straight couples, newly married and deeply in love? In judging the morality of a gay couple’s relationship, we should use the same perspective that we use to view a straight couple’s relationship. We should view them as whole human beings who have an innate desire for emotional, intellectual, spiritual, and physical attachment with another human being. We should view their love in terms of mutual affection, kindness, respect, compatibility, complementarity, commitment, and stability, as well as physical attraction. If we generally observe these characteristics in their relationship, we may then conclude that there is no reason their relationship is any less edifying, beneficial, and moral than that of a similarly-situated straight couple.

Human judgment about what is moral or immoral, however, is more often a matter of gut instinct than it is about reason. Sexuality is one area that arouses strong positive or negative feelings in people. Heterosexuals may feel revulsion or discomfort at the thought of same-sex intimacy and may interpret those feelings as their spirit recoiling at something unnatural and immoral. However, this fails to consider the fact that homosexuals may have the same feelings about opposite-sex intimacy.

Furthermore, are such gut instincts always to be trusted? Would it be proper, for instance, to judge interracial marriage as immoral just because you personally feel internal discomfort at the thought of intimacy with someone of another race? In fact, such feelings may have been at the root of early Church doctrines (and civil laws) that declared interracial marriage a sin against nature and denied black people the priesthood and temple blessings. As John Turner notes, “Although fragmentary documentation obscures the reasons for [Brigham] Young’s hardening position [on race], his revulsion over the specter of interracial procreation apparently played a major role in his thinking. Perhaps most fundamentally, a church that emphasized forging links between the generations and eternal sealings between its members would not find it easy to incorporate black Americans within this ecclesial family.”[55] Today of course, the Church disavows the idea that mixed-race marriages are sinful.[56]

Like the child who is developmentally incapable of comprehending adult human sexual intimacy, a heterosexual person may be incapable of fully comprehending same-sex intimacy. If heterosexuals get to judge the morality of romantic relationships based on what feels right and natural to them, shouldn’t gay people be able to use that same basis to judge their relationships? Some might protest that this line of reasoning is essentially, “if it feels good, do it.” But that is not what I’m suggesting. Rather, gay people should be able to judge the rightness and morality of their relationships the same way heterosexuals do—based on their own gut instinct but still within certain cultural and moral bounds. That basis does not give an automatic moral pass to do whatever they want to do with whomever they want, just as it doesn’t for heterosexuals. The same rules regarding consent, age, emotional and mental capacity, and mutual respect still apply, but the rules should apply equally, whether gay or straight. Therefore, if someone wants to rely on their gut instinct as an indicator of morality, let them judge that morality for themselves and not for others whose gut instincts may differ.

Another argument against same-sex relationships is that they are “unnatural” because they go against nature’s intended purpose for the sexes. However, whether something is or is not natural is not a good indicator of morality. Think of the many medical advances, such as artificial joints, artificial hearts, and in vitro fertilization, that are unnatural but are not considered immoral. As a missionary in the missionary training center, I remember watching a short documentary about a woman who was born without arms but who had mastered the ability to use her feet to prepare her family’s meals, do her children’s hair, bottle feed her baby, put on her makeup, drive a car, and, in short, do just about anything a mother with arms could do.[57] She was doing things with her feet that at first glance, appeared unnatural and even off-putting. Using her feet to peel and cut apples or to caress her baby’s face was not what nature had intended for feet. But by the end of the film, I saw her as an inspiration and felt convicted for my initial feelings of discomfort. Certainly no one could say that the “unnatural” way in which she used her feet was immoral. Is it possible to countenance gay sexuality in the same light? Those who view homosexuality as unnatural would probably cite two main reasons: (1) it cannot produce offspring, which is nature’s objective for sexual relations, and (2) gay sex itself is inherently unnatural. Sexual reproduction evolved as a very effective means of ensuring propagation of the species—so, yes, sex for the purpose of having offspring is “natural.” However, the vast majority of human sexual activity, including within healthy, stable marriages, is not for the purpose of reproduction but solely to express love and desire. Does that make such sexual activity unnatural? If the outcomes of a committed, loving same-sex relationship are just as positive and edifying as those of a heterosexual relationship, the ability to have children shouldn’t determine the “naturalness” of those relationships, whether gay or straight. In addition, a number of genetic and evolutionary theories explain how homosexuality is an advantage in human societies (and actually strengthens wider family units) and therefore continues to exist in a minority of the population. Based on these evolutionary advantages, homosexuality can certainly be considered “natural.”[58]

Whether gay sex is seen as “natural” comes down to very personal and subjective opinion that mostly hinges on one’s own sexual orientation. To a straight person, the thought of same-sex intimacy feels unnatural, whereas to a gay person, heterosexual intimacy feels unnatural. Additionally, heterosexual couples may engage in the same types of sexual activity that gay couples do. For a short time, temple worthiness interviews included advice to married couples not to practice “unnatural, impure, or unholy practices” and specified that oral sex was in that category; however, months later that instruction was removed.[59] The Church has decided—like it did with the very personal and intimate decisions on birth control and family size—to leave practices within the bedroom for individual couples to choose.

Finally, the Church’s prescription for gay people—celibacy—is clearly not natural. Having to forgo human intimacy, physical affection and touch, romantic love, and lifelong companionship goes against human nature.

One way to judge the morality of something is to ask if it causes harm. Does a committed, monogamous same-sex relationship cause harm? The Church has stated its belief that same-sex marriage harms society and families because “children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identities as men or women. Some will find it more difficult to engage in wholesome courtships [and] form stable marriages.”[60] There is simply no basis or evidence for this claim. Rather, it is likely based on the outdated “contagion” belief that people, especially youth and children, are recruited or converted to be gay, for which there is no evidence.

Once all of these erroneous notions are dispelled, it may be possible to see same-sex marriage as a benefit to civilization. Traditionally, society has valued the institution of marriage based on the belief that it causes young single people—who may be prone to more profligate, reckless living that endangers the physical and emotional health of themselves and others—to settle down, become responsible, and think about others above themselves. If marriage really accomplishes this, why wouldn’t we want it for gay people as well as straight people? Would we rather keep gay people on the margins of “acceptable” society, where hookup culture and risky behavior abound, or would we prefer that they have the same opportunity and expectations as straight people to enter into committed marriage relationships?

The great majority of LDS parents of gay children that I know want their gay children to have stable, committed relationships that will result in a greater likelihood of physical and emotional health and well-being—just as they do for their straight children. And those kinds of relationships are more likely to come from legal marriage. As LDS parents, we have taught our children from their earliest years the importance of finding a worthy husband or wife who will love and cherish them, and that the greatest joys in life come from a fulfilling marriage and family life. Should it surprise us that our gay children have internalized those teachings, seen the good examples of their parents, and desire what we have?

In sum, setting aside all religious implications for the moment, if we accept the two basic premises previously introduced, that (1) being gay is not a choice, and (2) gay people have the same capacity as straight people to enter into committed, loving relationships, we must ask ourselves how a love-based, committed same-sex relationship is any different or less moral than a love-based, committed heterosexual relationship. To go a step further, we should be willing to ask ourselves whether it is moral to deny gay people the right and opportunity to experience what almost every human being desires in terms of romantic love, physical and emotional connection, and lifelong companionship with someone they are naturally attracted to. Surely, any heterosexual can appreciate the way Berta Marquez describes the joy of her marriage:

Tonight, in the evening, after the gloaming I went to the shore to ride the waves. The sea was expansive and endless. As I went deeper and the water surrounded me I thought about how much I wanted to remember and feel the vastness of the universe, of this moment. I was grateful for the beauty of it. I had to stop in the waves to try to absorb what was around me, in the water, in the evening sky.

But the thing I want to remember most is how upon exiting the sea, my little board in tow, looking through the crowds for my companion, she had already taken the initiative to walk to where I was, towel outstretched, ready to surround me in warmth and comfort. This is the person I married, my helpmate, my fellow traveler, my wife. Every day I am legitimately awed by her thoughtfulness and kindness. I am grateful for the communion of our partnership.

I invite those who feel ambivalent about LGBT families, our lives and our marriages to reflect on this: the daily ordinary comforts, hopes and joys you cherish beat within our hearts as well. Carefully catalogue the purpose, strengths, hope and life-giving warmth you feel as you lie beside your beloved, as you wash the dishes together, as you discuss the coming days and how you hope to grow old together. Then think about asking another to forego the blessings and privileges you enjoy daily and ask if perhaps it is okay for others, though different from you in ways small or great, might not also deserve access to the same life affirming blessings you derive daily from the companion beside you. I hope you will see why the same things are vital to us, why we too need the emotional, spiritual and companionate love that makes life worth living. I hope you will see with new eyes.[61]

IV. Examination of the Empirical Basis for the Church’s Position

The doctrinal and moral sections of this article primarily use reason and logic to examine the Church’s position on homosexuality and same-sex marriage. This section attempts to examine the Church’s position from an empirical perspective, based on observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. Jesus advocated this approach in judging whether something was of God when he taught, “by their fruits ye shall know them” (Matthew 7:16–20; see also, Galatians 5:22–23; Moroni 7:14–19). Elder M. Russell Ballard has further stated that, “A church, or any way of life, should be judged by the fruits or results that it generates.”[62] Therefore, if the Church’s position on homosexuality is based on eternal truth and is morally sound, we would expect that living that way would produce “good fruit,” while being in a same-sex relationship would produce “bad fruit.”

Ideally, an empirical approach would be based on studies and surveys that employ scientific methods.[63]However, I will share my personal observations as someone who has two gay sons, helped found an LDS LGBT support group with over 500 members,[64] and actively participates in Affirmation, the largest and oldest LDS LGBT organization in existence. In the thirteen years since my oldest son came out, I have read and studied extensively on this subject, I have met and personally know hundreds of LGBT people, I have read the personal accounts and experiences of hundreds more, and I belong to a number of social media groups specifically for LDS LGBT people and their friends and families. I recognize such observations are anecdotal. But you don’t have to take my word for it. If you start talking to gay people and others who are familiar with these issues, you will hear the same stories, and I believe they will confirm my observations.[65] Here are my observations of the fruits most commonly associated with gay people who are raised in the Church and are trying to live the Church’s position of lifelong celibacy:

Early stages (acknowledging being gay/same-sex attracted)

• Extreme guilt and self-loathing (even when living Church standards) Depression and despair with occasional suicidal thoughts
• Extreme religiosity and scrupulosity (perfectionism and unhealthy obsession with righteous living and rule-keeping in hopes of changing or proving worthiness)

Later stages (realizing sexual orientation isn’t changing)

• Periods of depression and despair with suicidal thoughts, sometimes leading to suicide
• Social/emotional detachment, inability to form relationships with others Stagnation, apathy, hopelessness
• Overcompensation, perfectionism, overachievement
• Obsessive/compulsive behavior associated with pornography and masturbation made worse by feelings of shame, worthlessness, and hopelessness
• A perpetual cycle of shame, trying to suppress innate sexuality and live according to the Church’s standards but always falling short (periodic hookups, pornography, etc.)
• Loss of faith, anger and bitterness against the Church and God
• Abandonment of Church membership to preserve emotional and mental health

In example after example, I hear of sadness and despair. However, it is not being gay that causes the emotional trauma and mental anguish; it is being gay and raised in a religion and culture that tells you from the time you are an innocent child that your feelings of love and attraction are degrading and sinful, something you must extinguish and bury deep inside. Unlike your straight friends and siblings who revel in their crushes, falling in love, showing physical affection, dating, and marrying, you are taught that the love and attraction you feel is from Satan and if expressed—even in a loving, monogamous marriage—it will cause society’s downfall and the destruction of the family, and you will be declared an apostate, an enemy of the Church.

I belong to a private Facebook group for active LDS parents who have LGBT children. There are over 850 members at last count, with parents joining every day. In reading the stories of these parents, particularly those whose teen children are just coming out as gay, one of the most common themes is that before coming out the children begin pulling away from the Church. While saddened that their children pull away from the Church they love, these parents come to realize that they would rather have an emotionally healthy, well-adjusted gay child out of the Church than a suicidal, emotionally unhealthy child in the Church. A small proportion of gay people are able to remain active in the Church (although that number continues to decline as they age), and some actually return to activity in the Church after leaving. They are able to maintain a healthy attitude and sense of self-worth because they do not internalize what the Church tells them. They believe that they are whole and undamaged, that being gay is how God intended them to be. And by my observation, most of them do not believe that same-sex marriage is against God’s will, even if they have not chosen that path for themselves in order to maintain full fellowship in the Church (at least for the time being).

A common refrain among religious people is found in this statement by President James E. Faust: “The false belief of inborn homosexual orientation denies to repentant souls the opportunity to change and will ultimately lead to discouragement, disappointment, and despair.”[66] This view is understandable and logical if “acting on” one’s homosexuality is believed to be sinful and against God’s will. In this view, gay people may find momentary pleasure in living counter to God’s laws, but ultimately, they will come to find out that “wickedness never was happiness” and will reap the bitter fruits of their unrighteous choices. But what if we find the opposite to be true? What if we observe that gay people living in long-term, committed same-sex relationships are just as happy as their straight counterparts? What if we find that gay couples who live the law of chastity in the same manner required of straight couples (no sexual relations outside of marriage and total fidelity within marriage) receive the same blessings and positive outcomes as straight couples who live that law?

I have met and come to know many same-sex-married gay couples, some who have been married only a short time and some who have been married many years. Here are some of the positive fruits I have observed.

• Happiness and fulfillment
• Stability and commitment
• Sincere love and concern for each other
• Greater emotional and spiritual well-being
• Light in their countenance, the fruits of the Spirit in their lives

In other words, the blessings and benefits of marriage appear to be available to all those who are willing to abide by the covenant of exclusive commitment, regardless of whether they are gay or straight.

In addition to the positive fruits that marriage—heterosexual or homosexual—brings to individuals and families, it also strengthens our communities and society as a whole. John Gustav-Wrathall gives three reasons that gay marriage should be embraced by all: First, promoting stable, long-term pair bondings increases the likelihood that gay people will form lasting relationships and decreases the likelihood that they will enter into unstable opposite-sex relationships. Second, families create a more stable society. Individuals in a family take care of each other, provide for each other, and nurture each other rather than relying on the state to provide for them. Finally, marriage promotes morality and spirituality. It encourages individuals to bridle their sexual passions and live in committed, enduring relationships. But it also fosters spiritual development. “In many ways, those commitments [to my husband] paved the way for me to come back to the Church,” writes Gustav-Wrathall. “I believe living in a way that honored my love for him made me more sensitive to the promptings of the Spirit.” [67]

Gay people are not immune from the marital and relationship problems that all people face. Indeed, I am aware of some same-sex marriages that were perhaps entered into too hastily and have ended in divorce. However, the joy gay couples are finding in the right to marry may actually be injecting new life into an institution that seems to be dying out in much of secular society.

Until relatively recently, society in general took much the same position as the Church on homosexuality and same-sex marriage. The Church now sees society’s departure from that position as evidence of moral decay. However, the reason we as a society (including a growing number in the Church) are moving away from the Church’s position is that we have been able to observe for ourselves the lives of gay people rather than relying solely on tradition and the cultural prejudices of past generations to inform our views. Gay people are members of our family, our friends, our neighbors, our coworkers, and our sons and daughters.

As they have been able to live their lives more openly and authentically, rather than in fear and hiding, we are able to see for ourselves that they are really no different than we are, that they are better off living with the same freedoms and opportunities that we have—without shame, without condemnation, and without being made to feel that their lives are bringing about the downfall of society and destruction of the family. If we judge the Church’s position on homosexuality and same-sex marriage by its fruits, can we still unequivocally say that this position is of God? Like the Church’s earlier teachings about black people, its position on homosexuality is creating great spiritual and emotional harm. If Church leaders do not accept these fruits as I and many others have observed them, then, with the stakes so high, I hope they commission reliable studies and surveys, conduct large-scale interviews of gay people, talk to LDS parents who have gay children, and determine whether its position truly has a positive or negative impact on the lives of gay people. In short, I pray that they will “study it out in their minds” and ask the Lord to confirm their conclusions (D&C 9:8–9).

V. Where to From Here?

The Church has evolved significantly on this issue. And aside from the emotional and spiritual trauma caused by the November 2015 policy, the Church has taken a number of positive steps that have led to greater understanding of and compassion for our gay members of the Church. However, no matter how much the Church encourages love and understanding—no matter how much it tells gay people that there is no sin in being gay while at the same time continuing to tell them that their deep inner desire for love and companionship is considered a defect—this message will continue to cause hopelessness, shame, and bitterness. It will continue to result in depression, suicide, and loss of faith.

More education on this issue and more love and empathy for our gay members will help mitigate some of the negative symptoms they experience. But the reality is, as long as gay members are treated as unequal to straight members, as long as they are taught from the time they are young that their core natures are essentially a defect that will be fixed in the next life, their psyches and spirits will be damaged. And most of them will leave. Can we really expect otherwise? Would we do any differently if we were in their place? Prior to the 1978 revelation on the priesthood, wasn’t it logical to expect that the majority of black people would find the Church a hostile and damaging place because they couldn’t receive the same blessings as white members and were taught that they carried the curse of Cain and were spiritually inferior to whites in the premortal existence? Should we expect our gay members to respond any differently given what the Church teaches about their nature?

Just as it took a major doctrinal change in 1978 for the Church to allow black people to be treated as whole human beings and spiritually equal to white people, nothing less than a similar doctrinal change regarding our characterization of homosexuality will allow us to treat gay people as whole human beings and spiritually equal to straight people. This doctrinal change does not require changing our doctrines on eternal marriage or eternal families. It simply requires applying the law of chastity equally to all members regardless of sexual orientation, and recognizing that marriage has the same ability to bless and ennoble the lives of gay couples as straight couples.

Following such a doctrinal change, at some point temple sealings for same-sex couples would inevitably be the next question to arise. However, since Joseph Smith’s teachings about the relations between couples in the afterlife and the nature of spiritual procreation are still so vague and undeveloped, these theological/doctrinal issues may be addressed later. There is ample historical and theological basis for exploring such possibilities for LGBT people.[68]

The longer this change takes, the more we will lose gay people, their family members, their friends, and other sympathetic Church members, particularly younger people who do not see same-sex marriage as a threat to society or a sin against God. And unlike black people who had the choice of not joining the Church during the priesthood/temple ban, gay babies are born into the Church every day and at increasing numbers as the Church grows. Their departure—along with that of their families and those who care about them—ultimately harms us as a community. It leaves a gaping wound in our church, the body of Christ.

Some may argue that if the current doctrine is God’s will, it is out of our hands, and that regardless of the despair, the suicides, the mental anguish, the bitterness, the ultimate loss of faith and loss of members, we cannot change what God has decreed.[69] But do we really believe these fruits are acceptable to God and in accordance with his revealed will, or are we leaning too much on our own heterosexual understanding? Do we believe in continuing revelation or not? Do we not have enough scriptural and historical precedent demonstrating that revelation comes not just when God decides but when we seek it? Think of most of the major revelations given to Joseph Smith, think of the 1978 revelation to President Kimball—all came in response to questioning, seeking, and petitioning the Lord for answers to sincere and sometimes difficult questions. We must remember these fundamental precepts of our Church:

“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.

Articles of Faith 1:9; emphasis added

“Yea, wo be unto him that saith: We have received, and we need no more!”

2 Nephi 28:27

“But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.”

D&C 9:8

If the answers are not forthcoming or fully apparent at this time, might it be better to be less strident and more humble about what we claim to be the will of God? If we fear to err, might it be better to err on the side of mercy and agency, and to trust more in the Savior’s atonement than in our own imperfect knowledge?

Regardless, even with what we know now, we need a better pastoral approach for this issue. While it won’t fully stop the outflow of gay members and their families, there are things we can do to slow it. Some wards and stakes around the country are already approaching this issue in more positive ways (although less so since the November 2015 policy). We could extend this simple message: Come worship with us and bring your spouse or partner; you will always be welcome in our ward, you have nothing to fear, and we love you and we need you. That message, along with the decision not to automatically initiate Church disciplinary action unless the person desires it as a way back into full fellowship, would do much to heal the spiritual wounds we have inflicted and make the Church a Zion community.

Even if gay members can’t participate as members in full fellowship, we can treat their marriages and partnerships with respect and dignity, just as we do those who are not married in the temple. These individuals should also be treated with love and respect and allowed to worship with us without any fear of Church reprisal. If a gay person or couple has wrestled with the question of how to live their life and feels a spiritual pull to attend church again, does it make sense to punish them with the harshest action the Church can take, or to make them feel like they are too unworthy and spiritually damaged to simply attend church with us? How I wish we could at least make this simple change in the interim.[70] Finally, to those who have sincerely considered this issue and have reached the conclusion that committed, monogamous same-sex marriage is against God’s will, I will grant you the respect to believe as your heart and conscience tell you. May I ask the same thing of you? Will you please allow me and others who have spiritually struggled with this issue and reached a different conclusion the right to our agency and personal revelation without judging us to be apostates, unfaithful, or unworthy of being your fellow Latter-day Saints?

Above all, will you recognize the supreme sacrifice our LDS gay members must make to remain active in the LDS Church? To live the Church’s position, they must give up a core part of their humanity— their ability to fully and completely love another person—and choose lifelong celibacy, something no one else is asked to do. If, on the other hand, they do not feel the call to sacrifice that part of their humanity, they are then forced to give up full fellowship in the Church and lose relationships with Church and even family members. No matter what choice they make, they lose something precious. May God grant us the inspiration, courage, and grace we need as a church and people to find the right path on this issue—a path that will be in accordance with his will and that will save the lives and souls of our beloved gay members of the Church.

---

Author's Note: A version of this article was first published online.

Editor's Note: The Dialogue Foundation provides the web format of this article as a courtesy. There may be unintentional differences from the printed version. For citational and bibliographical purposes, please use the printed version or the PDFs provided online and on JSTOR.

[1] In using the term “Church” as the entity that promulgates the positions and statements discussed throughout this essay, I am generally referring to the members of the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency who are authorized to make policy and pronounce doctrine for the Church. While it is generally held that such policy and doctrine require the unanimous consent of the members of these governing bodies, it is also understood that individual members of these councils often have differing personal opinions. The lack of publicity associated with the Church’s launch of its original mormonsandgays.org website and the inconsistent messaging and tone in Church initiatives and statements on this subject seem to indicate differences of opinion among the top leadership in how to address LGBT issues. For additional examples, see Gregory Prince, “The Exclusion Policy and Biology vs Behavior,” Rational Faiths (blog), Jan. 13, 2016.

[2] Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Acting on the Truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” Worldwide Leadership Training Meeting, Feb. 2012.

[3] “Overview,” Same-Sex Attraction. Along with updating this gospel topic entry in October 2016, the Church released an entirely new version of its website devoted to this issue, mormonandgay.org. The original website, mormonsandgays.org, was released in December 2012 without any Church-wide announcement or links to the site from the Church’s main webpage, and many members and leaders were unaware of its existence.

[4] “Same-Gender Marriages,” Handbook 2: Administering the Church, 21.4.10.

[5] See Jack Drescher, “Out of DSM: Depathologizing Homosexuality,” Behavioral Sciences 5, no. 4 (2015): 565–75.

[6] See Judith M. Glassgold, et al., Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation, Aug. 2009.

[7] See William N. Eskridge Jr., Dishonorable Passions: Sodomy Laws in America, 1861–2003 (New York: Viking, 2008).

[8] Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1969), 40. See also, Spencer W. Kimball, “President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality,” Ensign, Nov. 1980. In another talk, President Kimball stated: “There are said to be millions of perverts who have relinquished their natural affection. . . . This practice is spreading like a prairie fire and changing our world” (Spencer W. Kimball, “Voices of the Past, of the Present, of the Future,” Ensign, June 1971).

[9] Clair Barrus, “The Policy on Gay Couples, and the Priesthood Ban: A Comparison,” Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable (blog), Nov. 3, 2016.

[10] Kimball, Miracle of Forgiveness, 42.

[11] Spencer W. Kimball, “Love vs. Lust,” BYU Speeches, Jan. 5, 1965. In this speech, Kimball cites a 1964 article from Medical World News about the “strength of the patient’s desire to modify” homosexual desire, stating: “This statement by the Public Health Committee of the New York Academy of Medicine agrees with our philosophy. Man is created in the image of God. He is a god in embryo. He has the seeds of godhood within him and he can, if he is normal, pick himself up by his bootstraps and literally move himself from where he is to where he knows he should be.” He speaks at length about curability. Note: BYU removed the text of this speech and left only the audio. A text version is archived.

[12] Boyd K. Packer, “Cleansing the Inner Vessel,” Oct. 2010 (compare audio/video talk at 9:00 to text that starts with, “Some suppose they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations. . .”). See also, Peggy Fletcher Stack, “Packer Talk Jibes with LDS Stance after Tweak,” Salt Lake Tribune, Oct. 25, 2010.

[13] See Ryan T. Cragun, Emily Williams, and J. E. Sumerau, “From Sodomy to Sympathy: LDS Elites’ Discursive Construction of Homosexuality Over Time,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 54, no. 2 (2015): 291–310.

[14] Caryle Murphy, “Most U.S. Christian Groups Grow More Accepting of Homosexuality,” Pew Research Center, Dec. 18, 2015.

[15] Neil J. Young, “Mormons and Same-Sex Marriage: From ERA to Prop 8,” in Out of Obscurity: Mormonism Since 1945, edited by Patrick Q. Mason and John G. Turner (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), 144–69.

[16] “Church Responds to Boy Scouts Policy Vote,” Mormon Newsroom, May 23, 2013.

[17] “Transcript of News Conference on Religious Freedom and Nondiscrimination,” Mormon Newsroom, Jan. 27, 2015.

[18] “Church Applauds Passage of Utah Senate Bill 296,” Mormon Newsroom, Mar. 12, 2015.

[19] “Elder Christofferson KUTV,” YouTube video, posted by KUTVPhotographers, Mar. 13, 2015.

[20] “Supreme Court Decision Will Not Alter Doctrine on Marriage,” Mormon Newsroom, June 26, 2015. The Church also issued a letter to be read in Church meetings in all units in the United States and Canada beginning Sunday, July 5, 2015 reaffirming its position on marriage. See “Church Leaders Counsel Members after Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage Decision,” Church News, July 1, 2015.

[21] John Gustav-Wrathall, “John Gustav-Wrathall: Show an Increase of Love,” Deseret News, Jan. 31, 2016.

[22] See Michael Barker, Daniel Parkinson, and Benjamin Knoll, “The LGBTQ Mormon Crisis: Responding to the Empirical Research on Suicide,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 49, no. 2 (Summer 2016): 1–24 and Benjamin Knoll, “Youth Suicide Rates and Mormon Religious Context: An Additional Empirical Analysis,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 49, no. 2 (Summer 2016): 25–43.

[23] “LDS Church Leaders Mourn Reported Deaths in Mormon LGBT Community,” Deseret News, Jan. 31, 2016.

[24] In addition to the revised content, the URL was changed from mormon-sandgays.org to mormonandgay.lds.org, sounding less confrontational and linking directly to the Church website.

[25] From the “Frequently Asked Questions” page on mormonandgay.org: “Will the Church ever change its doctrine and sanction same-sex marriages?” The answer provided interestingly does not start with “no” but states that “marriage between a man and a woman is an integral teaching of the [Church] and will not change.” In a video on the site, Elder D. Todd Christofferson states: “There shouldn’t be a perception or an expectation that the Church’s doctrines or position have changed or are changing. It’s simply not true, and we want youth and all people to understand that. The doctrines that relate to human sexuality and gender are really central to our theology. . . . So homosexual behavior is contrary to those doctrines— has been, always will be—and can never be anything but transgression” (“Purpose of this Website").

[26] See Charles R. Harrell, “This Is My Doctrine”: The Development of Mormon Theology (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2011). For an excellent treatment on how moral standards and religious doctrines have changed through longer history, see Craig Harline, “What Happened to My Bell-Bottoms?: How Things That Were Never Going to Change Have Sometimes Changed Anyway, and How Studying History Can Help Us Make Sense of It All,” BYU Studies Quarterly 52, no. 4 (2013): 49–76.

[27] “Church Statement Regarding ‘Washington Post’ Article on Race and the Church,” Mormon Newsroom, Feb. 29, 2012.

[28] “Interracial Marriage Discouraged,” Deseret News, June 17, 1978.

[29] “Same-Gender Marriages,” Handbook 2: Administering the Church, 21.4.10. For earlier condemnations of birth control, see Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2 (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954), 273 and Harold B. Lee, Report of the SemiAnnual Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Oct. 1972 (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, semiannual), 63.

[30] I highly recommend Brent Kerby, ed., Gay Mormons?: Latter-day Saint Experiences of Same-Gender Attraction (n.p.: Brent Kerby, 2011). You can also watch/listen to gay Mormons relate their own experiences at the website Far Between, which fosters an “on-going dialogue about what it means to be LGBTQIA/SSA and Mormon.”

[31] See also Richard Elliott Friedman and Shawna Dolansky, “Homosexuality,” in The Bible Now (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 1–40.

[32] See Matthew Vines, “The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality,” and J. R. Daniel Kirk, “Slave Sex in Ancient Rome,” Storied Theology (blog), May 5, 2015.

[33] “First Presidency Statement on Same-Gender Marriage,” Mormon Newsroom, Oct. 20, 2004.

[34] “The Divine Institution of Marriage,” Mormon Newsroom. The Church’s website does not date this document. An original PDF version provides the date and context for the document, which was in support of the Church’s political campaign for Proposition 8 in the state of California. The current document has been modified somewhat extensively from the original.

[35] “Church Leaders Counsel Members After Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage Decision,” Mormon Newsroom, June 30, 2015.

[36] “Supreme Court Decision Will Not Alter Doctrine on Marriage,” Mormon Newsroom, June 26, 2015.

[37] Packer, “Cleansing the Inner Vessel” (compare audio/video talk at 00:45 to paragraph three in the text). See also, Stack, “Packer Talk.”

[38] See, for example, the entries for “Apostasy” and “Celibacy” in Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1958). There is no entry for “celibacy” in the Gospel Topics section of LDS.org.

[39] Thomas Montgomery, “The Doctrine of Celibacy,” No More Strangers: LGBT Mormon Forum (blog), Oct. 19, 2014.

[40] More accurate translations provide a different interpretation of this proverb, but the interpretation used in this paper is commonly used in the Church, including by President Hinckley.

[41] See for instance, Elder Christofferson’s interview on the policy: “We regard same-sex marriage as a particularly grievous or significant, serious kind of sin that requires Church discipline” (“Church Provides Context on Handbook Changes Affecting Same-Sex Marriages,” Mormon Newsroom, Nov. 6, 2015, marriages-elder-christofferson). As discussed later, even with a softer, more compassionate tone, this teaching still sends the message that gay people are inherently defective.

[42] “Birth Control,” Handbook 2: Administering the Church, 21.4.4.

[43] “If the abominable practice became universal it would depopulate the earth in a single generation” (Kimball, Miracle of Forgiveness, 40). “One generation of homosexual ‘marriage’ would depopulate a nation, and, if sufficiently widespread, would extinguish its people. Our marriage laws should not abet national suicide” (Dallin H. Oaks, “Principles to Govern Possible Public Statement on Legislation Affecting Rights of Homosexuals,” Aug. 7, 1984, 19). “If [homosexuality were] practiced by all adults, these life-styles would mean the end of the human family” (James E. Faust, “Serving the Lord and Resisting the Devil,” Ensign, Sept. 1995).

[44] Terryl Givens, Wrestling the Angel: The Foundations of Mormon Thought (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 157; see also, 107–10, 156–65. See also, Taylor Petrey,“ Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 44, no. 4 (Winter 2011): 106–49.

[45] Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young (1997), 16.

[46] “The Divine Institution of Marriage.” The source cited is David Popenoe, Life Without Father (New York: The Free Press, 1996), 146.

[47] “Sexual Orientation, Parents, & Children,” adopted by the APA Council of Representatives, July 28 and 30, 2004, enting.aspx (citations omitted). See also, “What Does the Scholarly Research Say about the Wellbeing of Children with Gay or Lesbian Parents?,” Columbia Law School Public Policy Research Portal.

[48] “Interview with Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman: ‘Same-Gender Attraction,’” Mormon Newsroom. The website does not list the date of this interview.

[49] Edward L. Kimball, “Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood,” BYU Studies 47, no. 2 (2008): 37–38, 40.

[50] Ibid., 44.

[51] Ibid., 48.

[52] J. Reuben Clark Jr., “When Are Church Leaders’ Words Entitled to Claim of Scripture?,” Church News, July 31, 1954, 10, as cited in footnote 6 of D. Todd Christofferson, “The Doctrine of Christ,” Apr. 2012. See also, James E. Faust, “. . . And The Truth Shall Make You Free,” New Era, Mar. 1975.

[53] Bruce R. McConkie, “All Are Alike unto God,” BYU Speeches, Aug. 18, 1978.

[54] Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Come, Join with Us,” Oct. 2013.

[55] John G. Turner, Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2012), 223. Brigham Young often advocated the death penalty for mixed-race marriage, as in this statement: “Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so” (Brigham Young, Mar. 8, 1863, Journal of Discourses, 10:110).

[56] “Race and the Priesthood,” Gospel Topics.

[57] A Day in the Life of Bonnie Consolo, directed by Barry J. Spinello (Barr Films, 1975).

[58] William Kremer, “The Evolutionary Puzzle of Homosexuality,” BBC Magazine, Feb. 18, 2014. See also, James O’Keefe, “Homosexuality: It’s about Survival, Not Sex,” TEDx Tallaght, Nov. 16, 2016.

[59] Letter from First Presidency, Jan. 5, 1982. See also, “Prophetic Counsel about Sex Within Marriage: A Brief History,” Mormon Matters (blog), Mar. 17, 2008.

[60] “The Divine Institution of Marriage.”

[61] As shared in the Mormons Building Bridges Facebook group, Oct. 12, 2015. See also, Laura Root, “Being Mormon, Lesbian, and in Love. . .,” Rational Faiths (blog), Dec. 30, 2016, in-love and Chris Janousek, “I’m Homophilic,” No More Strangers (blog), Mar. 20, 2014.

[62] M. Russell Ballard, “Faith, Family, Facts, and Fruits,” Oct. 2007.

[63] Links to such studies, which consistently show highly negative outcomes associated with gay people trying to live according to the Church’s position, can be found at the independently-created Gays and Mormons website. Critics of these studies may argue that survey respondents are self-selected rather than randomly selected or that study authors have an agenda. However, it is notable that no studies or surveys have been published by groups or individuals who advocate for the Church’s position as a way of life for gay people.

[64] See ALL: Arizona LDS*LGBT.

[65] Brent Kerby, Gay Mormons?. Many firsthand accounts can be found online, including the following: Root, “Being Mormon, Lesbian, and In Love”; Kayden Maxwell, “Hero Journey,” No More Strangers (blog), Oct. 11, 2014; Sarah Lewis, “That Weak Things May Become Strong,” Each Day is an Adventure When You’re a Lewis (blog), Jan. 11, 2017; John Bonner, “Letter to 14 Year Old Me,” Life Outside the Book of Mormon Belt (blog), Jan. 12, 2016; Jena Peterson, “Authenticity Through Connection,” Rational Faiths (blog), May 31, 2016; Jonathan Manwaring, “How My Gay Family Members and Friends Have Changed Me,” Northern Lights (blog), Dec. 5, 2014; Berta Marquez, “A Polyphony of Three,” Affirmation (blog), Nov. 19, 2015; “Our Families: Trey and Guy,” Affirmation (blog), Mar. 1, 2013; “Theresa and Rachel: Our Story,” No More Strangers (blog), June 3, 2013; Matthew Balls, “Jeffrey,” Far Between; John Gustav-Wrathall, “Doubt Your Doubts,” Young Stranger (blog), Jan. 14, 2014; John Gustav-Wrathall, “The Pillars of My Faith,” Young Stranger (blog), Aug. 4, 2014.

[66] James E. Faust, “Serving the Lord and Resisting the Devil,” Ensign, Sept. 1995.

[67] John Gustav-Wrathall, “Why Same-Sex Marriage Will Strengthen Marriage for Everyone,” Young Stranger (blog), May 27, 2011.

[68] See Petrey, “Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology.”

[69] In a religious freedom conference held in Arizona on January 21, 2017, Elder Dallin Oaks gave several reasons why the Church must resist societal change on traditional marriage, including: “We believe in revelation from God and we have no power to alter revealed doctrine when it collides with manmade laws or cultures.  We also have no power to alter revealed prophetic directions on the application of that doctrine to the circumstances of our day. And we should also note, revelation is the province of God and comes not as we will, but when and how He decides.” A recording of the proceedings was provided by a personal acquaintance. For a summary of the conference, see Jill Adair, “Elder Oaks Urges All Church Members to Defend Religious Freedom,” Church News, Jan. 25, 2017.

[70] I realize with the inception of the November 2015 policy and its subsequent elevation to a “revelation” by President Nelson in his January 2016 YSA devotional talk, this solution is not as simple as it once was. Such a Church-wide solution would necessitate the removal of the policy. Until then, this solution still lies in the hands of individual stake presidents and bishops, which can put them in a difficult position.

[post_title] => What Do We Know of God’s Will for His LGBT Children?: An Examination of the LDS Church’s Position on Homosexuality [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 50.2 (Summer 2017): 1–52
“What do We know of God’s Will for his LGBT Children?: An Examination of the LDS church’s position on homosexuality” divides it up into a “doctrinal, moral, and empirical perspective.” Cook’s goal is to understand, to encourage empathy, and to encourage people to see current teachings on homosexuality as incomplete. In this way, it has a lot in common with earlier pastoral approaches. The analysis here is strong, and this division is a version of other theological traditions of reasoning from scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. This essay asks some great questions and raises some pretty serious critiques about the problems with contemporary LDS teachings and practices. “The longer this change takes,” he writes, “the more we will lose gay people, their family members, their friends, and other sympathetic Church members, particularly younger people who do not see same-sex marriage as a threat to society or a sin against God.” [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => what-do-we-know-of-gods-will-for-his-lgbt-children-an-examination-of-the-lds-churchs-position-on-homosexuality [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-08-07 00:36:44 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-08-07 00:36:44 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=19014 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 18995 [post_author] => 2055 [post_date] => 2018-10-26 00:28:22 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-10-26 00:28:22 [post_content] =>

I was excommunicated from the Church in 1986. I am a gay man in a twenty-five-year-long relationship with my husband Göran Gustav-Wrathall. We were legally married in July 2008. Over the years, people have asked me how it is that I could consider myself Mormon if I’m not a member of the Church. What covenants are there for me to renew on Sunday morning, sitting in the pews, as I pass, without partaking, the sacrament tray to the person sitting next to me? To the extent that there is a relationship between me and God that has the Church as a context, real as it is to me, it is invisible to outside observers. That’s okay. I stay because I cannot deny what I know.

God is real. Christ is real. The Spirit is real. When the Spirit is present, I know it is present. When it is gone, I feel its absence. When I obey its promptings, I have it with me. And when I disobey, I lose it. I can and do lose it on occasion. And with the Spirit, my life is infinitely fuller and richer and more peaceful and meaningful than without it, so I obey to the best of my ability. And when I lose it, I do whatever I need to do to get it back again. And one of those things is to stay active in my ward and to keep the discipline of the Church and the Gospel in my life.

I stay because God has told me that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is his church and it’s where he wants me. It’s where, time and time again, as recently as the last time I attended my south Minneapolis ward two weeks ago, the Spirit meets me and teaches me. My heart is softened, the Lord shows me my weaknesses and works with me and draws me to him. At times, I have been reassured. At times, I have been corrected. I find myself renewed as I meditate on the sacrament prayer, as I make those promises in my heart, and ask for the Lord’s help to keep those promises. I have had sacred experiences with my priesthood leaders, including through blessings they have given me, that convinced me of the reality of priesthood power. I have witnessed and been the beneficiary of the miraculous healing power of the priesthood. I revere the priesthood as I revere God. I have been blessed to have my fellow Saints claim me as one of their own, and care for me, and encourage me. They accept me and my husband with love and without judgment, and they trust me to find my way forward through faith and hope and love the same way as everybody else.

Are there complications and contradictions? The main one is that I feel prompted to stay true and committed to my husband. We experience all the challenges of any couple, as I’ve observed both among those who’ve managed to make their marriages work as well as those who haven’t. My marriage to Göran is a school in which I learn patience and sacrifice and empathy. I learn what it is to be one with another human being. My relationship with Göran does not cause me to lose the Spirit. To the contrary I’ve experienced a richness of the Spirit as I’ve honored my commitments to him.

What does this mean? I trust that the seeming contradictions between my experience with my husband versus church teaching and policy will all work out. It will work out for me personally as long as I keep that Spirit guide in my life. In my last meeting with my stake president, he simply counseled patience. “What is time unto the Lord?” he said. I am learning patience above all. Time and life experience will grind away everything ephemeral and show what is eternal and what is not.

The older and more experienced I become, the more I am aware of my weaknesses and failings and my need for grace. I have learned how utterly dependent my happiness is on the first principles of the Gospel, faith and repentance. Faith is not merely belief, it is allowing oneself to trust divine providence, even when one cannot see the ends toward which that providence guides us. Repentance is not merely an act, it is a posture, a way of life, an openness to learn and grow and become. When we fall, it is a willingness to pick ourselves up and start over. I am grateful for the grace God has shown me time and time again, often when I knew myself unworthy of it. This is a journey that must be renewed daily. It does not matter how far I’ve travelled in my journey up to this point. I will never reach my destination if I ever stop walking.

Sometimes I can barely believe I’ve been on this path for 12 years already. There have been a couple of moments in my journey with the Church when I have wondered how I would continue on with it. Not necessarily doubted that I would continue, but wondered as in having a sense of amazement. One of them was in the immediate aftermath of the November 2015 LDS policy on gay families.

On the afternoon of November 5, 2015 I was chatting on Face-book with other leaders of Affirmation when news of the policy began to break in social media. It wasn’t until I saw copies of authenticated text from the new handbook that it really began to sink in. My initial personal reaction was not positive. I think among the first words out of my mouth were, “That’s barbaric.” It seemed vindictive to me. In that moment, it looked to me like revenge for the Church’s stunning defeat in the Supreme Court, in Obergefell v. Hodges. And to me it was barbaric to use children to strike at the parents. I knew, and still know the personal situations of enough LGBT Mormons in same-sex relationships raising children in the Church to immediately grasp what impact this would have on them, not to mention the larger impact that this could have on LDS attitudes toward the LGBT community.

As I continued to reflect, there were two dominant thoughts in my mind. The first was that any hope of broadening connections between the larger LGBT community and the Church had been dashed. During my time of service as senior vice president and as a member of the board of Affirmation I and other leaders in the organization had been working hard to broaden those contacts. We had opened up a dialogue with church leaders at all levels, and had been meeting with LDS Church Public Affairs since December 2012. We were striving to make room for LGBT Mormons to claim their faith as Latter-day Saints, as I have since my profound conversion experience in September 2005.

In September and October 2016, Affirmation conducted a survey of its membership worldwide. Based on the survey data, which looked representative of the Affirmation community that we served, over half of Affirmation members reported being active in the Church prior to the policy. After the policy that percentage dropped to somewhere between twenty percent and twenty-five percent. In a January 2016 leadership gathering in Los Angeles, Affirmation leaders expressed anger, a sense of betrayal, and even guilt for having encouraged LGBT Mormons to engage with the Church. We had observed widespread trauma among LGBT Mormons and their families.

My other dominant thought was less a coherent thought and more a sense of gnawing hurt, sadness, and doubt. If I had to put words to it I would say I was wrestling with my sense of my own place in all of this. Hadn’t the Lord told me to come back to the Church? Hadn’t the Lord reassured me that my relationship with my husband was blessed by him, that I should honor it and safeguard it as one of my greatest personal treasures? I was running for president of Affirmation, and had made the decision to run based on personal prayer and fasting and a clear sense that this was also something the Lord wanted me to do. How was I supposed to do this now? I remember the morning of November 6, I got up out of bed, went downstairs to kneel in our living room and pray before beginning my daily scripture study. I remember feeling heartsick, wishing that what had happened the previous afternoon had been just a bad dream.

But then I began to pray. I began to pour my heart out to the Lord, saying simply, please help me to understand. Please help me to know what to do. And it was like a light went on. Peace flooded through me. My mind was filled with light and reassurance. And the Lord in essence said to me don’t worry about this. I’ve got this one. And you and your husband are still okay.

It was hard for me to articulate what this personal revelation meant, because my sense of things was so counterintuitive. Most members of the LGBT Mormon community saw the policy as a giant step backwards, as a triumph of bigotry. I saw it now as a step forward. A step through. We had to go through this to get to the other side. And the other side would be very, very good.

What had we lost? We had lost some illusions about a liberal progressive evolution of church policy on this issue. I was always skeptical of that kind of a scenario. I always suspected that this issue could only be tackled head-on, in the form of listening deeply to the real stories of LGBT Mormons, followed by doctrinal searching and prayer for new revelation.

What we hadn’t lost was ourselves, our stories in their depth and totality. The Church might not understand us, but God does. God sees us. God saw me and said I was okay and that I need not worry and that he had this one.

In the weeks after, I saw signs that ordinary, mainstream, believing heterosexual Mormons were really struggling with this. My bishop called me to see if I was okay. We met and talked. He told me that by his estimate at least sixty percent of the members of our ward were struggling with this. The Sunday after the policy a stranger came up to me in church and asked if I was John Gustav-Wrathall. When I told him I was, he told me that he was investigating the Church. He said to me, “I just wanted you to know that I’m with you on this one.” Other members of my ward came up to me and hugged me and promised me that I was not alone.

At the end of November my mother passed away, and I spoke at her funeral. I told the story of her own personal revelation telling her that her gay son was okay, and prompting her to accept my husband as her own son. After the funeral, it seemed like there were a procession of members of my dad’s ultra-conservative Springville, Utah ward coming to me and wanting to talk about the policy, many of them with tears in their eyes.

In early December, I asked for and was quickly granted a series of meetings with church representatives and leaders in Salt Lake. I met with an apostle, and, after telling some stories of the trauma that I had observed among ordinary LGBT Mormons, I said, “On the drive up here, I was discussing the policy with my father. My father was very troubled by the term apostate. I am now defined as apostate under this policy. I told my father that I did not believe it was the Church’s intention to stigmatize me or others in my situation. The concept of apostasy is simply used to draw a line between what the Church currently understands as doctrine and what it does not. Was I correct in what I told my father?” The apostle’s response was that what I had told my father was exactly right. It was clear to me that in his willingness to meet with me there was a desire to engage, to draw in and include despite very difficult doctrinal understandings. After writing about this meeting in a blog post in Times & Seasons, I was accused by some of lying about having met with church leaders. The disbelief was proof of what I already knew about the situation, namely that it is more complex, and our leaders recognize it as more complex, than labels like “apostate” are widely understood to imply.

Yes, there has been defensiveness. There has been retrenchment and doubling down and an intensification of anti-LGBT attitudes in some quarters of the Church. But there has been an opening up as well, an opening up and a deepening of dialogue. For good or for ill, this is an issue that the Church can only move through, not back or away from.

The policy did create genuine trauma for LGBT Mormons. And it has been a duty of mine as president of Affirmation to make space for people to distance themselves from the Church. But I believe that some of us are called to stay, and the Lord has a very important role for us as part of his plan to move us not away from or around but through.

My testimony has never required members of my ward to “be nice” to me. Nor has it required that the Church treat me as equal. It has nothing to do with the membership of the Church somehow collectively holding correct beliefs about everything. It doesn’t piss me off when somebody says something stupid in Sunday School or priesthood meeting. My testimony doesn’t require an aesthetically pleasing account of Church history. As an historian, I like my history messy, by the way. I like it human and real. The hand of God is more recognizable in that kind of story. I don’t know what to make of the Book of Mormon, other than to say that it is the most spiritually powerful and transformative text I’ve ever encountered. For me, the jury is out as far as Book of Mormon historicity goes. I haven’t been satisfied by the critics that it’s a fraud, but there are certainly aspects of the text that are puzzling if we want to try to take it literally (which the text itself somewhat demands of us). I suppose that’s fundamentally no different from any foundational scriptural text that exists anywhere. But I certainly know that the Book of Mormon is true in the way that is most meaningful to me, which is in the reading and the application of it.

For me the Church is not true “in spite of” the flaws of its members, “in spite of” our individual and collective missteps. It is true in them. It is true in our bearing with one another through them. The scriptures are more or less an archive of human error and divine correction. The trueness of the Church is in having an authentic relationship with a living God who is drawing us into a more god-like life. That’s what priesthood, at its core, is about. That kind of relationship, which demands the discipline of priesthood, necessarily involves us making both individual and collective mistakes, and requiring correction. I’m not sure God’s plan works any other way.

So I’m here, I’m queer, I’m Mormon. Get used to it.

In the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

---

This is the text of the talk I gave at the 2017 Sunstone Symposium session “Why We Stay” at the Ray A. Olpin Student Center, at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, on Friday, July 28, 2017. Other presenters were Robin Linkhart, Maxine Hanks, and Nathan McCluskey.

Note: The Dialogue Foundation provides the web format of this article as a courtesy. There may be unintentional differences from the printed version. For citational and bibliographical purposes, please use the printed version or the PDFs provided online and on JSTOR.

[post_title] => From the Pulpit: Why I Stay [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 50.2 (Summer 2017): 209–213
“I was excommunicated from the Church in 1986. I am a gay man in a twenty-five-year-long relationship with my husband Göran Gustav-Wrathall. We were legally married in July 2008. Over the years, people have asked me how it is that I could consider myself Mormon if I’m not a member of the Church. What covenants are there for me to renew on Sunday morning, sitting in the pews, as I pass, without partaking, the sacrament tray to the person sitting next to me? To the extent that there is a relationship between me and God that has the Church as a context, real as it is to me, it is invisible to outside observers. That’s okay. I stay because I cannot deny what I know.” [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => from-the-pulpit-why-i-stay [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-08-05 15:13:26 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-08-05 15:13:26 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=18995 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 18896 [post_author] => 3668 [post_date] => 2018-10-24 15:22:44 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-10-24 15:22:44 [post_content] =>

Introduction

The November 2015 LDS handbook policy change that identified members who participate in same-sex marriages as “apostates” and forbade children in their households from receiving baby blessings or baptisms sparked ongoing attention to the topic of LGBTQ Mormon well-being, mental health, and suicides. When talking about LGBTQ youth suicides in our LDS community, we need to make sure we are working with the best empirical evidence available, and we need to be certain that the evidence presented is being interpreted correctly. Otherwise poor government policies will be put in place that may offer no benefit or might even exacerbate the problem. This article will look at five questions that need to be considered in this very important public health issue:

1. What direct empirical evidence is available regarding LGBTQ youth suicides?
2. What is the indirect evidence?
3. What is the anecdotal evidence?
4. What conclusions can we draw taking into account the limitations of empirical, inferred, and anecdotal evidence?
5. What preventive measures should be implemented while we are waiting for more definitive empirical evidence?

What Is the Direct Empirical Evidence

LGBTQ teens are twice as likely to attempt suicide as straight adolescents, according to the Centers for Disease Control.[1] Others have found that these youth are also more likely to contemplate as well as attempt suicide, although they also point to other factors that also relate to the risk of suicide including depression, substance abuse, and others.[2]

It is essential to acknowledge that suicidality is multifaceted, and being gay, lesbian, or transgender is not necessarily in all cases risk factors for suicide attempts. In fact, as we will discuss later in this article, LGBTQ people who have supportive families and communities are not at increased risk of poor mental health outcomes. Risk factors for suicide among LGBTQ teens are actually similar to risk factors for suicide among all teens and include hopelessness, major depression symptoms, impulsivity, past suicide attempts, conduct disorder (i.e. destructive, aggressive, deceitful behaviors, and violation of rules), victimization, perceived family support (support from peers does not have the same impact), and the recent suicide or attempted suicide of a family member or close friend. Some of these risk factors, such as family rejection or victimization, might disproportionately impact LGBTQ teens, which would explain their overall higher rate of suicide attempts.[3]

Family rejection leads to an eight-fold risk of suicide attempts among LGBTQ teens. The Family Acceptance Project (FAP) has done some excellent research showing that there is an exponential risk of suicide for LGBTQ teens who come from families that show “rejecting behaviors” such as not addressing issues of bullying and exclusion or endorsing attitudes that exclude members of the LGBTQ community.[4] They even studied what those rejecting behaviors are, and anyone familiar with the Mormon community would recognize those rejective behaviors as sometimes being common in our communities. (A full list of these “rejecting behaviors” can be found toward the end of this article.) Parents’ rejecting behaviors are often reinforced by local Church leaders and Mormon culture. It is important to note that the risk of suicide remains higher for rejected youth well into adulthood. They also have exponentially higher rates of drug/alcohol use, depression, and HIV infection than youth raised in homes that do not show these rejecting behaviors. The FAP research is in line with other empirical studies that show that many of these risk factors for suicide attempts can be decreased by “family-based interventions that increase support [which] reduce hopelessness and depression symptoms.”[5]

Supportive communities and schools reduce suicide risk among LGBTQ teens. Schools with explicit anti-homophobia interventions such as gay-straight alliances (GSAs) may reduce the odds of suicidal thoughts and attempts among LGBTQ students. A study by the University of British Columbia using data from the 2008 British Columbia Adolescent Health Survey showed that “LGBTQ youth and heterosexual students in schools with anti-homophobia policies and GSAs had lower odds of discrimination, suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts, primarily when both strategies were enacted, or when the policies and GSAs had been in place for three years or more.”[6] This study also found that LGBTQ youth in supportive environments experienced fewer suicidal thoughts and attempts by about two-thirds. Interestingly, suicidal thoughts and attempts also dropped among heterosexual boys and girls in the schools that put these policies into place.

Mark Hatzenbuehler of Columbia University polled 30,000 Oregon teens and found that those living in supportive communities were 25 percent less likely to attempt suicide compared to teens in more hostile communities (as evidenced by the presence or absence of anti-discrimination policies or anti-bullying programs). “The results of this study are pretty compelling,” Hatzenbuehler said in a statement. “When communities support their gay young people, and schools adopt anti-bullying and anti-discrimination policies that specifically protect lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth, the risk of attempted suicide by all young people drops, especially for LGB youth.”[7]

Suicides have doubled in the past four years, becoming the number one cause of death among Utah teens. Suicide is the number one cause of death of all Utah youth; this is not the case nationally, and Utah consistently ranks above the national average for suicide deaths.[8] While Utah suicide rates are higher than the national average, they are, nevertheless, generally in line with the other Rocky Mountain states. Though this is true, it is alarming that the teen suicide rate in Utah has doubled since 2011, which is not something we have seen in the other Rocky Mountain states, nor in Alaska. Figure 1 [Editor’s Note: See PDF, p. 5, for Figure 1] displays suicide rates (per 100,000) from 1999 to 2014, comparing the fifteen- to nineteen-year-old age group in Utah with the same age group in the United States as a whole as reported by the Centers for Disease Control.[9]

Summary. A clear body of research shows an elevated risk of suicide among LGBTQ teens nationally and indicates the major risk factors for suicide and other poor outcomes. There is no reason to believe that the LDS community is immune to this. Based on this alone, we need to consider that we have a suicide problem in our community. Analysis of the data suggests that the problem is worse in LDS communities than the national average. The youth suicide rate in Utah is the first statistic that implies this. Although the suicide rate is elevated throughout the Intermountain West,[10] no other states have seen the doubling in teen suicides that Utah has had in the past four years. Why is youth suicide in Utah so much higher than the national average? Since LGBTQ issues may be a large factor impacting teen suicides, it would be irresponsible not to address these issues locally, especially when the suicide problem is so acute in Utah, where the highest concentration of Mormons is found. Meanwhile, studies have shown the risk factors for suicide. However, protective factors have not been studied as extensively or rigorously as risk factors.[11]

What is the Direct Evidence?

Mental health outcomes and mortality rates for LGBTQ are the same as non-LGBTQ people in communities that are friendly to LGBTQ issues. In a 2013 study, Hatzenbuehler, et al. found that in communities that are highly prejudiced against sexual minorities, the life expectancy of sexual minorities is twelve years shorter when compared to low-prejudice communities.[12] Causes of the twelve-year difference are not limited to mental health and suicide; they also include homicide/violence and cardiovascular disease. They also report an eighteen-year difference in the average age of completed suicide among LGBTQ people in high-prejudice communities when compared to low-prejudice communities. We can infer from these findings that an elevated risk of suicide correlates with the elevated risk of mental illness prevalent among LGBTQ people living in communities that are hostile to LGBTQ. In a report of the study published in U.S. News and World Report, Hatzenbuehler concludes: “The results from the current study provide important social science evidence demonstrating that sexual minorities living in communities with high levels of anti-gay prejudice have increased risk of mortality, compared to those living in low-prejudice communities.”[13]

Meanwhile, there is actual evidence that homosexuals are not at any increased risk of mental illness when they are in a less homophobic community. A study published in Psychosomatic Medicine by researchers at the University of Montreal (lead author Robert-Paul Juster) shows that “as a group, gay and bisexual men who are out of the closet were less likely to be depressed than heterosexual men and had less physiological problems than heterosexual men.”[14] A Concordia University doctoral thesis in clinical psychology investigated and examined environmental risks and protective factors that counter-balance the severe mental illnesses that LGBTQ youth have and the role of cortisol, which is a hormone that is released in situations of stress leading to physical and mental health consequences. The author found that LGBTQ youth have abnormal levels of cortisol (compared to their heterosexual peers), which contributes to rates of mental illness and then influence rates of suicide.[15]

New research is also emerging that shows transgender people also have normal mental health when they are in a supportive environment from an early age. A study out of the University of Washington published in March 2016 showed that prepubescent children who are living openly as transgender with the support of their families fare very well and have no increase in depression or anxiety compared to other children. This is a striking contrast to prior studies on transgender people that have shown higher rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide. The big difference is being able to live openly at a young age with parental support.[16]

LGBTQ youth are more likely to be homeless. National studies show an exponentially higher risk of homelessness among LGBTQ teens. A 2013 National Conference of State Legislatures report found that between 20 and 40 percent of homeless youth identify as LGBTQ.[17] Providers and outreach workers in Utah have noticed that this also applies to Utah, and they have noted a high rate of LGBTQ teens from LDS families among the homeless teens they serve. A 2014 Salt Lake Tribune article noted: “More than 5,000 youth are estimated to experience homelessness in Utah per year. Of these, at least 40 percent are LGBT and the majority are from religious and socially conservative families, with 60 percent from Mormon homes.”[18]

Utah’s doubling of teen suicides in the past four years corresponds to increased rhetoric by the LDS Church against same-sex marriage. As noted above, data from the CDC show that suicides in the fifteen to nineteen age range in Utah have doubled since 2011. While Utah doubled its rate of suicides among teens, the rest of the country did not see a substantial increase in their suicide rate (see Figure 1). Suicide has become the leading cause of death in this age group in Utah.[19] Of course, correlation does not prove causation, but it is important to look at correlating factors to determine which of these might explain causation. The time frame for this doubling of teen suicides does correspond to an increased focus in the media on LGBTQ issues, especially in Utah as the debate on same-sex marriage played out.[20] That clearly led to a backlash, including frequent Church statements criticizing same-sex marriage or the LGBTQ community. It stands to reason that these statements have reinforced conflicts within congregations and families over the issue and has unleashed an increase of demonstrated homophobia and anti-LGBTQ feelings within families. It can easily be inferred that this chain of events exacerbated family rejection of vulnerable LGBTQ teens, thereby increasing their risk of suicide attempts as described earlier.

Most LGBT youth and young adults lose the protective effects of belonging to a religious community. A study of Mormon men in Utah shows that leaving the Church puts one at a much higher risk of suicide. A 2001 study looked at completed suicides of Utah men between the ages of fifteen and thirty-four and cross-referenced their activity in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The study’s authors estimated the individual’s degree of church activity by observing the level of priest-hood ordination at the date of the suicide. They concluded that leaving the Church raised the risk of suicide among all young men.[21] We also know that LGBTQ people leave the Church or are invited to leave at very high rates (36.3 percent inactive; 25.2 percent resigned; 6.7 percent excommunicated; 3.0 percent disfellowshipped).[22] From these studies we can infer that these LGBTQ young men are among those who have a substantially higher risk of suicide when they lose the protection that membership in a religion provides against suicide risk. If so, then bishops, stake presidents, and family members have reason to worry when an LGBTQ person stops attending church. It seems that the effect of religion on suicidal ideation is mixed. However, a recent study suggests that religion may serve as a protection against suicide attempts, even when LGBTQ people have “internalized homophobia.”[23] This same study shows once again that maturing in a religion increases the risk of suicide among those who leave. It can thus be inferred that LGBTQ people are placed at higher risk when they feel unwelcome in their religious communities and end up losing the protection of religious involvement.

In sum, “it may seem counterintuitive that when individuals chose to leave their religion in order to experience more self-acceptance that they inadvertently experience more risk for suicide.”[24] These studies, observations, and data do not directly answer our questions about LGBTQ suicides, but they raise concerns about the well-being, mental health, and suicide-risk among our LGBTQ teens and young adults. In the above cases, the inferred conclusions are compelling and point to a broad range of evidence that demonstrate a serious problem in our community.

What Is the Anecdotal Evidence?

Anybody who knows a substantial number of LGBTQ people with LDS backgrounds will be astounded by how many have attempted suicide. Those who are in a particular position of outreach, such as the leadership of Affirmation, Wendy and Thomas Montgomery, or Carol Lynn Pearson, have also reported being overwhelmed by the consistent pattern of suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and suicides among LGBTQ people from Mormon backgrounds, particularly among youth and young adults. Clinicians who have worked with teens in Utah including, clinicians from LDS Family Services, have noticed the high rate of despair and suicidal thoughts among LGBTQ teens (as well as adults).[25] Further, polling of USGA (a support organization for LGBTQ BYU students) showed a very high rate of suicide attempts among its members.[26] Informal polling of LGBTQ youth on a Facebook group for LDS LGBTQ youth has also revealed the ubiquitous nature of suicidal thoughts among our LGBTQ Mormon youth.[27]

What Conclusions Can We Draw?

When we put these data together, it is impossible to know exactly how many suicides there are among Mormon youth and how many of these are related to LGBTQ issues. In large part this is because data collected by the government on deaths, including suicides, do not generally indicate the sexual orientation of the deceased.[28] Despite this fact, we have described above some compelling evidence that allows us to conclude that there is a significant problem and make some reasonable inferences. The direct empirical evidence alone is enough to merit a public health response.

The indirect evidence is also compelling because there are such close correlations between suicide and mental illness/mood disorders, as well as homelessness in general, and LGBTQ people have a higher prevalence of these, especially in communities that are unfriendly to LGBTQ issues and concerns. We can reasonably infer from this that LGBTQ suicides are higher in these communities.

In the case of LDS youth suicides, we are forced to pay attention to both indirect evidence and anecdotal evidence because it is so difficult to gather empirical evidence about any suicide cohort because of the stigma associated with it as well as the intense grief experienced by these families. Some families are in denial that their family member is LGBTQ. Furthermore, those youth at highest risk are often the same youth who will hide their sexual orientation, so the family may not even be aware. As one Provo police officer put it: “They don’t leave a note saying they died by suicide because they are gay.”[29] It is often difficult to tell if an accidental death is actually a suicide and so those will be missed by any inquiry. Investigating whether sexual orientation is a factor in suicide is clearly complicated, and state agencies in Utah (and other states) have been reluctant to do so.

Normally we should be reluctant to make decisions based on anecdotal evidence alone. However, when the various pieces of evidence (anecdotal, direct, and indirect) provide a highly compelling picture that strongly suggests that lives are at stake (as can happen in any public health crisis), it is critical to be proactive.

Presently, a public health action is even more compelling because we have identified preventive measures that are low cost, low risk, and have already been shown to be effective. Currently the problem is not a lack of evidence, but quite simply a lack of will. We have sufficient direct evidence that is strengthened by indirect evidence and reinforced by anecdotal evidence. The case is strong. Our inability at this time to provide conclusive evidence (again, given that the government does not track the sexual identity of suicide or other mortality indicators) does not diminish our responsibility to take measures to decrease suicides by decreasing suicide attempts—and that is within our reach.[30] It is also within our reach to address the depression, despair, and isolation that afflict our LDS LGBTQ youth.

Discussion: What Drives Despair?

Depression and mood disorders play a role in many if not most suicide deaths or attempts. But what can we look at from a community stand-point? What are the factors that put people at risk and then put some of them over the edge? Neuroscientist Michael Ferguson pointed out in a recent podcast interview that “as social beings when you’re shunned or you’re excommunicated or you’re rejected from your primary community of attachments, your body experiences [symptoms] like you’re preparing to die.”[31] Humans are social creatures and surviving without our most important social connections was historically impossible for our ancestors. Being cast out was literally deadly. To a social animal such as a human, there are few things worse than ostracism.

Consider seeing through the eyes of an LGBTQ teen. Their emergent sense of self as an LGBTQ person often triggers fear of losing their family if their family finds out. Much of what they hear at church inculcates fear that they will not be part of their family in eternity. An entire future is mapped out for them that they see as increasingly impossible to fit into. If they have any gender-nonconforming behaviors or traits, they face bullying at school and at church, and they often do not receive support from their parents around the issue because they are too frightened to talk to them. Parents sometimes reinforce this at home by making homophobic comments, which confirm the child’s fears that they will lose their family if they come out, and that they might even lose their shelter and education by being kicked to the streets.

Meanwhile, hostile messages surround them at church, school, and home. Like every teen, they start to develop feelings and dreams of love and companionship, but then they receive the message that their desires are evil, and that in order to be accepted they have to follow a path that feels impossible for them. Most LGBTQ Mormons have this experience to varying extents. Many of them work their way through it and survive. However, many have other problems, such as depression or poor family structures. The despair often leads them to risk-taking behaviors such as substance abuse or unprotected sex. These factors stack up and multiply their odds of having a suicide attempt or other dangerous behavior.

In the past, there were messages from LDS Church leaders that could reasonably be interpreted by some as indirectly encouraging suicide. For example, in 1981 President Marion G. Romney wrote that “some years ago the First Presidency said to the youth of the Church that a person would be better dead clean than alive unclean.” He then shared a memory of his father telling him before he boarded the train to leave on his mission: “When you are released and return, we shall be glad to greet you and welcome you back into the family circle. But remember this, my son: we would rather come to this station and take your body off the train in a casket than to have you come home unclean, having lost your virtue.”[32]

Other statements could be interpreted as encouraging bullying or violence against LGBT individuals. For example, in the 1976 priesthood session of general conference, Elder Boyd K. Packer expressed his hearty approval of a missionary who punched his [presumably homosexual] companion to the floor in response to unwanted sexual advances. He said: “Somebody had to do it, and it wouldn’t be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way. I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself.”[33]

While messages like this from the General Authorities have thankfully ceased, they remain part of the cultural memory among older members and can still routinely make their way into sacrament meeting talks, lessons, and advice and counsel from priesthood leaders. LGBTQ youth absorb these messages and may attempt to kill themselves because they conclude that they do not have a future worth living or because they believe that this was what their parents would prefer.

To be clear, we are grateful that rhetoric surrounding LGBTQ issues has improved in many ways over the last several years.[34] This positive rhetoric is often difficult to fully internalize (or even perceive as genuine), however, in the context of the other more exclusionary messages that Church leaders continue to send, the most recent and significant of which is the November 2015 handbook policy change that defined Church members who enter into same-sex marriages as “apostates” and forbade baby blessings and baptism to children living in such situations.[35] This exclusionary messaging was only exacerbated when President Russell M. Nelson declared in January 2016 that the handbook policy change was the Lord’s will as revealed to his prophets.[36]

Since the majority of LDS families are indeed strong families whose homes are full of love, parents often assume that they would know if their children were feeling conflicted. It is difficult for them to imagine that their child would be afraid to disclose feelings of despair, isolation, or thoughts of self-harm. This is a prevalent assumption of parents, especially those who focus so much time and energy on their families. But many of these loving parents are sending rejecting messages long before they realize that their child might be LGBTQ. As a colleague of ours put it:

Having a loving family isn’t enough. Parents need to actually sit down with their kids throughout their youth and specifically say “We will love and be proud of you if you marry a boy or a girl or don’t marry at all. Though missions are important, we know that isn’t always possible for everyone and that’s okay too. We will stand up for you and your choices. We will help you the best we know how, no matter what; even if we don’t understand at first. If at some point your life goals feel different than what we currently know about you, we want to discuss that together and understand what your life direction means to you personally. Not being exactly like us should never cause you to fear us being disappointed in you.” Until that conversation is being had in the homes of every LDS family, we will continue to see LGBTQ people suffer in isolation.[37]

Another important source of despair for LGBTQ youth is the political culture in Utah, which is in many ways a reflection of the LDS Church and Mormon community. The Mormon majority in the Utah legislature is widely perceived to be responsive to what the Church leaders support and the Church regularly influences legislation openly, such as when they supported a compromise that allowed passage of a statewide anti-discrimination bill that gave substantial exemptions based on religion.[38] We also saw the Utah State Senate in March 2016 shoot down a proposal to modify the state’s hate crimes laws to include protections for LGBTQ individuals after the Church opposed the law.[39]

Meanwhile, the Utah state legislature has taken steps which are not encouraging to LGBTQ youth. Utah, along with seven other US states, has a ban on teachers discussing any LGBTQ issues in public schools.[40] This makes it very difficult for schools to adopt measures that will help combat bullying and create a safe learning environment for LGBTQ youth. Marian Edmonds-Allen, Utah’s leading advocate for LGBTQ youth, laments the situation in our schools: “State school board guidelines that prohibit ‘the advocacy of homosexuality’ are directly contributing to risk of suicide for youth, both LGBT and straight. Gay-straight alliances, which have been shown to provide a 50 percent reduction in suicide risk for males, both GBT and straight, are becoming even more rare in Utah.”[41]

As the law now stands in Utah, school counselors are not allowed to address relevant issues with LGBTQ youth who report suicidal thoughts, nor are they allowed to give parents helpful information/resources or even explain the problem when their child is feeling rejected due to their sexual orientation or gender identity.[42] One can see how this puts undue stress on LGBTQ teenagers who are left with nowhere to turn for support.[43]

Even more alarming is the glaring lack of resources for homeless teens. Like the rest of the nation, a disproportionate number of homeless teens in Utah are LGBTQ. Whether gay or straight, their lives in the streets and canyons of Utah are bleak. Until one year ago, there was not a single shelter bed available for these youth, which number up to 1,000 at any point in time. Even now there is only one shelter, and it can house only fourteen youth. Laws that supposedly protect parental rights have made it impossible for any law-abiding citizen to offer shelter to any of these children, which means that to survive these youth often have had to turn to prostitution or exploitation by adults. Drugs become an all-too-common escape from their bleak existence, further increasing their vulnerability and dependence upon their exploiters.

Discussion: Did the New LDS Handbook Policy Impace Suicide Numbers?

In the aftermath of the November 2015 handbook policy change (referred to previously) there were significant anecdotal accounts of increased suicide among LGBTQ Mormon youth.[44] This led many to draw direct causal connections between the two events, arguing that the handbook policy change directly caused several dozen youth suicides in the weeks and months that followed. It is important to remember, though, that there was already a major problem with suicide (as well as depression, homelessness, suicide attempts, and despair) among LGBTQ Mormons before the recent policy was revealed. We argue that a better question to ask would be: Are further rejection and homophobia in our communities increasing depression and despair and consequently intensifying the conditions that contribute to the elevated suicide rate in our community?

As stated above, people in positions of outreach such as the Affirmation leadership and the Mama Dragons leadership found themselves dealing with LGBTQ people in distress and often found themselves spending late nights consoling people who were struggling with suicidal feelings. Due to her high visibility in the media, Wendy Montgomery had already had a constant stream of LDS people reaching out to her around this issue to tell her their stories, seek support, and find resources. After the policy was revealed in November, however, she started getting more and more reports from LDS people reporting an LGBTQ family member had committed suicide. She eventually added up these informal reports and found that there were thirty-two deaths from suicide reported to her between November 6, 2015 and January 17, 2016 (the number rose to thirty-four later that month). When John Gustav-Wrathall, the president of Affirmation, reported Montgomery’s numbers on Affirmation.org,[45] a flury of media attention and debate arose.[46]

The data reported by Wendy Montgomery seem confusing because, while she did get a high number of reports of suicide since November 6, it is hard to square these numbers with the state of Utah, which reports that there were only ten suicides in Utah in November and December of 2015 in the fifteen to nineteen age range.[47] We have to be aware that the state will always underestimate actual suicides for several reasons, especially because it will not consider an overdose or an accident a suicide, even though overdoses and accidents are both very common ways of attempting/completing suicide. The Utah numbers also did not include suicides from out-of-state, outside of the fifteen to nineteen age range, or from January. Therefore, the number of youth and young adults suicides is very likely higher than ten. Since the reports sent to Wendy Montgomery were not solicited, precise statistical information is not possible. She has admitted that the reports were not always precise and did not always state when the suicide took place, so it is possible that some of them took place prior to the policy change, factors that may also contribute to the discrepancy.

In sum, there is no direct empirical evidence that indicates that the handbook policy change actually increased Mormon LGBTQ youth suicides. The other direct, indirect, and anecdotal evidence that we have discussed, though, are compelling and certainly strongly suggest a link between these things. It is not difficult to imagine that the impact of this policy change will continue to be felt strongly by LGBTQ Mormons for the foreseeable future.

As problematic as the policy is in our view, we believe that it is also misguided to focus exclusively on the policy change as the primary causal factor of LGBTQ marginalization in the Mormon community. Instead, we should address all of the factors that lead to the marginalization and family rejection of our LGBTQ youth. Focusing on the policy while ignoring these other factors, would do a disservice to the individuals we are trying to protect. Even if the policy exacerbated the problems facing LGBTQ Mormons, the primary problems have been in place for a very long time.

What Can Be Done?

What the existing research has clearly shown is that the single largest factor contributing to the mental and emotional health of young LGBTQ people is family acceptance versus rejection. The Family Acceptance Project has specifically identified “rejecting behaviors” that are associated with mental and emotional harm to LGBTQ individuals. We would do well to ask ourselves if our families, wards, or communities might be doing any of the following:

1. Not allowing or strongly discouraging a youth from identifying themselves as LGBTQ.
2. Not allowing their child to socialize with other LGBTQ youth.
3. Not allowing their child to participate in supportive organizations that will help the youth cope, such as a GSA.
4. Not addressing bullying that their children face around being per-ceived as LGBTQ.
5. Not protecting their LGBTQ child against derisive comments by uninformed relatives or family friends.
6. Engaging in derisive comments about LGBTQ people or demonizing of LGBTQ people.
7. Not providing a family climate where a child feels safe to come out to their parents.
8. Endorsing statements or comments that make a child fear they will be kicked out of their home or will lose their families if they come out.

The most effective preventions are cheap and easy. We need to educate and support parents and we need to empower our schools to address the needs of our youth. Parents are eager and willing to do what is best for their children. They need to have access to this helpful information through bishops and auxiliary leaders, through mental health providers, and through school counselors. Training needs to happen. Barriers to action need to be removed.

What Should the State Do?

We believe that the state should take more leadership on the issue of LGBTQ and homeless youth. It should participate in efforts to track suicides and suicide attempts and study contributing factors. The state of Utah specifically should lift the “gag rule” so that LGBTQ issues can be discussed in schools and should require schools to adopt anti-bullying programs that have been proven successful in other school districts. It should remove any barriers and promote the creation of school-based GSA (Gay-Straight Alliance) clubs, which have a proven benefit for all students (not just the LGBTQ students). It should seriously address youth homelessness and invest in adequate shelters and remove legal barriers that keep agencies and outreach workers from helping these teens.

What Should the Church Do?

We are going to leave this up to the reader. We have identified the problem. The Church’s role in both the way that LGBTQ issues are handled in Mormon practice, policies, doctrines, and culture, as well as in the legislative process in Mormon-dominant communities, is evident. The Church’s influence in the messages that go to wards and communities about LGBTQ people is, likewise, evident. We hope that Church leaders and members alike will consider the consequences of their positions and rhetoric about LGBTQ issues and find ways to satisfy theological concerns without contributing to the despair and tragedies playing out in the lives of our children.

Conclusion

Any discussion of this issue should take into account whether we are helping or exacerbating the problem. In our opinion, this recent discussion has brought much-needed attention to the issue. Sometimes the discussions have been counter-productive, however. We should not let our focus on one single event, such as the new exclusionary handbook policy, distract us from the numerous issues that lead to distress among our LGBTQ youth. We need to accept that the data we have so far do not allow us to precisely estimate the number of youth suicides driven by the Church’s positions and rhetoric on LGBTQ issues, but we also need to recognize that the evidence points to a serious problem. It also points us toward solutions that are effective and inexpensive.

Furthermore, we should be careful to follow proven guidelines about how to discuss suicide without contributing to suicide contagion. Suicide contagion or “copycat suicide” occurs when one or more suicides are reported in a way that contributes to another suicide.[48] Suicide contagion is a real problem when suicides become high profile. We can and must discuss suicide among our youth, but we need to do it responsibly. We refer readers to ReportingOnSuicide.org for guidance on how to discuss the issue in our online as well as personal conversations. We also recommend resources such as the Family Acceptance Project, I’ll Walk With You, and Affirmation.

Finally, we issue a plea for Church members to be a voice for compassion in their individual wards. Speaking out requires courage, but it also decreases pain and saves lives. You may never know who was saved because of something you said or something you did. But it is important to take a stand, speaking and acting with acceptance, understanding, and love. We have an illness. We have a problem. Let’s implement the cure.

---

Author’s Note: a previous version of this article originally appeared as a blog post by the same name on Rational Faiths, February 25, 2016. Interested readers are invited to see the full blog post since the appendix includes detailed summaries and excerpts of the various studies cited in this article. We extend our sincere appreciation to the following people for providing resources, information, and insights: Dr. Mikle South, Rev. Marian Edmonds-Allen, Kendall Wilcox, Thomas Montgomery, Wendy Montgomery, Lori Burkman, and John Gustav-Wrathall. We especially recognize and thank the late Dr. Phil Rogers for his generous assistance gathering data from the CDC website and providing us with much of the research discussed in this article.

Editor's Note: The Dialogue Foundation provides the web format of this article as a courtesy. There may be unintentional differences from the printed version. For citational and bibliographical purposes, please use the printed version or the PDFs provided online and on JSTOR.

[1] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health."

[2] Stephen T. Russell and Kara Joyner, “Adolescent Sexual Orientation and Suicide Risk: Evidence from a National Study,” American Journal of Public Health 91, no. 8 (2001): 1276–81; Arnold H. Grossman and Anthony R. D’Augelli, “Transgender Youth and Life-Threatening Behaviors,” Suicide & Life-Threatening Behavior 37, no. 5 (2007): 527–37.

[3] Brian Mustanski and Richard T. Liu, “A Longitudinal Study of Predictors of Suicide Attempts among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 42, no. 3 (2013): 437–48.

[4] Caitlin Ryan and Robert A. Rees, Family Education LDS Booklet (San Francisco: Family Acceptance Project, 2012).

[5] Mustanski and Liu, “A Longitudinal Study of Predictors,” 437–48.

[6] Tracy Tang, “Gay-Straight Alliances in Schools Reduce Suicide Risk for All Students,” University of British Columbia, Jan. 20, 2014.

[7] Jennifer Welsh, “Homosexual Teen Suicide Rates Raised in Bad Environments,” LiveScience, Apr. 18, 2011.

[8] Utah Department of Human Services, “State Suicide Prevention Programs,” Oct. 2015.

[9] At the time of this writing, the years 1999 to 2014 were publicly available. We do not see the same doubling of suicide rates in Utah among those aged twenty to twenty-four (although it is higher than the national average in that age cohort), indicating that the rapid increase seems to be limited to high school–aged youth.

[10] Mikle South, “Op-ed: Misuse of Utah Suicide Data Makes It Harder to Address,” Salt Lake Tribune, Feb. 6, 2016.

[11] Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, “Suicide: Risk and Protective Factors,” Aug. 28, 2015.

[12] Mark L. Hatzenbuehler, Anna Bellatorre, Yeonjin Lee, Brian K. Finch, Peter Muennig, and Kevin Fiscella, “Structural Stigma and All-Cause Mortality in Sexual Minority Populations,” Social Science & Medicine 103 (2013): 33–41.

[13] Shannon Firth, “Research: Anti-Gay Stigma Shortens Lives,” U.S. News and World Report, Feb. 19, 2014.

[14] Jason Koebler, “Study: Openly Gay Men Less Likely to Be Depressed Than Heterosexuals,” U.S. News and World Report, Jan. 29, 2013.

[15] Sylvain-Jacques Desjardins, “Physiological Impacts of Homophobia,” EurekAlert!, Feb. 2, 2011.

[16] Kristina R. Olson, Lily Durwood, Madeleine DeMeules, and Katie A. McLaughlin, “Mental Health of Transgender Children Who Are Supported in Their Identities,” Pediatrics, Mar. 2016.

[17] “Homeless and Runaway Youth,” National Conference of State Legislatures, Apr. 14, 2016.

[18] Peggy Fletcher Stack. “Program Aims to Stop Suicide, Homelessness in LGBT Mormon Youth,” Salt Lake Tribune, Mar. 15, 2014.

[19] “State Suicide Prevention Programs,” Utah Department of Human Services, Oct. 2015.

[20] See Google Trends in both United States and Utah, specifically from 2007 to present on LGBTQ topics: https://www.google.com/trends/.

[21] Sterling C. Hilton, Gilbert W. Fellingham, and Joseph L. Lyon, “Suicide Rates and Religious Commitment in Young Adult Males in Utah,” American Journal of Epidemiology 155, no. 5 (2002): 413–19.

[22] John P. Dehlin, Renee V. Galliher, William S. Bradshaw, Daniel C. Hyde, and Katherine Ann Crowell, “Sexual Orientation Change: Efforts Among Current or Former LDS Church Members,” Journal of Counseling Psychology 62, no. 2 (2014): 95–105.

[23] 23.       Jeremy J. Gibbs and Jeremy Gladbach, “Religious Conflict, Sexual Identity, and Suicidal Behaviors among LGBT Young Adults,” Archives of Suicide Research 19, no. 4 (2015): 472–88.

[24] Gibbs and Gladbach, “Religious Conflict,” 11.

[25] Matt McDonald, “LDS Leader’s Comments about Suicides after Policy Change Angers Mama Dragons,” Fox 13, Salt Lake City, Feb. 16, 2016; Jennifer Napier-Pearce, “Trib Talk: Suicide in the Wake of LDS Church’s Policy on Gay Couples,” Salt Lake Tribune, Feb. 1, 2016.

[26] “LGBT Suicides at BYU: Silent Stories,” Understanding Same-Gender Attraction (USGA), Jan. 29, 2016; “‘Just Be There’: A Message of Suicide Awareness and Prevention,” No More Strangers, Oct. 10, 2013; see also Annie Knox, “BYU ranked among the least LGBT-friendly campuses,” Salt Lake Tribune, Aug. 10, 2015.

[27] Of course, anecdotal evidence is not generalizable because of its non-representative sample bias, prejudice, or any number of other factors. However, when the anecdotal evidence becomes massive (as it has to those of us who work directly with LGBTQ Mormons around this issue), then it strongly suggests that something wider may be happening.

[28] Mike Barker has asked a suicidologist, several LGBTQ advocates, two forensic specialists (none of these people questioned are from Utah), and at least one concerned Utah lawmaker if there are any states that perform what is called a “psychological autopsy” with regard to the deceased’s sexuality as part of the suicide investigation. The answer has been no. In an email, Barker received the following response from The Trevor Project when he inquired about state agencies tracking the sexual orientation of those who have died by suicide:

“This project is currently in the pilot phase. The people involved with conduct-ing the National Violent Death Reporting System have developed a protocol for death investigators to determine the sexual orientation and gender identity of the deceased. They are just beginning training the death investigators on this protocol in the first pilot jurisdiction: Las Vegas.”

[29] Personal correspondence by one of the authors with a direct family member who wishes to remain anonymous.

[30] Ann P. Haas, et al., “Suicide and Suicide Risk in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Populations: Review and Recommendations,” Journal of Homosexuality 58, no. 1 (2010): 10–51.

[31] Fausto Fernos, “FOF #2279 – A Tale of Two Mormons,” Feast of Fun, podcast audio, Jan. 27, 2016.

[32] Marion G. Romney, “We Believe in Being Chaste,” Ensign (Sept. 1981).

[33] Boyd K. Packer, “Message to Young Men,” Oct. 1976. It is interesting to note that this is the only talk in the conference whose transcript is not available; only the audio/visual is available.

[34] Examples include the mormonsandgays.org website as well as Elder Oaks’s October 2012 general conference address entitled “Protect the Children,” in which he stated: “Young people struggling with any exceptional condition, including same-gender attraction, are particularly vulnerable and need loving understanding—not bullying or ostracism."

[35] Sarah Pulliam Bailey, “Mormon Church to Exclude Children of Same-Sex Couples from Getting Blessed and Baptized until They Are 18,” The Washington Post, Nov. 6, 2015.

[36] Peggy Fletcher Stack, “Mormon gay policy is the ‘will of the Lord’ through his prophet, senior apostle says,” Salt Lake Tribune, Jan. 10, 2016.

[37] Personal correspondence between Lori Burkman and the authors, Feb. 2016.

[38] Laurie Goodstein, “Utah Passes Antidiscrimination Bill Backed by Mormon Leaders,” The New York Times, Mar. 12, 2015.

[39] Jennifer Dobner, “Senate Kills Hate-Crimes Bill; LGBT Advocates Blame Mormon Church,” Salt Lake Tribune, Mar. 2, 2016.

[40] “State Maps,” Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network.

[41] Marian Edmonds-Allen, “Suicides or Not, LDS Is Harming LGBT Youth,” Advocate, Feb. 3, 2016.

[42] Utah Code, § 53A, 13-302.

[43] See Haas, et al., “Suicide and Suicide Risk.”

[44] Mark Joseph Stern, “The Tragic Results of the Mormon Church’s New Policy Against Gay Members,” Slate, Feb. 8, 2016; Mitch Mayne, “New Mormon LGBT Policy: Putting Already Vulnerable Youth at Even Greater Suicide Risk?,” Huffington Post, Jan. 28, 2016; Peggy Fletcher Stack, “Suicide Fears, If Not Actual Suicides, Rise in Wake of Mormon Same-Sex Policy,” Salt Lake Tribune, Jan. 28, 2016.

[45] John Gustav-Wrathall, “Our Lives Are a Gift—To Us and the World,” Affirmation, Jan. 2016.

[46] See for example Stack, “Suicide Fears”; Tad Walch and Lois M. Collins, “LDS Church Leaders Mourn Reported Deaths in Mormon LGBT Community,” Deseret News, Jan. 28, 2016.

[47] Stack, “Suicide Fears.”

[48] See reportingonsuicide.org and lgbtmap.org.

[post_title] => The LGBTQ Mormon Crisis: Responding to the Empirical Research on Suicide [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 49.2 (Summer 2016): 1–24
The November 2015 LDS handbook policy change that identified mem- bers who participate in same-sex marriages as “apostates” and forbade children in their households from receiving baby blessings or baptisms sparked ongoing attention to the topic of LGBTQ Mormon well-being, mental health, and suicides. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => the-lgbtq-mormon-crisis-responding-to-the-empirical-research-on-suicide [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-12-06 18:42:49 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-12-06 18:42:49 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=18896 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 18897 [post_author] => 3088 [post_date] => 2018-10-24 15:23:10 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-10-24 15:23:10 [post_content] =>

Much has been discussed and written regarding whether or not the rate of LGBT youth suicides[1] in the Mormon community has risen in the wake of the November 2015 handbook policy change that categorizes same-sex married couples as “apostates” and forbids baptism to children in same-sex married households.[2] While there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence supporting this connection, more rigorous empirical data are harder to come by.

In an attempt to address this shortage, my colleagues Daniel Parkinson, Michael Barker, and I have presented a wide range of evidence examining direct, indirect, and anecdotal evidence examining the relationship between Mormon culture/norms/rhetoric and youth suicide rates in the Mormon community, especially among LGBT youths.[3] We conclude that while there is little direct evidence available to be able to conclusively demonstrate that a Mormon environment results in higher levels of youth LGBT suicides, there is sufficient indirect and anecdotal evidence that, when combined with what direct evidence is available, strongly points to a link between these factors.

One of the data points we present in our article is the rate of suicide among youth aged fifteen to nineteen in Utah compared to other comparable states over the past several years. We argue: “Suicide is the number one cause of death of all Utah youth; this is not the case nationally More alarming, the teen suicide rate in Utah has doubled since 2011. . . . While Utah had a doubling of suicides among teens, the rest of the country did not see a substantial increase in their suicide rate.”[4]

This evidence is important and, when considered in light of the other evidence they present, certainly supports the argument that the approach to LGBT issues in the LDS Church are influencing suicide rates among young Mormons. Nevertheless, the analysis is also somewhat limited in that we cannot be certain, as we readily admit, that this relationship is not spurious. That is, it is also possible that there are other factors which happen to be present in Utah that also affect youth suicide rates aside from Mormon religious context on LGBT issues that are more likely to be driving these tragic outcomes. Previous research has identified a number of aggregate factors that affect suicide rates in communities. These include demographic factors like race/ethnicity, age, education, income, and divorce. They also include causes such as population density, altitude, rates of mental illness, and gun ownership.[5]

When there are multiple possible factors associated with a particular outcome (such as youth suicide rates), it is possible to control for these factors by using a statistical tool called “multivariate regression analysis.”[6] In essence, a regression analysis can identify the unique and independent effects of one factor on another while simultaneously controlling for the effect of all the other factors that could also be contributing. Think of it as a set of overlapping circles in a Venn diagram: some circles (possible causal factors) overlap with each other to one degree or another. The multivariate regression analysis can identify the independent effect of the portion of each circle (factor) that has no overlap with any other circle. In this case, we can examine more rigorously the relationship we reported by analyzing the prevalence of Mormonism in a community on suicide rates while statistically controlling for these other factors that also contribute to suicide rates such as demographics, gun ownership, and mental illness.

To perform this analysis, I examine the effect of the proportion of individuals in all US states and the District of Columbia that identify as Mormon on the per-capita rates (per 100,000) of suicide among youths in those states aged fifteen to nineteen in both 2009 and 2014, the latter being the latest year that such data are currently available from the Centers for Disease Control.[7][8] I look at both 2009 and 2014 to see if there is a change during that five-year interval as the disconnect between LDS Church rhetoric and societal views on LGBT issues has arguably diverged more strongly in many ways during that time. (See also our other article in this issue that shows that suicide rates in Utah rates were fairly stable in the years leading up to 2009.)

I obtained the percentage of Mormons in each state from the 2014 Pew Religious Landscape Study.[9] I obtained suicide rates from the Centers for Disease Control. The CDC lists suicide rates in a state only if there are more than ten in any particular year, thus some states are excluded from this analysis. In all, the CDC provides sufficient information so that forty-three states are included in the full statistical analysis for 2009, forty-six states are included for 2014, and forty-two are included in the analysis of the rate of change in suicide rates between 2009 and 2014 (more details below). Here we are able to extend the analysis to the majority of all US states to examine whether these trends are generalizable to the entire country.

For the control variables, I include state-level percentages of black, Latino, Asian, bachelor’s degree, divorced, median income (in thou-sands), and median age as given by the 2014 American Community Survey (one-year estimates) as well as state population density (in thousands). I also include the percentage of LGBT population as the research summarized in our other article in this issue shows a link between LGBT identity and suicide risk. These data come from the Gallup organization.[10] Mental health and depression are also associated with suicide rates, and so I also include the serious mental illness rates among the eighteen to twenty-five population (averaged 2013/2014) per thousand, which is obtained from the Department of Health and Human Services.[11] While the eighteen- to twenty-five demographic is not identical to the fifteen-to-nineteen age group under consideration, it is the closest age group currently available from the DHHS. I also included a measure of state spending on behavioral mental health services (per thousand) per fiscal year 2010 as reported by Governing.com[12] as this was shown to be related to suicide rates at the state level.[13] Gun ownership rates per state were obtained from the 2013 national survey.[14] Finally, research has shown that there is a link between state elevation and suicide rates.[15] Given that the states with the highest percentage of Mormon population are also high-elevation states in the Rocky Mountains, I also include a control variable for the average elevation for each state (measured in thousands of feet).[16]

Empirical Analysis

First, Table 1 presents the correlations between the percentage of Mormons in a particular state and the rates of suicide among fifteen- to nineteen-year-olds in 2009, 2014, and the rate of change in suicide rates in each state during that five-year interval.

Bivariate Correlation Results

	% Mormon	2009 youth suicide rate	2014 youth suicide rate
2009 youth suicide rate	0.01
2014 youth suicide rate	0.41*	0.70*
5-year rate of change, 2009–2014	0.44*	-0.21	0.48*

The numbers in Table 1 are “correlation coefficients” and indicate how closely associated two particular variables are. In social and demo-graphic research, a correlation between 0.30 and 0.50 is considered “moderate to substantial.”[17] An asterisk (*) indicates that the relationship is “statistically significant,” meaning that there is a 95 percent chance that the relationship we observe is real and not due to random sampling error. In other words, relationships that are not statistically significant may simply have appeared at random.[18]

Here we see that there is no statistically significant relationship between the proportion of Mormons in a state and suicide rates among youths aged fifteen to nineteen in 2009. We do see, though, that there is a positive and statistically significant relationship between the two in 2014. This means that suicide rates for fifteen- to nineteen-year-olds in 2014 were higher in states where there was a higher proportion of self-identified Mormons. Note also that the correlation is 0.41, which is a moderately strong relationship for social and demographic variables. We also see a similar correlation between the percentage of Mormons in a state and the rate of increase in suicide rates in a state between 2009 and 2014. This means that the more Mormons there are in a state, the faster the youth suicide rate increased over a five-year period, regardless of the objective levels of suicide rates in both 2009 and 2014.

To examine this visually, consider the following graphs. Figure 1 [Editor’s Note: See PDF, p. 32, for Figure 1] presents per-capita age fifteen to nineteen suicide rates in 2009 and 2014 among all US states for which CDC data are available (i.e., higher than ten suicides per 100,000). The states are ranked left to right in order of proportion of Mormon residents. Note that on the left side of the graph (the states with the highest percentage of Mormons), the difference between the grey bars (youth suicides per capita, 2009) and black bars (youth suicides per capita, 2014) is substantial. Then compare with the bars in the rest of the graph. States with the highest percentage of Mormons tend to have much higher objective youth suicide rates in 2014 as well as higher increases in youth suicide rates over the five-year period.

Next, consider the information presented in Figure 2 [Editor’s Note: See PDF, p. 33, for Figure 2], which plots the percent change in youth suicide rates from 2009 to 2014. Observe the obvious trend line: fi ve-year changes in youth suicide rates increase as a state has an increasingly high proportion of Mormon residents.

As stated previously, we must remember that “correlation does not imply causation.”[19] There could be other factors correlated with both the percentage of Mormons in a state as well as suicide rates for high school-aged youths in states, making the relationship between the two spurious.

Thus, Table 2 presents the results of three multi-variate regression analyses, which determine the association between the percentage of Mormons in a state and youth suicide rates in 2009, 2014, and the five-year rate of change between them.[20]

Table 2: Multivariate Regression Results

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
	2009 youth suicide rates	2014 youth suicide rates	5-year rate of change in youth suicide rates, 2009–2014
	B (SE)	B (SE)	B (SE)
% Mormon	-15.44 (8.18)	21.57 (7.20)*	2.41 (0.76)*
Population density	-1.38 (3.29)	-3.58 (4.07)	-0.21 (0.47)
% black	-13.49 (6.25)*	-18.46 (7.64)*	-0.71 (0.81)
% Latino	-1.39 (8.74)	-6.41 (7.51)	-0.43 (0.61)
% Asian	-0.04 (4.35)	-27.70 (35.88)	4.18 (3.75)
% bachelor’s degree	-30.15 (30.32)	-43.66 (23.88)	1.87 (2.61)
Median age	-0.20 (0.40)	-0.39 (0.42)	-0.02 (0.05)
Median income	0.26 (0.39)	1.30 (0.40)*	0.00 (0.04)
% divorced	-91.39 (47.56)	75.35 (49.01)	4.36 (3.93)
% gun ownership	8.69 (8.05)	25.06 (9.66)*	0.82 (0.76)
% LGBT	-139.90 (68.58)*	74.17 (121.84)	18.62 (10.88)
Serious mental illness	-22.80 (20.94)	6.19 (24.95)	-2.67 (2.82)
Elevation (altitude)	0.61 (0.64)	-0.23 (0.63)	-0.08 (0.06)
Mental health spending	-0.07 (-.57)	2.04 (1.13)	0.05 (0.06)
N	43	46	42
Adjusted R-squared	0.761	0.785	0.504

This is what to pay attention to in Table 2:[21]

1. There are asterisks next to some variables but not others. As explained before, the asterisks indicate that the variable is “statistically significant,” meaning that we are highly confident (at least 95 percent confident in this case) that the relationship between that variable and the outcome variable (the one at the top of the column) holds even after statistically controlling for the other variables in the analysis. The level of confidence is given in a “p-value” which shows the chance that the relationship is not statistically significant; a p-value of 0.05 corresponds to a 95 percent degree of confidence. Smaller p-values thus correspond to a higher degree of confidence.
2. Look at whether the number next to the variable is positive or negative. If it is positive, it means that as that variable increases, so does the outcome variable (in this case, suicide rates). If it is negative, it means that as the variable decreases, the outcome variable (suicide rates) increases.
   First, these results indicate that the proportion of Mormons living in a state is not associated with a higher level of increase in youth suicide rates in 2009, as observed earlier with the correlation analysis.[22]
   Second, even after statistically controlling for a host of other relevant variables, such as demographics, state density, gun ownership, elevation, serious mental illness, etc., the proportion of Mormons in a state is associated with higher levels of youth suicide rates in 2014 (p=0.005). Figure 3 [Editor’s Note: See PDF, p. 37, for Figure 3] shows that, controlling for all these other factors, youth suicide rates increase from 11.1 per 100,000 to 22.9 per 100,000 as the percentage of Mormons moves from its minimum in a state (less than 1 percent) to its maximum in a state (55 percent in Utah). These are objectively small numbers, but it means that (again, controlling for other factors) youth suicides are more than twice as high in states with the highest levels of Mormon residents compared to states with the lowest levels of Mormon residents.[23]
   By way of comparison, the effect of gun ownership on youth suicide rates is roughly a factor of four, specifically an increase from 4.5 to 18.5 per 100,000 as the levels of gun ownership go from their lowest to highest value. Again, to compare, this means that the effect of percentage of Mormons in a state on youth suicide rates is about half that of gun ownership, or in other words, Mormon prevalence in US states doubles youth suicide rates while gun ownership roughly quadruples them.
   Third, even after statistically controlling for a host of other relevant variables such as demographics, state density, gun ownership, serious mental illness, etc., the proportion of Mormons in a state is associated with faster increases in the rate of youth suicides over a five-year period between 2009 and 2014 (p=0.004). Figure 4 [Editor’s Note: See PDF, p. 37, for Figure 4] shows that the rate of change in youth suicides in a state moves from 15.6 percent to 148.4 percent as a state moves from less than 1 percent Mormon to 55 percent Mormon. As we describe in our other article in this issue, suicide rates among Utah youth more than doubled over this five-year period. It is also notable that there are no other factors that reliably predict increases in youth suicide rates during that same time period except for the percentage of Mormons in a given state.

Important Caveats

It is important to specify what this analysis does not say. As we explained in our companion article, it is nearly impossible to accurately measure the sexual orientation of those who commit suicide (as sexual orientation is not included on death certificates). We therefore cannot definitively say one way or the other that the youth suicides recorded by the CDC and used in this analysis are LGBT individuals.

Because this analysis relies on aggregate data, we also cannot definitely say one way or the other what the religious identification of those youths is who committed the suicides reported by the CDC. It may or may not be the case that those youth are Mormons; we cannot say for sure based on this evidence because individual relationships cannot be inferred from aggregate patterns.[24] It is impossible to definitely know from these data, for example, whether a higher percentage of Mormons in a community is associated with more Mormon youth suicides or whether a higher percentage of Mormons in a community is associated with higher non-Mormon youth suicide rates.

Further, these data come only from 2009 and 2014 so we cannot say anything definitive from this evidence alone about the effect of the November 2015 handbook policy change on youth suicide rates in Mormon communities. Only after the CDC reports youth suicide rates for 2015 and 2016 will we be able to speak specifically to that topic.

As an additional check, I repeated each of the correlational and regression analyses presented above, substituting the percentage of Evangelicals and the percentage of weekly church attendance for Mormons. This was to see whether the effects shown above also applied to other religious traditions with conservative LGBT rhetoric and perspectives (percent Evangelical) or whether they applied to religious environments in general (percent weekly church attendance). Neither the percentage of Evangelicals nor the percentage of weekly church-attendance are associated with the three youth suicide variables analyzed above. Further, neither of these variables is predictive of an increase in youth suicides when substituted for the percentage of Mormons in the regression analyses displayed above.[25]

As a final check, I repeated the analyses above, excluding the cases of Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming as they have the highest percentage of Mormon populations in the country (55 percent, 19 percent, and 9 percent respectively as per the Pew 2014 Religious Landscape Study). This was done to determine whether the “outlier” status of Utah, Idaho, or Wyoming was exerting a disproportionate effect on the results of the analysis (all other states have a population of 5 percent or less). When these three states are excluded, the percentage of Mormons is not associated one way or the other with youth suicide rates in 2009, similar to when those states are included. The association in 2014, however, remains somewhat statistically significant (p=0.075). In other words, there is evidence that the relationship between the percentage of Mormons in a community and youth suicide rates in 2014 is still present even when excluding Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming.

As far as the percentage of change in youth suicide rates from 2009 to 2014, excluding Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming from the analysis removes association between Mormon context and five-year rate of change in youth suicide rates. Thus, it appears that the association between the percentage of Mormons and rates of five-year change in youth suicide rates is due exclusively to the relationship specifically in Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming.[26]

Summary

While any empirical analysis has its limitations, what seems evident from the findings described above is this:

1. In 2014, a higher proportion of Mormons in a state was associated with a higher level of suicides among those aged fifteen to nineteen in that state, controlling for a host of other relevant factors that are also linked to aggregate suicide rates. All other things being equal, the presence of Mormon residents in a state more than doubles the rate of youth suicides as the rate of Mormon residents moves from its minimum to maximum value. There is some evidence that this is the case even when excluding Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming.
2. This association did not exist in 2009.
3. The proportion of Mormons in a state is the only factor of all those included in the analysis (including factors most commonly identified as contributing to suicide rates) that is associated with an increase in the rate of youth suicides between 2009 and 2014. As Mormons move from their minimum to maximum population in a state, the rate of increase in high-school-aged suicides moves from 15.6 percent to 148.4 percent. In other words, the more Mormons there are in a state, the faster suicide rates increased between 2009 and 2014. Further analysis indicates that this effect is due primarily to the rate of change in Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming—the three states with the highest Mormon population in the United States.

I stress again that because the CDC does not track the sexual orientation of suicide victims, this evidence does not and cannot show a definitive link between Mormon religious context and LGBT youth suicide rates in the United States. The link between the LDS approach to LGBT issues and LGBT youth suicides is only inferred by these results. This analysis should also in no way be considered the final or definitive word on the topic. While every attempt has been made to identify the relevant factors linked to youth suicide rates in the United States and include them where available in this analysis, it is entirely possible that there is yet some other factor linking these two phenomena together aside from the environment that the LDS Church fosters regarding LGBT issues. Interested observers should offer plausible alternative explanations for this observed relationship and then empirically test them with rigorous social science methodologies, as this is how scientific knowledge is produced. Given the tragic and sensitive nature of this topic, I would think that we should all hope to find support for alternative explanations with additional study, research, and analysis.

In the absence of a compelling alternative explanation and/or evidence, however, the link between LDS rhetoric and approaches to LGBT issues is, in my judgment, the most plausible and compelling offered to date. While these results can only be inferred to support the LDS-LGBT explanation, my colleagues and I have provided a plethora of additional direct, indirect, and anecdotal evidence in our companion article that supports the theorized linking mechanisms for the LDS-LGBT explanation. The evidence presented here provides an additional data point that supports the theorized relationship, making it increasingly difficult (yet not impossible) to reasonably argue that the recent increase in suicides among Mormon LGBT youths are unrelated to the religious context fostered by the LDS Church and its leaders toward the LGBT community.

As a final note, this information and analysis are not intended to condemn, denounce, or “cast stones.” Rather, my objective is to contribute to the conversation on this important topic that quite literally has life-and-death implications. It is clear that there is a problem. The more information we have available to us about its causes, the more effective we can be at crafting an effective solution.

---

Editor's Note: The Dialogue Foundation provides the web format of this article as a courtesy. There may be unintentional differences from the printed version. For citational and bibliographical purposes, please use the printed version or the PDFs provided online and on JSTOR.

Author's Note: A previous version of this article originally appeared as a blog post by the same name on Rational Faiths, March 9, 2016. In the days following its initial release, several online commenters submitted constructive feedback and questions about the article’s statistical results, presentation, and methodology. This feedback prompted several minor revisions that are reflected in the current version of this article. I extend my sincere thanks to the many commenters for their questions and comments, which helped make the revisions reflected in this version. It is important to note, though, that the substantive results from the original version are unchanged.

[1] Peggy Fletcher Stack, “Suicide Fears, If Not Actual Suicides, Rise in Wake of Mormon Same-Sex Policy,” Salt Lake Tribune, Jan. 28, 2016.

[2] Laurie Goodstein, “Mormons Sharpen Stand Against Same-Sex Marriage,” New York Times, Nov. 7, 2015, A11.

[3] See Barker, Parkinson, and Knoll in this issue.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Leonardo Tondo, Matthew J. Albertt, and Ross. J. Baldessarini, “Suicide Rates in Relation to Health Care Access in the United States: An Ecological Study,” Journal of Clinical Psychology 67, no. 4 (2006): 517–23; Namkug Kim, Jennie B. Mickelson, Barry E. Brenner, Charlotte A. Haws, Deborah A. Yurgelun-Todd, and Perry F. Renshaw, “Altitude, Gun Ownership, Rural Areas, and Suicide,” The American Journal of Psychiatry 168, no. 1 (2011): 49–54; Matthew Miller and David Hemenway, “Guns and Suicide in the United States,” New England Journal of Medicine 359 (2008): 989–91.

[6] Larry D. Schroeder, David L. Sjoquist, and Paula E. Stephan, Understanding Regression Analysis: An Introductory Guide (New York: Sage, 1986); Amy Gallo, “A Refresher on Regression Analysis,” Harvard Business Review, Nov. 4, 2015.

[7] These data are from the “Injury Prevention & Control: Data & Statistics: Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System,” Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

[8] Suspecting that suicide rates among the fifteen to nineteen age group might represent an overly narrow segment of the youth population, I repeated all these analyses for state suicide rates among the ten to twenty-nine age group in each state and the link between the percentage of Mormons and suicide rates disappeared entirely. This means that the link between the percentage of Mormons in a state and youth suicide rates is limited specifically to the high-school-aged group fifteen to nineteen.

[9] These data are from the “Religious Landscape Study,” PEW Research Center, Religion and Public Life.

[10] Gary J. Gates and Frank Newport, “LGBT Percentage Highest in D.C., Lowest in North Dakota,” Gallup, Feb. 15, 2013.

[11] These data are from the “Population Data / NSDUH,” Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, United States Department of Health and Human Services.

[12] These data are from “Mental Health Spending: State Agency Totals,” Governing: The States and Localities.

[13] Tondo, et al., “Suicide Rates in Relation to Health Care Access,” 517–23.

[14] Bindu Kalesan, Marcos D. Villarreal, Katherine M. Keyes, and Sandro Galea, “Gun Ownership and Social Gun Culture,” Injury Prevention, 2015.

[15] Barry Brenner, David Cheng, Sunday Clark, and Carlos A. Camargo, Jr., “Positive Association between Altitude and Suicide in 2,584 U.S. Counties,” High Altitude Medicine & Biology 12, no. 1 (2011): 1–5.

[16] I originally also included the percentage of weekly church-going in each state as a control variable on the logic that environments that are more religious in general would also possibly contribute to youth suicide rates. This variable was removed, though, due to multi-collinearity as percent-Mormon and percent-weekly church-going are very highly correlated. This is a standard solution to dealing with a multi-variate analysis when two or more variables are highly correlated. See David A. Belsley, Edwin Kuh, and Roy E. Welsch, Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity (John Wileyand Sons, 1980). I also originally included the percentage of rural population in each state as per the 2010 Census as research has shown that suicide rates tend to be higher in rural areas. See Jameson K. Hirsch, “A Review of the Literature on Rural Suicide,” Crisis 27, no. 4 (2006): 189–99. Again, this caused an unacceptable amount of multi-collinearity in the model as the percentage rural is very highly correlated with several of the other variables in the model (specifically percentage Latino, percentage Asian, median income, percentage of bachelors’ degrees, and percentage of gun ownership) and thus percentage rural is not included in these models.

[17] David de Vaus, Analyzing Social Science Data: 50 Key Problems in Data Analysis (New York: Sage, 2002).

[18] For a more comprehensive explanation, see “What Does Statistically Significant Mean?” MeasuringU.

[19] Herbert A. Simon, “Spurious Correlation: A Causal Interpretation,” Journal of the American Statistical Association 49, no. 267 (1954): 467–79.

[20] A Breusch–Pagan/Cook–Weisberg test revealed an unacceptable amount of heteroscedasticity in all three models and so robust standard errors are used as a corrective in each case. After excluding the variables that contributed to multi-collinearity (see n 16), VIF scores for each model were all in the acceptable range of less than 4.0.

[21] For a primer on how to interpret regression statistics, see Jim Frost, “How to Interpret Regression Analysis Results: P-values and Coefficients,”  The Minitab Blog,  Jul. 1, 2013.

[22] If anything, there is some weak evidence that a higher percentage of Mormons in a state is actually associated with a lower proportion of youth suicide rates in 2009 as the significance value for that variable is p=0.07 in Model 1.

[23] Note also the lines around each of the points in Figures 3 and 4 which indi-cate the “confidence intervals” or “margin of error.” This is the range for which we are 95 percent confident that the relationship between the two variables is present. Due largely to the decreasing number of states with a high percentage of a Mormon population, the margin of error gets higher as the percentage of Mormons increases.

[24] Inferring individual-level relationships from aggregate patterns is called the “ecological fallacy.” This is a common misinterpretation of statistical data where one assumes that a relationship present in a group or community applies at the individual level. As a very basic example, we might observe that a particular neighborhood is 50 percent female and 50 percent Democratic and assume that each female is also a Democrat when in reality we cannot tell from only the aggregate information. It may also be the case that half of the females (25 percent of the whole) are Democrats and 25 percent of the males (25 percent of the whole) are also Democrats. The 25 percent female Democrats plus 25 percent male Demo-crats equal 50 percent Democrats in the whole, which is a very different pattern than our original assumption, which was based only on aggregate patterns. See Steven Piantadosi, David P. Byar, and Sylvan B. Green, “The Ecological Fallacy,” American Journal of Epidemiology 127, no. 5 (1988): 893–904.

[25] In fact, there is some weak evidence that the percentage of Evangelicals actually decreases the rate of youth suicides in 2014 (p=0.10) and also the five-year rate of change between 2009 and 2014 (p=0.05). This effect, though, could be an artifact of the reality that more Mormons in a state is correlated with fewer Evangelicals in a state. Including both the percentage of Mormons and the percentage of Evangelicals in the regression models leaves both variables statistically insignificant. The variable for the percentage of Mormons in 2014, however, is significant at p=0.013, as are the percentage of Mormons and five-year rate of change (p=0.067).

[26] The CDC did not report youth suicide rates for Wyoming in 2009 because the rate was lower than ten per 100,000. To check these results, including/excluding Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming, I generated a conservative estimate for the 2009 rate at ten in Wyoming that would create the lowest possible rate of change.

[post_title] => Youth Suicide Rates and Mormon Religious Context: An Additional Empirical Analysis [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 49.2 (Summer 2016): 25–44
Much has been discussed and written regarding whether or not the rate of LGBT youth suicides in the Mormon community has risen in the wake of the November 2015 handbook policy change that categorizes same-sex married couples as “apostates” and forbids baptism to children in same-sex married households. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => youth-suicide-rates-and-mormon-religious-context-an-additional-empirical-analysis [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-08-05 15:15:05 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-08-05 15:15:05 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=18897 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 18898 [post_author] => 3829 [post_date] => 2018-10-24 15:23:36 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-10-24 15:23:36 [post_content] =>

The Art of Queering Boundaries in LDS Communities

Roni Jo Draper

I am the mother of a queer son. I am also an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as well as a professor at Brigham Young University, where I teach courses in literacy education, educational research methods, and multicultural education. I was raised in a biracial home and converted to the LDS faith when I was nineteen. I think it is important to understand that I was raised neither Mormon nor homophobic. It is also important to understand that my queer son was not born to me, but rather sought out our home after coming out and needing a safe place to live and be loved. My goal today is to disrupt the notion of boundary maintenance, given who I am as an LDS woman and mother of a queer son. I would like to suggest, instead, queering the boundaries that we make and maintain.

Allow me to begin by sharing some of the challenges faced by mothers of LGBTQ individuals. (I assume this is the case for other people who love and support LGBTQ folks, but I will speak from the experience of being a mother.) When my son came out to me, he was not out to the world. I promised him that the only person I would tell was my husband and I left it up to my son to tell my other sons and the rest of the world. Therefore, while I was completely supportive of my son, I felt isolated by his coming out.

I could not find answers immediately within my faith community, as discussions of LGBTQ lives seemed forbidden in Church settings. I hit a boundary. I also did not know where to meet LDS LGBTQ individuals, a community that I assumed existed but I didn’t know how to access it (or even if it was proper for me to do so). I didn’t know anything about the boundaries of this community.

Thus, I initially looked for online resources and found very little that seemed to speak to me as a mother. I buried myself in the literature about LGBTQ individuals, depression, helping a loved one with suicide ideation, and what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints taught about being gay and Mormon. As an academic, I took profound interest in queer theory (and as an educator I gravitated toward queer pedagogy). I worked within my own boundaries as a person with access to the internet, as an LDS woman, and as an academic.

I found some answers. I also found ways to insert myself into the LDS LGBTQ community and conversation. I have also participated to some degree within the larger LGBTQ conversation as an academic. And thus I find myself testing boundaries of various communities, relying on the good will of others to accept me as a member of those communities.

In August of last year, I wrote in my journal:

I recognize at once that I am not queer. And when I am in the queer community I am wholly aware that I am an interloper and a guest. I recognize also that my views [on LGBTQ matters] mark me as someone to be feared or at least handled with care among some members of the ward or even my colleagues [at the university]—communities to which I have belonged without fear in the past. And so I move within those communities with a degree of caution in order to protect my own soul.

I feel my place in both communities is tenuous and conditional. And that is a bit hard on my heart. I have considered getting out of the fight.  This is not my fight is a thing I say to myself as justification to walk away to the comforts of my community, to my established scholarship, and my settled soul. This fight came to you is a thing I am reminded of as I stay. I realize that there is no comfort in my community until this fight is won. I realize that I can use my scholarship in this fight. I realize that this is my soul work.

And so I find myself somewhat uncomfortably occupying this space between: between peace and complete disarray, between faith and utter disbelief, between hope and crushing despair, between my desire to fight and my desire to surrender in defeat.

I have found queer theory useful in helping me make sense of these binaries, and boundaries, and the points in between. Challenging my own identity, for instance, as an insider or outsider has been a disruptive project. Queer theory invites me to ask questions of identity and how “normal” is produced and reproduced within communities. Moreover, rather than focusing on “identities in need of repair or as the problem,”[1] queer theory shifts my focus of inquiry toward the larger society’s need to define, produce, and protect “normal” by rejecting anything that appears to be deviant.

For me as a straight, cisgender person, queer theory offers a way to consider my shifting identity as an LDS woman away from a more mainstream point within Mormonism (an identity that I would have rejected even prior to my son’s arrival in our family) and toward an identity as an LDS woman who finds herself outside of what would be considered “mainstream.” Queer theory allows me to move away from viewing queer identities, including my own emerging queer identity, as problematic. (I realize the trouble with identifying myself as queer given that I identify as a straight, cisgender person; however, my work interrogating and seeking to transgress gender and sexuality norms invites a queer identity, even while I reject a desire to pass as queer in queer spaces.)[2] Rather, queer theory allows me to examine the problems in the various communities I occupy and that have located queer bodies, desires, and lives as “other” or outside the boundary that encompasses normal. As such, my own sense of normalization itself has become the subject of my analysis and I have begun to see my inclusion and exclusion from various communities as a problem of culture and thought.

This allows me the freedom to see myself, not as a person who is broken or in need of some special treatment—indeed I needn’t be pitied or celebrated or perhaps, even understood—but as a person who is part of a larger community of humans who have unquestioningly accepted normal, and conversely, as a person who has also rejected people who might find themselves outside the confines of normal. Indeed, I can’t help but understand my own complicity in nominalizing those around me by creating a community that both produces and rejects some individuals. Like all of us, I am a boundary maker and maintainer.

All the while I understand that (as I have pointed out before) taking up a straight, cisgender identity as part of a queer community also challenges the limits and boundaries of queerness—something that I cannot do on my own. Indeed, to take up a non-mainstream LDS position (a position that isn’t unique to mothers of LGBTQ kids, I understand) within an LDS community or to take up a straight, cisgender position within a queer community does not simply necessitate my own desire to do so. It also requires the permission of the community to expand its borders to include someone like me. Thus, I must work both as an individual and as a member of the community to offer an alternative to normal and to create a community in which my particular variety of normal is included.

Intellectually, I knew that I could not be the only LDS mother of a queer kid. But finding those other mothers proved to be very difficult. About a year after my son came out, I found the Mama Dragons group (which had about twenty members at the time). The group has now grown to over 800 members. Last year I interviewed forty-five of them. I was interested in their stories, both out of curiosity and out of a desire to know if my journey as an LDS mother (of another woman’s child) was “normal” (perhaps a selfish act as an academic).

What I found were stories of mothers who were both fierce and humble, loving and angered, determined and scared, and faithful and doubtful. I could relate so well to the paradoxes they held comfortably, albeit loosely. They told stories of shifting their gospel focus away from the doctrine of strict obedience and toward an understanding of agency from an eternal perspective. They told stories of caring less about eternal consequences and who might accompany them to the celestial kingdom and caring more about the current temporal and spiritual needs of their LGBTQ children. They told stories of how they worried less about fol-lowing the words of prophets with exactness and, instead, took comfort in the working of the Spirit within themselves that stirred them to action for both their own children and for other people’s children. Their stories filled me with hope and courage as a mother, as a member of the LDS community, and as a worker to make the world a better place.

With the Mama Dragons, I have found community. With them I experience a sense of belonging. With them, I am completely normal. With them, I needn’t exist on some boundary at the risk of being rejected or expelled. My feelings are valued. My goals are valued. The ways in which I work to keep my family safe and whole are valued. And the ways I affirm my son and his life are valued. I am safe to feel joy for his relationship with his boyfriend. I am safe to feel anger with a new policy. I am safe to help a Mama accept a new name for her trans kid. I am safe to share ideas for how to make the world safer and more welcoming for LGBTQ individuals.

With that said, the Mama Dragons is not completely an inclusive group. Men, for instance, are not welcome to join (there is another group for them). I also know that not all LDS women of LGBTQ kids have felt safe with the Mama Dragons. Members of the group can be, at times, crass and their anger toward the Church often comes out in biting commentary. And so some women leave. The Mama Dragons certainly create and maintain their own boundaries.

Meanwhile, the Mama Dragons community lives on the boundaries of the LDS community and is often viewed with suspicion and fear. Similarly, the Mama Dragons live on the boundaries of the LDS LGBTQ community and again is often viewed with suspicion and fear. But the community exists, nevertheless, and is a place of refuge for many mothers who suddenly find themselves on a path that they had not prepared for themselves. For many LDS mothers who find themselves working to make sense of what they could not bear to know[3]—about their child, about their relationships, and about their Church—the Mama Dragons represents a community whose boundaries are just right.

I suppose the point I would like to make is that individuals take up difficult work as boundary makers, maintainers, and crossers (something that I am somewhat comfortable with as a biracial, female academic, LDS convert, working mother—I have always found myself crossing many borders).

Thus, each of us must do careful work to understand our efforts as makers of boundaries—why do we make the boundaries we do? How do those boundaries serve to protect us? How do those boundaries harm us or cut us off from people who would contribute to our well-being? We must examine our work in maintaining boundaries—why do we feel threatened when our boundaries are challenged? How much effort do we put into protecting the boundaries that we have created? Are those efforts worth it when we consider the consequences? And we must take up the work of queering boundaries—what might we gain by stretching our boundaries? What does the community stand to gain by including those outside the boundary? What are our limits with regard to inclusivity?

Ultimately, communities must take up the important work of questioning the boundaries they make, the efforts they place in protecting and maintaining those boundaries, and how those boundaries serve to exclude goodness and stunt the growth of the community.

This work begins with imagination, a topic for another day.

---

Note: The Dialogue Foundation provides the web format of this article as a courtesy. There may be unintentional differences from the printed version. For citational and bibliographical purposes, please use the printed version or the PDFs provided online and on JSTOR.

[1] William G. Tierney and Patrick Dilley, “Constructing Knowledge: Educational Research and Gay and Lesbian Studies” in Queer Theory in Education, ed. William F. Pinar (New York: Routledge, 1998), 54.

[2] See Annette Schlichter, “Queer at Last?: Straight Intellectuals and the Desire for Transgression,” GLQ: Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 10, no. 4 (2004): 543–64.

[3] Deborah P. Britzman, “Is There a Queer Pedagogy? Or, Stop Reading Straight,” Educational Theory 45, no. 2 (1995): 151–65.

[post_title] => The Art of Queering Boundaries in LDS Communities [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 49.2 (Summer 2016): 45–50
"I am the mother of a queer son. I am also an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as well as a professor at Brigham Young University, where I teach courses in literacy education, educational research methods, and multicultural education." [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => the-art-of-queering-boundaries-in-lds-communities [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-08-05 20:38:41 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-08-05 20:38:41 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=18898 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 18899 [post_author] => 1938 [post_date] => 2018-10-24 15:24:00 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-10-24 15:24:00 [post_content] =>

I joined the Church at a very young age and grew up attending meetings without my family—who were, by and large, not religious. One of my earliest memories is walking home from school with Ricky, my next-door neighbor and playmate. We were just coming up on the gate that connected the schoolyard to the gravel road I lived on. We were talking about what we wanted to be when we grew up. I don’t remember what he said, but his father was a border patrol officer, so I assume he said something like “police officer” or “FBI agent.” When my turn came, I said—with conviction—“a wife.” Ricky’s eyes grew wide, and I knew then and there that I’d crossed a line. I was quick-witted for an eight-year-old and brushed it all off as a joke (ha! ha!) and spent the next few minutes talking earnestly about how much I wanted to be an architect.

Of course, I didn’t really want to be a wife. But I was eight years old, and in my mind, if all I really wanted from the future was a husband, then that must mean that I wanted to be a wife.

I never crossed that line again. Instead, I buried whatever had blossomed that beautiful spring morning. Of course, buried things refuse to stay buried—especially beautiful things like love. Still, it wasn’t until fifteen years later that I once again dared to utter something so very close to my heart. It was 3:00 am on a Sunday morning and I was up late with a neighbor talking about what we wanted to be when we grew up (I sense a pattern here), and out of the blue he asked the question I hadn’t dared ask myself:

“Harry,” he said. “Are you gay?”

I mumbled “yes” and then quickly excused myself—“it’s late and I’ve got church in the morning.”

Today, I’m an out gay man and an active member of my ward. I serve in the Elders Quorum presidency, I organize our annual chili cook-off, and I’m the priesthood chorister. In my profile on mormon.org, I say:

As a gay man who understands that my orientation is a gift and not a curse, I’ve often been asked how it is that I could possibly be part of a Church that so thoroughly misunderstands who I am and my value in the eyes of my Father in Heaven. It’s hard, I say. I pray for change . . .  but I also pray for patience. I was born gay . . . and I chose to be Mormon. And being Mormon is a choice I make every day. It’s not always an easy choice—but it’s mine.

The Church is a work in progress. Just like me.

I am, you might say, intimately familiar with the myriad boundaries imposed on queer members of the Church. I am, I must confide, painfully aware of their costs.

This is the final session of a three-day conference on boundary making and keeping as it pertains to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I’m sure you’ve heard plenty of boundary metaphors—walls, fences, lines in the sand. So I’ll skip the beautiful one I’d crafted, using Mississippi River levees . . . and, instead, just jump to the pay-off:

Boundaries are morally neutral. They keep things in, they keep things out. Sometimes they keep the right things in and the right things out, and sometimes they don’t. And almost always there are unintended  consequences. Talking about these consequences is important. It helps us evaluate and improve the boundary. Responsible gatekeepers and wall builders take stock of the boundaries they maintain. Responsible gatekeepers and wall builders take notice of problems.

The Policy of Exclusion (The POX)

On the afternoon of Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 2:59 p.m., John Dehlin of Mormon Stories fame posted the following to Facebook:

Hearing credible rumor (acknowledging it’s just a rumor at this point) of a new definition of LDS Apostasy that now specifically includes same-gender marriage as grounds for apostasy.

Fourteen minutes later, he confirmed the rumor with a screenshot of the change. In short order, additional details were added, namely that children of such couples were to be denied baptism and other blessings of membership.

What followed was a storm of epic proportions.

For the first few hours, I watched as defenders of the faith argued vigorously that this was a stunt or hoax by Dehlin to defame the Church. The Church, they argued, would never do such a thing. But as more details came out and as news outlets got around to the business of fact-checking the story, the song changed and suddenly the Church—which couldn’t possibly do such a thing—was on God’s errand.

It was a sight to behold.

The texts, messages, and phone calls began to stream in and did not stop for a solid week. I and so many of my brothers and sisters in Christ were in shock and we were seeking each other out—“Did you hear?”; “Are you okay?”

The next morning, I posted something to my Facebook wall that was picked up by my friends at By Common Consent, a Mormon group blog:

As I lay here this morning, awash in a flood of emotion—shock, dismay, disappointment, fear—I am coming to the idea that last night’s policy announcement was a profound betrayal. Not the hot betrayal of animus, but the cold betrayal of studied indifference.

Yes, it feels like animus. It looks like animus, but it smells like the well-oiled machinery of an inhuman bureaucracy—grinding away. And this morning, I am mustering what strength I have to whisper to myself “the worm forgives the plough.”

***

To my friends who have left and to my friends who are now leaving: I understand; being a part of the Kingdom of God isn’t supposed to hurt this much. You’ll be sorely missed—perhaps not by shepherds who should know better, but by me, at least . . . and by others, who notice when virtue goes out of them.

***

I’ve said, elsewhere, that being a Mormon is a choice I make every day. Today is a hard day to choose . . . but today I choose to stay. The Church is traveling through new territory . . . and the roads out here can be brutal. Last night, our wagon lost a wheel.

Yet I have hope. The Promised Land is out there. A land where the full spectrum of godly love is embraced. . . . Where families of all stripes are nurtured by the good word of God, as they go about magnifying their holy calling.

To borrow a phrase from our cousins in faith: Next year in Jerusalem.[1]

My heart had been cut out and this was the best I could do. The Policy of Exclusion—P, O, X—was real.

The Church’s public relations apparatus creaked into action and did what it could to manage the story—including a half-hearted attempt to describe the Policy of Exclusion as a blessing for the children involved. I’ll set aside the question of whether or not the Policy of Exclusion was in any way inspired. I’ll also set aside the real consequences for the families targeted by the policy. I will, instead—ever so briefly—discuss the fallout from this clumsy act of boundary making and keeping.

1) There have been and will continue to be suicides as a result of the Policy of Exclusion and the climate it fosters. The numbers are hard to come by (for obvious reasons), but there are already confirmed deaths.

2) Professional and armchair apologists are already distorting core doctrines of the Church to make space for this heretofore unimaginable act of cruelty. It began with frightening speed just a couple hours after John Dehlin’s post and continues to this day: baptism, the line goes, can wait; the gift of the Holy Ghost isn’t as essential for children as we’ve been led to believe. What’s worse, perhaps? If the policy rob-bing Black saints of the blessings of the priesthood is any indication, the harm done by post-hoc theories justifying the unjustifiable will outlive the policy by decades—zombie doctrines unwilling to die, perpetuated by a Church unwilling to apologize.

3) This hastily written policy will continue to be a source of opera-tional confusion unless and until the Church rescinds and/or rewrites the policy. As anyone who’s ever been in a bishopric knows, letters of clarification fade quickly from memory—stuffed into the back of the battered old binder that holds the Handbooks of Instruction. If it’s not printed in the Handbook, mentioned in the table of contents, and listed in the index, it’s lost to the ages.

And, finally . . .

4) The policy is already driving away the tender-hearted among us. In the hours and days after the leak, I was sought out by countless friends and acquaintances who needed someone to talk to—someone understanding, someone safe. I spoke to ward and stake leaders from my area, to children of General Authorities, to faithful Latter-day Saints of every stripe—each and every one in utter dismay. Some had asked to be released from callings, others turned down callings that had just been extended. One friend—the son of senior Church leadership—was being considered for a significant position in his area, and found himself praying for the call not to come. And then, on Sunday, December 13, 2015 at stake conference, my stake president held up a stack of white papers and commented that since November 5, 110 stake members had resigned. And for every one person I know who has resigned, I know ten who are on life support.

Praxis of Erasure

On February 23 of this year, Elder Bednar of the Quorum of the Twelve attended a regional meeting in Chile, where he participated in a question-and-answer session. One question in particular caught the world’s attention: How can homosexual members of the church live (and remain steadfast) in the gospel?

Elder Bednar’s response was somewhat lengthy, but led with this: “First, I want to change the question. There are no homosexual members of the Church.” Elder Bednar continued: “We are not defined by sexual attraction. We are not defined by sexual behavior. We are sons and daughters of God. And all of us have different challenges in the flesh.”[2] The rest of his response builds upon this premise. If you have a chance, I recommend listening to his answer in its entirety. As you consider his response, it’s important to know that Elder Bednar has answered similar questions, in other settings, in much the same way.

I don’t know his intent in building this wall where and how he did, but here’s the bottom line: in those few moments, Elder Bednar effectively erased the lived experience of hundreds of thousands of members of the Church, a rhetorical sleight of hand that will only ever be used against queer members of the Church because other scenarios are “preposterous.” Who, after all, would think to say that there were no Blacks in the church, or single people, or women . . . who, indeed?

Shifting Sands

So there’s exclusion and erasure and then there is this curious tug-of-war that we see regarding the scope and shape of hope. It’s a tug-of-war with several fronts:

1980

You’re a seventeen-year-old young man who is attracted to other men your age. You’ve never acted on it. You’ve read President Spencer W. Kimball’s The Miracle of Forgiveness, you’ve read Elder Packer’s talk “To the One,” and you’ve heard the snide remarks by the adults in your life, and it’s perfectly clear: homosexuality is a sin next to murder. You’ve heard comments about tying a millstone around a sinner’s neck as an act of blood atonement, and you’ve thought many times about ending it all. But against your better judgment, you decide to talk to your bishop. He’s a great guy—a spiritual giant—who has been with you at every important intersection of your life. You want some guidance, some reason to live. Unbeknownst to you, a kid in the next stake over was just excommunicated for having just this type of conversation. But you luck out: your bishop sits you down, then he sits down behind his large desk, putting as much room between you and himself as politely possible. He then promises you that if you complete an honorable mission, return and marry a good girl, all will be forgiven. He reminds you that with God all things are possible—if you have faith.

2016

You’re a seventeen-year-old young man who is attracted to other men your age. You’ve never acted on it. A few of your friends at school are out of the closet, and you’re wondering whether you should come out yourself—and what your future might look like. On one hand, you’ve visited mormonsandgays.org, read every page, and watched every interview; you’ve heard President Uchtdorf ’s multiple calls for a large and inclusive approach to building the kingdom of God; you’ve heard about the gay-straight alliance at BYU; and you know the Church was active in passing statutes in Utah that protected LGBT persons from discrimination in housing and employment. On the other hand, you remember President Packer’s talks, and Elder Oaks’s, and President Nelson’s; you’ve watched as the Church has called for the children of gay couples to be denied the blessings that you—a gay kid—have so richly cherished; and then you cringe as you watched Elder Bednar declare that there are no homosexuals in the Church. You know that this is something about yourself that will never change. Not in this life, at least.

***

In the first scenario, you have soul-damning condemnation of your very being coupled with a glib promise that you’ll be cured as long as you toe the line and have faith—a festering heap of hurt iced over with empty promises and false hope. In the second scenario you have brief glimpses of radiant hope, obscured by constant, damning reminders of your place as a second-class citizen in the Kingdom of God. Sure you’re welcome, but . . .

So, in the last three decades the Church has abandoned the carrot but kept the stick.

In Our Lovely Oubliette

Today, queer members like me, who remain, and queer children who have no choice in the matter are perpetual strangers in our own wards and homes: encouraged (or commanded) to stay, but otherwise told to bury our brightest emotions and sit out life’s greatest moments—the walls of our faith shutting us up into well-furnished and cozy oubliettes.

What a haunting word, oubliette—French for “the forgotten place”—these small dungeons were meant as places to secret away troublesome enemies of the state. But look! Mine has a cozy chair, a small library, and large (but sturdy) windows. Outside, children play as if cheered on by the upbeat chords of Eliza R. Snow’s “In Our Lovely Deseret,” which proclaims:

In our lovely Deseret,
Where the Saints of God have met,
There’s a multitude of children all around. They are generous and brave;
They have precious souls to save;
They must listen and obey the gospel’s sound.

But through the thick glass, the music slows and strikes a minor key . . .  and new lyrics speak to the irony of a Church that celebrates children and reveres the family, but willingly sacrifices so many of its children and families on the fires of Molech.

But I refuse to be forgotten, so I refuse to be silent. I work for that day the writer of Proverbs envisioned: “Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life” (Proverbs 13:12). A tree, which Nephi described as bearing the fruit of God’s eternal love.

Thank you.

---

Author's Note: These remarks were given at the Mormon studies conference “Mormonism and the Art of Boundary Maintenance” at Utah Valley University on April 13, 2016. In crafting my remarks, I focused almost entirely on the gay experience—because that is what I know best. And while I hope that my comments shed some light upon the experiences of the larger queer com-munity, I understand that such comparisons can only go so far. Lesbians, trans persons, bisexuals will each have had different lived experiences, and queer persons of color, more different still.

Also, while I talk about the Policy of Exclusion in terms of how it plays out with regard to members of the queer community, it would be criminal if we forgot that it was modeled closely on the secret policy of exclusion targeting children of polygamist families. Let’s not forget these innocent victims as we move toward undoing the damage wrought on November 5th.

Editor's Note: The Dialogue Foundation provides the web format of this article as a courtesy. There may be unintentional differences from the printed version. For citational and bibliographical purposes, please use the printed version or the PDFs provided online and on JSTOR.

[1] D Christian Harrison, “Yet I Have Hope,” By Common Consent, Nov. 6, 2015.

[2] “Preguntas y Respuestas con Elder Bednar 23 feb 2016 Area Sudamerica,” YouTube video. The relevant section begins at 41:47.

[post_title] => In Our Lovely Oubliette: The Un/Intended Consequences of Boundary Making & Keeping from a Gay Mormon Perspective [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 49.2 (Summer 2016): 51–60
"Of course, I didn’t really want to be a wife. But I was eight years old, and in my mind, if all I really wanted from the future was a husband, then that must mean that I wanted to be a wife." [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => in-our-lovely-oubliette-the-un-intended-consequences-of-boundary-making-keeping-from-a-gay-mormon-perspective [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-08-05 20:53:40 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-08-05 20:53:40 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=18899 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 18900 [post_author] => 3560 [post_date] => 2018-10-24 15:24:27 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-10-24 15:24:27 [post_content] =>

The photographs and essays featured in this issue of Dialogue come from Kimberly Anderson’s Mama Dragon Story Project: A Collection of Portraits and Essays from Mothers Who Love Their LGBT+ Children. Mama Dragons is a support and advocacy group promoting “healthy, loving, and supporting environments for mothers of LGBTQIA children.” They seek to protect and defend their LGBT+ children against the dogma inflicted by both religion and society. The Mama Dragons are predominantly Mormon or have a Mormon background, but all mothers are welcome, including those who have abandoned organized religion altogether. They aim to share and educate. She has photographed nearly eighty Mama Dragons within eight western states since February 2015. Using an old portrait lens from 1907 and 5x7 Tri-X film, Anderson makes AZO contact prints in a darkroom.

Her goal is to show these women without the slickness of digital technology. Just as they have an unconditional love for their kids, she accepts them as they come to the camera. The “average-ness” of this group of women serves to underscore just how widespread their stories are. The book features full-page images of the women with essays they wrote themselves. Their words bring to light some very real issues they face when their children finally come out to them. Confronted by the knowledge that their children identify with something outside cultural and religious norms, these women now must make a choice. For some it is easy, for others it is tragically difficult. Many of their stories are filled with heartbreak and sadness, while others are overflowing with love for their children as well as reconciliation with God. All express the unconditional acceptance and love of a true mother’s heart. The portraits themselves serve as a conduit to help the viewer want to learn more about each woman’s journey. Anderson’s goal is for the women’s fierce and loving voices and faces testify that hearts can be touched, attitudes can be changed, and lives can be saved.

Carla Brown—Atlanta, Georgia

“Mom, I’m gay.” Even two years later I can still remember that moment. The sun was beaming down and my porch was warm, but I suddenly felt like I could not feel the warmth anymore. I remember saying, as if I were looking from outside my body, “Are you sure?” I so regret those words; of course he knew he was gay! The next hour is in bits and pieces. I know that I told him that I loved him no matter what, and that everything would be all right because I would always be with him. That’s what came from my mouth, and I meant each word, but inwardly my heart was breaking.

Questions came at me at a fierce pace. Had I known and refused to see it? How will my family react? They are of Spanish and Italian descent and not open-minded. The “what will people think” of the Southern society suddenly seemed so huge. I had always thought of myself as a modern woman, but I was ashamed of what friends, family, and church would think of me as a parent. Would I be blamed for this? Why not when I was blaming myself? What had I done, or not done, to cause this in my child? I barely slept. I felt pain that I had not felt before.

I reached out to the one person I believed would give me the support and answers that I needed. I called my bishop and requested a meeting. I needed guidance, and he is the person I had gone to in the past to find solace. My bishop was kind but honestly shocked and clearly uncomfortable with my news. I poured out my fears and pain and I got nothing in return. He actually said that he had nothing to offer me. This was not something he had any knowledge of. I left his office feeling angry and disappointed. I went home and I railed at God. Why me? Why my child? How do we fit in your plan? I went through days of anger and confusion. I found it hard to sleep. Finally, exhaustion forced me to approach God in humble prayer. I gratefully received the answers that I had been seeking. Austin had been created by his Heavenly Father just as he is and that He loved him. A wave of love and comfort filled me. I knew that it was not Austin who needed to change, it was me.

It was during this time of searching and learning that I learned that I would have a second battle. My youngest child, ten years old, sweetly explained to me that his guy friend had a crush on a girl in class, his girlfriends all had crushes on a boy, but that he liked a boy. This time I did not falter. I explained to him that he was perfect, that some liked the opposite sex, and some would like the same sex. That God had cre- ated him just as he is and that he was perfect. He smiled at me in the rear-view mirror. I had done it right this time.

I have a choice to make. I can be a voice of change in my church, or I can sit quietly. I have chosen to fight like a dragon for all of our children.

Anne Wunderli—Boston, Massachusetts

Twelve years ago my daughter was dating a girl in her Young Women class. I was in denial and desperate with longing to find any Mormon mothers with LGBTQ daughters with whom I could talk. In place of any flesh and blood mothers, I dreamed of women with whom I could cry, share, and learn. Perhaps it was the Spirit or Mother in Heaven who buoyed me up during that time, or maybe it was just the hope that there were other mothers out there like me. I’m grateful I found the Mama Dragons. Virtual and real-life friendships have made a tremendous difference in my life.

When our daughter, at the age of twelve, told me she might be gay, I did what I could to dissuade her from making a firm decision at what I felt was a young age. When she told me at fifteen that she and her girlfriend loved each other, I told her I didn’t think she was gay. When our daughter attended college in Utah, she had a year-long relationship with another woman. During her years in Utah I spent many days, and all Sundays, crying. I was grieving the loss of the future I had envisioned for her. I cried because I was concerned for her safety as an LGBTQ woman in Utah. I cried because I felt like I had failed as an LDS mother. Although I worked through our entire marriage at increasingly responsible and challenging positions, I was committed—pridefully—to being the mother of active, LDS daughters. I associated my entire success as a mother with that goal. The much-hackneyed phrase “No other success can compensate for failure in the home” became the cat-of-nine-tails with which I would lash myself. I have a journal I kept during that time that has that phrase written dozens of times.

Facebook groups like “I’ll Walk with You,” “Mormons Building Bridges,” “Feminist Mormon Housewives” and “Exponent II” helped me envision a new reality and a new identity. I came to see my success as a mother defined not by whether or not our daughters were active in the Church but by their self-confidence, compassion, and charity. I became a passionate supporter of my daughter and her wife, and about supporting in any way I could those in marginalized populations. Joining the Mama Dragons helped to make me feel whole and I was ecstatic to be part of this amazing group. Knowing other Mamas has been life and sanity saving. I’ve been able to share deep, dark feelings and experiences of reconciling a church I’ve loved with a daughter and daughter-in-law that I adore. I’m a Mama Dragon because I want to help other Mamas walk this path with as light a step as they are able. My process of reconciliation has frequently been painful. In meeting women who’ve been able to experience joy while going through their own evolution, I’m learning from them how to find joy and peace. If I can help other mothers in a similar way, I would love that.

Leslie Cordon—Syracuse, Utah

My son, Tyson, told me he was gay in the spring of 2011. I was not surprised when he told me, but I was scared. I always suspected he might be gay when he was growing up. I would think to myself, “What if he is gay?” I was worried for him, what his life would be, and if he’d be mistreated. Now that I look back on it, I’ve realized something: I didn’t think, “What if he chooses to be gay?” I just thought, “What if he is gay?” I knew deep down in my subconscious that it wasn’t a choice. But, after so many years of society and the LDS church telling me it was a choice, I believed it.

Tyson gave me a few books to read. These books helped me under- stand more fully that being gay isn’t a choice. He would periodically send me a video to watch. One that really touched me was called“Just Because He Breathes.” It is about a very religious couple and their journey with their gay son. It was heartbreaking. But it gave me permission to love and defend my son. It was a permission I was not getting from my church. My son came out to the world on Facebook in January of 2014. He wrote an amazing essay about his life, his journey, and how he was a proud gay man. His bravery inspired me. I shared his post on my Facebook wall and said how proud I was of him and how honored I felt to be his mother. Watching his bravery gave me courage to speak up. I haven’t turned back. I am an advocate and an ally. I feel like being gentle and speaking from a place of love helps others understand the struggles this community faces.

I feel very lucky to have an amazing and very supportive family.

In the summer of 2015 at the Utah Pride Parade, we had fourteen family members, spanning four generations, who marched together. Love from our family makes all the difference in the world. I see the joy it brings to Tyson and that makes my heart sing. I have come to the conclusion that this is what life is all about. Helping others on their journey. My new motto is “Whose journey can I make easier today?” My heart aches for all the years Tyson struggled alone. For all the things I may have said or done that broke his spirit. For him being so afraid that I wouldn’t love him if I knew. I think I love him more because he is gay. He is so strong! He has taught me so much. He has opened my narrow mind and increased my capacity to love unconditionally tenfold. I would do anything to help him live a healthy and happy life.

I have had another realization: This is my mission. I will have no regrets. That is why I am a Mama Dragon. I will fight for my child to be treated equally and with the respect he deserves.

Shauna Jones—Idaho Falls, Idaho

My oldest daughter Annie sent us an e-mail several years ago saying, “I’m gay.” As I read her message, I was so thankful for the tender mercy of having known a man named Ben. Ben was the best man at my temple wedding. I didn’t know it at the time, but besides being a caring, considerate, and all-around compassionate guy, Ben was also a closeted gay man. He had been a close high school friend of my husband and was one of our favorite people. I knew the kind of loving, honest, decent, wonderful person Ben was, and I knew it didn’t fit my ideas of what it meant to be gay. After learn- ing about Ben’s sexuality, it made me revisit everything I thought I knew. As I read my Annie’s message, I knew immediately that I needed to love her unconditionally, emphasize her worth, and not discount her words and feelings. When I got her e-mail, I went down to Annie’s room and sat on her bed, hugged her, and told her it was all going to be fine. We’d figure out this new path. I will admit, when I was alone later in my closet, I cried desperate, tempestuous tears. Loving and supporting your gay friend is one thing. Realizing you have a gay child is an infinitely more complex reality. I had many misconceptions about homosexuality, and it was a difficult thing to reconcile.

Despite the tender mercy and change of heart I received many years ago, the grieving process is real. I realize that the dreams I had for Annie’s mission, her attendance at BYU, her temple wedding, her cute future husband, the adorable grandkids, the Mormon life map that I had in my head for her was gone.

My testimony is that God knows each of his children. I truly believe that he is big enough to have a plan for every single one of them. Every. Single. One. Just because we don’t understand how our LGBT brothers and sisters fit into the plan does not mean that he hasn’t known all along. I do not fear for Annie’s place in heaven. I know she did not choose this part of her. Having a gay child has been one of the greatest blessings of my life, and I will be forever grateful for my part as her mother. I’m reminded of the story in the Book of Mormon where the angel asks Nephi if he knows the condescension of God. Nephi’s response is, “I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.” I, too, do not know the meaning of all things. But I know that God loveth his children, and I love my children, too. And that, for me, is enough.

Lisa Dame—Salt Lake City, Utah

As my daughter became a teenager, she went through some very rough times. It was so hard to watch this creative, intelligent girl struggle in so many ways. One of my strongest desires was for my daughter to be happy and joyous in the gospel. I prayed continually for this. There came a very dark episode that I not only felt worried and scared for her but it felt as if I had a continual pain in my heart that wouldn’t ease. I was praying once again about this daughter when a feeling of amazing peace and stillness came over me. I heard words in my head say, “Everything will be all right.” I felt strongly that it didn’t mean it would be all right the next day, the next week or maybe even the next year, but I had this feeling that it would be all right in the future. It helped me immensely and I knew that I would have the faith and patience to wait.

As my daughter got older, she found a man that she felt she wanted to marry and they set a date to be married in the temple. When she broke off the engagement, I was devastated. It confirmed to me something that I had known at the edge of my consciousness all along. I knew that my daughter was gay. I kept this inside of me and didn’t talk about it with anyone, but I was in mourning. I started the process of letting go of things that weren’t going to be. There wasn’t going to be a temple marriage to a returned missionary. All of my own upsets became secondary in my mind as I watched her continue to struggle to find happiness and peace in her life. That winter, on a cruise with my mother, I met a recently married lesbian couple. We were on an excursion together and I struck up a con- versation with them. I wanted to talk to them about my daughter but my mother was with me and I couldn’t say anything. After we were back on-board, I went for a walk by myself and ran into them on a quiet part of the ship. I was able to talk to them about my daughter and give voice to the thoughts in my head. I said the words “My daughter is gay” for the first time. I cried with these women whom I had just met and they were comforting and helpful to me. I grieved for what was not going to be and started the process of accepting what is. I turned away from the fear that I had felt for my daughter for so many years and moved toward hope.

Not long after that, when my daughter came for a visit, I was prepared. I told her that I was ready to hear her, that I wanted her to tell me her truth. The visit passed quickly, and finally, right before she was getting in the car to leave, she told me she was gay. We hugged and cried and I felt such a relief that she and I were both finally ready for this. After she left that day, I sent up a prayer of gratitude. The feeling from long ago that “everything is going to be all right,” returned to me again. I knew that this was the plan all along. God was aware of, and loved, both her and me.

---

Note: The Dialogue Foundation provides the web format of this article as a courtesy. There may be unintentional differences from the printed version. For citational and bibliographical purposes, please use the printed version or the PDFs provided online and on JSTOR.

[post_title] => The Mama Dragon Story Project [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 49.2 (Summer 2016): 61–80
The photographs and essays featured in this issue of Dialogue come from Kimberly Anderson’s Mama Dragon Story Project: A Collection of Portraits and Essays from Mothers Who Love Their LGBT+ Children [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => the-mama-dragon-story-project [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-08-05 21:59:08 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-08-05 21:59:08 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=18900 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 9459 [post_author] => 1634 [post_date] => 2018-03-15 18:28:45 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-03-15 18:28:45 [post_content] =>

Past joint efforts of the Mormon Church and the Catholic Church in the United States against the legalization of same-sex marriage have reinforced the impression that the Mormon and Catholic positions on marriage and human life ethics parallel each other. This article argues that the divide between the two churches on these issues is much wider than generally thought. I start by sketching two conditions under which Mormon and Catholic realms operate, namely, in the defining of doctrine and policy, and in leadership approach. It is a rough and short rendering of some characteristics and I acknowledge its incompleteness, but it helps explain the background for the divide. Next I compare respective positions on human life ethics. These pertain to the relation between sex and procreation, and to abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and euthanasia. In all of this, I consider only the official institutional positions, not the way individual Catholics and Mormons interpret and live these positions. The comparison shows that, on these issues, present-day Mormonism is more careful and compassionate than Catholicism, and more trusting of individual conscience. The Mormon approach, however, provides grounds for Catholics to denounce the Mormon Church as unreliable and even pernicious. These considerations lead to reflections on the implications for same-sex marriage. I analyze a number of factors that could ease the way for the Mormon Church to withdraw its opposition to same-sex marriage, at least as it concerns civil society, while the Catholic Church is unlikely to budge. At the same time I realize the transience of some of my comments on such a current and constantly evolving topic.

Differences in Defining Doctrine and Policy

The Catholic and Mormon processes that define doctrine and major policies are broadly different. Catholic dogmas, viewed as transmitted from the scriptures or by tradition, are by definition immutable. Though their historical genesis is complex,[1] the present perception of the sanctity of their origin, as well as their exposition over many centuries, in approved “magisterial documents” such as theological treatises, conciliar decrees, pastoral letters, papal declarations, or encyclicals, make any later nuancing of these doctrines, let alone change, nearly impossible. Modifications usually require the approval of large councils, rarely held, which often also necessitate the agreement of churches and ordinaries in communion with the Apostolic See of Rome. The last council, Vatican II, now already half a century ago, took three years (1962–65).[2] The process also requires long editing by the various participants to come to the final texts. After Vatican II, it took twenty years to issue the revised code of Roman Catholic Canon Law. Such intricate and protracted procedures, unlikely to be soon repeated, add to stagnation. Thus, the Catholic leadership derives its ethical viewpoints from what it claims to be unalterable religious premises and defends them with remarkable drive and detail, using its political power openly and vigorously in many countries.[3] This is not to say that no substantial changes in teaching and practice occur in Catholicism, but they are usually framed as “developments” for which the legitimizing requires subtle theological reconstructions, rephrasings, or quiet oblivion to save the semblance of continuity. Examples of past doctrines that were altered include usury (e.g., taking a profit on a loan), which in the Middle Ages was condemned by three ecumenical councils as a mortal sin; slavery, which since patristic times until the middle of the nineteenth century was upheld by popes and theologians on scriptural and moral grounds; and denial of religious freedom, which for centuries allowed the Catholic Church to persecute heretics. That last doctrine, which for 1,200 years had been fiercely upheld, was dismissed in 1965 as “a way of acting that was hardly in accord with the spirit of the Gospel” and imputed to “the vicissitudes of history” as Pope Paul VI noted in Dignitatis Humanae.[4] These changes in Catholic doctrines and policies generated many internal and external studies.[5]

The Mormon decision-making process on doctrines and on policies is quite different. Mormonism, a relatively young religion, budded within a realm of tremendous freedom of religious expression and doctrinal development. It did not grow in the rich intellectual soil that delivered the theological summum of Catholicism. Apart from core tenets as contained in the standard works, various unofficial Mormon doctrines and speculations have fluctuated through church history, but were often considered official in their period. Moreover, Mormonism claims that continuing revelation can justify additions, changes, and adaptations. History confirms it. Momentous changes can come abruptly, such as with withdrawing permission to perform new plural marriages in 1890 or lifting the racial priesthood ban in 1978. Note, however, that with time such changes tend to be explained as less ground-breaking than they were at the moment of their announcement; hence here, as in Catholicism, judicious rhetoric polishes the past. For example, the Mormon Church tries to minimize the polygamous episode and would rather it be forgotten. It reshapes the priesthood ban from a doctrine into a flawed policy of unclear origin. Still, even reduced in perception, these radical modifications are of an abruptness unknown in Catholicism. Other changes occur less conspicuously, prompted by circumstances of the period and determined by the personalities of General Authorities. Policies shift on the waves of assimilation or retrenchment in response to the surrounding culture, as Armand Mauss has analyzed.[6] Moreover, (strong) personal opinions of Mormon leaders sometimes dictate unofficial policies, but are not sanctioned as “revelation.” Then they quietly dwindle with the changing of the guard. Compared to the extensive Catholic texts, which take time to mature and require institutional vetting processes, most Mormon policy decisions, made by a small group at the top, occur relatively swiftly and are announced succinctly. It is noteworthy that since the 1970s, correlation tends to limit Mormon doctrinal material to (often prosaic) essentials and discourages excursions outside the approved curriculum. The Church’s Handbook (of Instructions), judged against Catholic canon law and its related magisterial documents, is a model of simplicity and practicality and is regularly updated. Finally, more recently, Mormon leaders have seen wisdom in trusting various ethical decisions to the individual conscience of each member rather than providing guidelines prone to change over time. Such is the case with the ethical topics I will discuss.

These two different views on the definition of doctrine and policies are related to differences in leadership approach.

Differences in Leadership Approach

The members of the highest leadership in Catholicism and Mormonism are, in many ways, poles apart as to their backgrounds, perspectives, and experiences.

The Catholic Church is led by celibate clergymen whose adult lives have been exclusively spent in the ecclesiastical system. Their long academic preparation is essentially in theology, philosophy, Canon Law, exegesis, Latin, and education. These realms mold their language and their thinking. They seldom have professional background or experience in fields such as business, law, medicine, or science. Once in their priesthood track, they narrow their intimate familial and social networks, both by their priestly position and by celibacy. Their movement toward the top through the various episcopal ranks is a slow and complex semi-democratic process involving many individuals and councils, negotiations, agreements, and controls. As they rise in the hierarchy of prelates with its appropriate obligations and status vestments, they partake of the ambiance of centuries of power and ritual. In most cases, their rising position is also regionally or nationally bound as they represent their native area. Moreover, it is an error to think the Catholic structure is monolithic in type and in obedience. In certain countries the national conference of bishops is not always in full accord with the Holy See, which may lead to powerful clerical groups with their own Catholic identity, sometimes reinforced by peculiar state-church relations such as in Poland or in some Latin American countries.[7] At the same time, some prelates, virtually untouchable, may voice personal, more liberal opinions, which are then rebuffed by other, conservative prelates. Sometimes these differences play out in the media and are part of strategies of probing reactions and defining boundaries. It explains why it is always possible to find unorthodox viewpoints which are presented as “new directions” in Catholicism but which do not represent the Vatican’s position. Indeed, the conservative prelates on their way to the top engage in the never-ending struggle to “defend the faith” against attacks from the outside and against many internal centrifugal forces. The end result is guarding permanence and stability in doctrine and organization, whatever the world or many of their own faithful think. Also, as part of a tradition of centuries of international power, Catholic prelates assume the authority to speak out boldly on various public matters, such as war and peace, human rights, world poverty, the environment, the death penalty, or arms trade. Note how they can combine a social and progressive agenda with unbendable conservatism on other issues.

The Mormon highest leadership is composed of men with varied educational and professional backgrounds and, for most of them, extensive experience in their previous, non-religious careers, often related to management. None has studied for the ministry in the Catholic sense. None is a theologian or a philosopher. Their language is simple and practical. They have served in ever-changing church positions without a set hierarchical pattern. A long record of obedience and compliance is a prerequisite for callings to higher positions which come unexpectedly and undemocratically. Once at the highest level of apostleship, usually after age fifty, they serve for the rest of their lives. Each of them is married with children and grandchildren. Some are widowers who have remarried. Their broad social network resembles that of any man heavily engaged in society and church. Having been close to the rank and file and knowing from personal experience the challenges of marriage and parenthood, they remain, in general, sensitive to the incidents and feelings in families and wards. For most of them, these factors make their outlook more amenable to daily, external influences, peculiar cases, and to matter-of-fact considerations, including momentary attention to items that seem trivial to outsiders, such as admonitions about tattoos or earrings. For many, if not most of them, a fair measure of flexibility permeates their work. Differences of opinion among them are vigilantly kept inside. Their concern for improving the Mormon image in the world against the lingering repute of weirdness makes public relations a main driving force in decisions. At the same time, their practicality and their weariness of public controversies, including among the Mormon faithful themselves, make them cautious, if not silent, on most of the loaded socio-political matters where the Catholic leadership dares to speak out.

Of course, there are also similarities between Catholic and Mormon leadership at the highest level. These are all older men, appointed for life, some in declining health. They have an overall conservative outlook and a nostalgic attachment to the past, typified by their love either for Latin or for the English of the King James Bible. No doubt seniority and strong personalities weigh likewise in the upper layers of both churches. For their respective f locks, the pope and the prophet embody supreme authority. For the past half century, the leadership in both churches has followed similar paths in their reactions to major developments. In the sixties they responded to the challenges of changed times and circumstances by a laborious overhaul—respectively, Vatican II and correlation.[8] In the last decades of the twentieth century, they reacted similarly to prominent inside critical voices, who were labeled dissenters and publicly treated as such—respectively, Catholic theologians such as Hans Küng or Edward Schillebeeckx and Mormons such as the September Six. More recently, the leadership from both churches has chosen to adopt a policy of more tolerance or at least of ignoring internal critics, mostly, it seems, in view of the negative publicity such controversies now easily elicit through the social media.

This brief comparison in the defining of doctrine and policy, and in leadership approach, should help in understanding the respective postures of both churches on the issues discussed in the following sections.

Sex and Procreation

A central question in the position of each church is to what extent sexual intercourse is intrinsically meant for reproduction. Catholicism uses the terms “unitive” and “procreative” to distinguish between two functions of the sexual act but insists that the unitive function is inseparable from the procreative one, even if the latter does not lead to pregnancy. Pope Paul VI’s landmark 1968 encyclical, Humanae Vitae, affirms the “inseparable connection” between the two functions and the “intrinsic relationship to procreation” of each sexual act. A long quotation is appropriate here, also to familiarize some of my readers with Catholic parlance (in the original Latin it sounds even more transcendent):

The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council [Vatican II] recalled, “noble and worthy.” It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infer-tile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.

This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act. The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called.[9]

The literature which expounds the history and dimension of this Catholic doctrine is extensive and useful to understand the deep theological tenets that make the Vatican unbendable on all related issues, including same-sex marriage.[10]

At first sight, present-day Mormonism, if one starts with the The Family: A Proclamation to the World, adopts a similar stance as the Catholic Church, though expressed in much simpler and more direct terms:

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

However, as to sexual expression within marriage, the Mormon Church does not seem to take the absolute Catholic stand. The relation between the procreative and unitive functions is expressed as “not only, but also” without the rhetoric of “inseparable connection” or “intrinsic relationship to procreation” of each sexual act. Under the already telling heading “Birth control,” the Mormon Handbook 2 states:

Married couples should also understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a way of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife.[11]

This juxtaposition could still be interpreted as confirming an inseparable connection, but the preceding sentences in the Handbook significantly weaken such an interpretation:

It is the privilege of married couples who are able to bear children to provide mortal bodies for the spirit children of God, whom they are then responsible to nurture and rear. The decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter.[12]

In other words, the prayer-based, justified personal decision of a couple to put the procreative function on hold allows one to view the unitive function separately, as a way “to express love and to strengthen emotional and spiritual bonds.” The separation of the functions is explicit in the Church’s publication True to the Faith:

While one purpose of these relations is to provide physical bodies for God’s children, another purpose is to express love for one an other—to bind husband and wife together in loyalty, fidelity, consideration, and common purpose.[13]

The difference between unitive and procreative functions leads to the question of the use of contraception. Mormons understand the just-quoted paragraphs of the Handbook as not forbidding the use of contraception. This current Mormon position also illustrates the above-mentioned quiet shifts in unofficial policies. Indeed, while some Church leaders up to the 1970s unequivocally condemned birth control, the rhetoric changed with the culture, in particular when it appeared that, during the 1960s, the vast majority of the membership had already accepted the use of improved contraceptives.[14]

The Catholic standpoint is explicit in its different viewpoint:

Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible.[15]

Catholic Answers explicates: “This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods.”[16] This Catholic policy remains unchanged, in spite of widespread “disobedience” among the faithful, vocal internal opposition, and severe controversies over the Catholic “responsibility” in spreading HIV by not permitting the use of condoms, even in the case of married HIV-discordant couples.[17]

Some will argue that the Catholic Church allows periodic abstinence, “the rhythm method,” as a natural form of birth control. Indeed:

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which we have just explained.[18]

Various Catholic organizations and institutions have therefore been working in favor of “Responsible Parenthood” or “Natural Family Planning,” helping couples understand and apply the principles of periodic abstinence. Apart from the restrictions that such an approach puts on the enjoyment of sexual relations, and apart from the higher chances of unwanted pregnancy, the strict Catholic interpretation of responsible parenthood does not even include the permission for fertile married couples to use it to postpone a first pregnancy, as it only applies to “additional children”:

With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.[19]

So, all in all, the differences between the Mormon and Catholic positions on birth control are significant. While the Catholic position keeps insisting that contraception is “intrinsically evil,”[20] in Mormonism it became quietly allowed over time. This disparity explains why the Mormon Church did not join in the Catholic rejection of the birth control insurance coverage as part of President Obama’s health care overhaul.

However, it would be wrong to interpret the Mormon position as a sign that the Church has lessened its emphasis on fertility. Children remain an eminent part of the Mormon view on marriage, but the Mormon leadership has adopted a position that valorizes personal conscience and separates, or at least loosens, the relation between the function of procreation and the function of sexual enjoyment within marriage. Could that unbinding open the way to a more tolerant view on same-sex marriage, at least in civil life? I will come back to this point in the section titled “Same-Sex Marriage.”

Abortion, Embryonic Stem Cell Research, and Euthanasia

Catholics and Mormons are often said to be on common ground on other ethical issues dealing with human life—abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and euthanasia. When looked at closely, this commonality is quite relative. The topic is of interest in the broader perspective of different attitudes which may, ultimately, also have a bearing on the positions on same-sex marriage because the Mormon Church now tends to choose the path of reasonableness and compassion.

Both the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church condemn abortion in no uncertain terms. But a main difference rests, again, in Catholic inalterable absolutism versus Mormon nuancing due to humane considerations. Although, since its earliest history, the Catholic Church upheld differences in gravity according to stages of pregnancy, the present canon law makes no such distinction: any destruction of an embryo from the moment of conception is abortion and the person responsible incurs excommunication, as stated in a one-line rule: “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae [automatic] excommunication.”[21] Such an automatic excommunication, incurred at the moment of committing the offense, means the person is excluded from the sacraments and from taking an active part in the liturgy. Thus no exceptions are made for pregnancies resulting from rape or for medical conditions endangering the mother’s life. This categorical condemnation imposed by the Catholic Church on any abortion can draw worldwide attention in high-profile cases, such as the 2009 excommunication of the mother and the doctors involved in the abortion for a nine-year-old girl who had been raped by her stepfather and whose life was judged at risk.[22]

The Mormon position, though confirming that abortion “is a most serious matter,” limits its denunciation to “elective abortion for personal or social convenience” and is open to exceptions:

The Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience. Members must not submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion. The only possible exceptions are when: 1. Pregnancy resulted from forcible rape or incest. 2. A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy. 3. A competent physician deter-mines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.[23]

Conversely, and also typical of a main difference between Catholicism and Mormonism, are the disciplinary consequences for those involved in an abortion. The Mormon Church points to the eventuality of Church discipline—a painful process, involving a group of people, and implying a time frame—with a conditional remark as to forgiveness:

Church members who submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion may be subject to Church discipline. As far as has been revealed, a person may repent and be forgiven for the sin of abortion.[24]

In Catholicism, though abortion implies automatic excommunication (which is seldom formally articulated but can be public in high-profile cases), forgiveness (and automatic reinstatement) is usually soon accessible. Catholic Answers makes it almost sound trivial or mechanical: “Fortunately, abortion, like all sins, is forgivable; and forgiveness is as close as the nearest confessional.”[25] Moreover, in contrast to the Mormon realm, the confessional is anonymous and, provided there is due contrition, absolution is normally obtained at once.

The second issue in human life ethics concerns embryonic stem cell research. As was to be expected, the Catholic Church took an immediate stand against ESCR, in line with its condemnation of in vitro fertilization as this procedure discards embryonic cells.[26] Since then the Vatican has, in response to almost each new development in ESCR, strongly reacted against what it considers the manipulation and destruction of human life.[27] The Catholic position has been reiterated by Pope Benedict XVI and is expected to be followed by Pope Francis.[28]

The Mormon Church, in contrast, took a neutral position on ESCR. The original Church news release in 2001, when the discussion was vivid on the American political front, mentioned:

Because of increasing interest from members of the news media regarding the Church’s position on “Stem Cell Research,” the following statement is provided: While the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have not taken a position at this time on the newly emerging field of stem cell research, it merits cautious scrutiny. The proclaimed potential to provide cures or treatments for many serious diseases needs careful and continuing study by conscientious, qualified investigators. As with any emerging new technology, there are concerns that must be addressed. Scientific and religious viewpoints both demand that strict moral and ethical guidelines be followed.[29]

The Mormon standpoint seems an example of how non-religious professional backgrounds of Church leaders, including those from the medical field, as well as awareness of the support for ESCR of five Mormon U.S. senators, may have influenced the decision-making process.[30]

Because of the difference between adult stem cell research (which the Catholic Church does not oppose) and embryonic stem cell research, more recent statements from religious groups are careful to make that distinction. Also from the Mormon Church, as stated in an undated Newsroom topic:

The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not taken a position regarding the use of embryonic stem cells for research purposes. The absence of a position should not be interpreted as support for or opposition to any other statement made by Church members, whether they are for or against embryonic stem cell research.[31]

It relates to another Mormon clarification in that regard: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no official position on the moment that human life begins.”[32] This admission allows the concept of possible delayed “ensoulment” after fertilization. This concept has been and still is a belief shared by faithful Mormons who can visualize it distinctly based on their understanding of the sphere of premortal existence from which a spirit, in human form, comes to join the body in order to be born. The Catholic position, in contrast, is radical: human life starts with conception. It leaves no room for the “cautious scrutiny” in ESCR that could save lives.

The third issue deals with euthanasia. The principle of the sanctity of life is similar in both churches. For both it is also a similar challenge to uphold the principle in the case of an incurable disease or condition, when suffering is long and intense and dying is inevitable. Each church clearly condemns active euthanasia. For the Mormon Church, “deliberately putting to death a person” or “assisting someone to commit suicide, violates the commandments of God.”[33] The Catechism of the Catholic Church posits: “Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.”[34]

Even without active euthanasia, the remaining realities in palliative care are still complex. Each church gives counsel to that effect, but the sphere in each reflects different theological views. Typical for the Catholic Church is the reflective approach of the topic, in a theological framework, as worded in the long Declaration on Euthanasia by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1980. It states that for Catholicism, “suffering, especially suffering during the last moments of life, has a special place in God’s saving plan; it is in fact a sharing in Christ’s passion and a union with the redeeming sacrifice which He offered in obedience to the Father’s will.” It explains that some prefer “to moderate their use of painkillers, in order to accept voluntarily at least a part of their sufferings and thus associate themselves in a conscious way with the sufferings of Christ crucified.” This position is part of the Catholic notion of “the power of salvific suffering” in which each can participate: “Each one is also called to share in that suffering through which the Redemption was accomplished.”[35]

The Mormon counsel in the paragraph “Prolonging Life” is brief. Death is placed in a perspective of hope, as the expected passage to a next phase of existence, without adding any rationalization for continuous suffering, nor detailing peculiar cases:

When severe illness strikes, members should exercise faith in the Lord and seek competent medical assistance. However, when dying becomes inevitable, it should be seen as a blessing and a purposeful part of eternal existence. Members should not feel obligated to extend mortal life by means that are unreasonable. These judgments are best made by family members after receiving wise and competent medical advice and seeking divine guidance through fasting and prayer.[36]

The Mormon counsel recommends considering the inevitability of approaching death as a factor. Artificial prolonging of life, with added suffering, does not seem to be part of how Mormons see God’s plan for human beings. “Unreasonable” in the use of certain means to prolong life is not defined. With the advancement of medical technologies, what may have seemed unreasonable a few decades ago could now be standard practice to keep someone alive. But “unreasonable” can also be understood as not accepting death when the normal course of life would expect it.

In concluding this discussion on human life ethics, considering the differing Catholic and Mormon positions on sex and reproduction, contraceptives, abortion, ESCR, and euthanasia, it would be tempting to say that the Catholic standpoints fit a coherent set of immutable doctrinal principles, while the Mormon leadership tends to develop policy based on pragmatic ethical judgments which adjust to the times and to social situations and are therefore less consistent. In some measure that conclusion is true as it pertains to the present, but such a view underestimates the interaction between doctrine and practice in a diachronic perspective. Indeed, in the development of a religion, practice shapes doctrine more than doctrine determines practice. Catholic doctrines such as eucharistic adoration, salvific suffering, Mary’s assumption, or saints’ intercession grew out of practices in devotion or folk belief. These doctrines took centuries to solidify to their present rigid form, including the notion of the absolute sanctity of life—a principle the Catholic Church adopted only after centuries of consenting to, and even urging execution for, all sorts of crimes, including heresy. A main difference between Catholicism and Mormonism is therefore their time frames. The proto-orthodox period of Christianity, up to the fourth century, during which nothing was theologically assured, was already much longer than Mormonism’s whole existence up to now. Next, Catholicism took more than a millennium to come to its (almost) full definition during the Counter-Reformation. Some could conclude from that perspective that Mormonism is just starting to mature toward a more elaborate and permanent theology. But, as already noted, present-day Mormonism now tends to “correlate” its teaching to a minimum. Moreover, it claims continuing revelation as an “immutable” doctrine, which, paradoxically, makes changeability intrinsic and therefore consistent.

Catholics on Edge as Mormonism “Reinvents Itself”

How does the Catholic Church react to the Mormon positions as identified in the previous section? It is true that both the Mormon Church and the Catholic Church remain unwavering on the principle of respect for human life. But on the Mormon side, nuances, exceptions, and the shift to personal responsibility, as described above, can enter the framework rather easily and over relatively short periods due to flexible or changing leadership, humane concerns, a succinct decision-making process, and a tradition of adaptable policies. Such instability is anathema to the Catholic Church, hence its distrust of this approach, as in this reaction in Catholic Answers, responding to an interview given by President Gordon B. Hinckley in 1997:

Discussing abortion, Hinckley said his church permits it in several circumstances, including for the mother’s health. This is a change to a more liberal, politically correct position than what Mormonism has held to this point. When asked about euthanasia, Hinckley declared that “no, at this point at least, we haven’t favored that” (emphasis added). Mormons may well wonder if this leaves the door cracked open to future divine permission to kill their sick and elderly. Ultimately, the past doctrinal transformations of Mormonism give no confidence that there will not be equally drastic revisions to Mormon doctrine in the future. There may be more stages yet to come as Mormonism reinvents itself to fit the culture around it.[37]

Or this:

Mormon pro-life sentiment might perdure at the individual level, but their religious leadership has quietly altered Mormonism’s abortion stance into one almost indistinguishable from that of main-stream anti-life America.[38]

Such disparaging statements toward Mormonism may also reflect that the Catholic Church views the Mormon Church as an ally only when it meets Catholicism’s defense needs. The Catholic-Mormon alliance to sustain Proposition 8 illustrates this “partnership” all too well. As far as has been reported, Mormon involvement came in response to the personal invitation of George H. Niederauer, archbishop of San Francisco at the time and former bishop of Salt Lake City, where he had established a good relation with Mormon leadership. It is difficult to deny that the Prop 8 campaign turned into a PR disaster for the Mormon Church and resulted in much internal division. Moreover, there are no indications that the massive Mormon contribution in California earned the Mormons any lasting respect from the Vatican. The situation in the American West, where institutional contact and mutual respect between Catholics and Mormons is based on shared local history and a reciprocal critical mass of members, with relatively few converts in either direction, fails to translate to any comparable relationship in the world perspective.

Indeed, since the 1970s the Catholic Church has been losing millions of its members to new religious movements, in particular to the many forms of Pentecostalism or Evangelicalism in Latin America.[39] It is true that since Vatican II the Catholic Church has been an outspoken defender of religious freedom and rights, but that attitude must be seen in the original context of its own pressured position in Islamic and Eastern European countries and in China. Since then, things have changed. As Paul Freston mentions, “In the face of the Pentecostal challenge, a tension has emerged between the Catholic Church’s support for religious freedom and its desire to hold on to its privileged position in traditionally Catholic areas of the world.”[40] Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists, and Mormons erode Catholic hegemony as well. In 1992 Pope John Paul II asked the Latin American Epis-copal Conference to defend the flock from “rapacious wolves,” clearly alluding to the “sects” to which millions of Catholics had converted.[41] No Catholic parish priest, in any country, can watch acquiescently when Mormon missionaries are teaching his sheep, in particular because the teaching includes, at least implicitly, a devastating critique of Catholic claims to divine authority. On the internet, individual Catholics maintain anti-Mormon sites and blogs as their answer to Mormon proselytizing. The recent announcement that Mormon missionaries would work through social media to find potential converts will only irritate some Catholics even more.[42]

Same-Sex Marriage

Could the preceding discussion somehow predict how the respective Mormon and Catholic positions on same-sex marriage might evolve? Both churches displayed equal determination and used similar arguments at the height of California’s Prop 8 campaign in 2008. Where has it gone from there and where could it go further?

From the viewpoint of human life ethics, it does not seem the Catholic Church can budge because of its fundamental view on the “inseparable connection” between the unitive and procreative functions or the “intrinsic relationship to procreation” of each sexual act. The argument is explicitly part of its rejection of same-sex marriage since homosexual relations “close the sexual act to the gift of life.”[43] Or, as stated by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2003:

Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involving a grave lack of respect for human dignity, does nothing to alter this inadequacy.[44]

It should be noted, however, that the Catholic Church, for even longer than the Mormon Church, has been urging that “unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”[45] Pope Francis’s recent statement as to “not judging” homosexuals for their orientation is therefore identical to previous policy. Some media presented it as signaling a change in attitude, but Catholic Online was quick to respond:

Some in the media chose to turn the compassionate comments of Francis into an insinuation that he somehow veered from the teaching of the Church. Of course, it is simply not true. For Catholics, one of the treasures of being a Catholic Christian is that there is a magisterium, a teaching office. Even the Pope cannot change revealed truth.[46]

As discussed earlier, dogmatic rigidity and institutional stagnation dictate the reiteration of Catholic policies and statements, even if a large section of the Catholic faithful worldwide, including many parish priests and theologians, openly disagree with the official Catholic position on homosexuality and same-sex marriage. At the same time, conservative prelates and scores of dutiful Catholics refer to the inalterable magisterium, thus easily obstructing any suggestions of change in policy.

The Mormon leadership, on the other hand, has already shown, in the relatively short period since 2008, shifts in attitude and action. They discontinued direct support to anti-gay-marriage campaigns, backed initiatives to ensure more understanding and protection of LGBT people, entered into dialogue with the LGBT community, and launched the site mormonsandgays.org to help people reconcile their gender identities with their religion.[47] However, up to now, they have remained resolute in their position that acting upon homosexual feelings is a sin and that marriage is only for a man and a woman. Still, the history of change in Mormon doctrine and policies allows one to conjecture that this position could be a transitional phase and that further developments could follow. What factors could influence the future?

I readily admit that most of the following items have been thoroughly discussed in numerous books, articles, and blog posts, often with more and better-developed arguments. My approach is to try to add something from the international perspective. I start with factors more external to the Church, then I move to possible internal accommodations.

1. Growing Acceptance of LGBT People

The growing acceptance of what was once perceived as a bizarre lifestyle, mostly hidden, is inescapable. The recognition that homosexual orientation is not a choice, but the result of a complex interplay of factors, joins a growing conviction that LGBT people should be regarded as fully accepted members of society. A budding young generation, part of a broad informative social network, displays more tolerant views than previous generations and has more personal experiences with LGBT friends. The much-touted “danger to the family” that has been used as a conservative warcry has given way to incredulity that the small minority of same-sex couples has any such ability. This same tolerant view has also been adopted by various Christian churches, including American Episcopals, Presbyterians, and Evangelical Lutherans. There is little doubt that more and more congregations around the world will come to accept people in same-sex marriages as welcome and contributing parts of their communities. From that perspective it is also noteworthy that the countries that already legalized same-sex marriage are among the most democratic and developed countries in the world, while regimes known for their undemocratic and repressive policies are those denying such equality to (or even persecuting) gays and lesbians.

At present, the official Mormon counsel is:

While opposing homosexual behavior, the Church reaches out with understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender. If members feel same-gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts.[48]

This counsel contains a severe predicament. For more and more Mormons (as well as for members of other churches with a similar approach), the tension in this directive leads to a moral conflict when dealing with real people—family members and friends. Former opponents of gay marriage change sides once they are confronted with the tangible authenticity of a human soul they care for. They learn to overcome the perception of evil in his or her longing for a loving relation and its subsequent fulfillment. And what is “any homosexual behavior?” Sex, for sure, since religion is often exceedingly preoccupied with “illicit” sex as grievous sin. But, as in hetero relations, there are other forms of acting upon feelings, such as deep friendship, collaborating, helping the other, or sacrificing for him or her. And even giving sexual form to such attractions can be done in moral ways too, involving respect, patience, commitment, and fidelity. Focusing on those aspects allows seeing LGBT people in a broader and heart-warming light. As time goes by, LGBT individuals and the same-sex couples they form become a small but natural part in the landscape of diversity.

These developments could have some impact, directly or indirectly, on how Mormon Church leaders, on various levels, become more amenable to further adjustments.

2. Easing the Fear over Government Coercion

Over the past years, as the aggressive arguments against homosexual relations became viewed as inappropriate and merciless, and as the momentum in favor of same-sex marriage grew, religious leaders shifted to more defensive arguments. They take the form that the legalization of such marriages would compel churches and religiously affiliated services, as well as businesses, to accommodate the requirements of same-sex couples and penalize those who object as a matter of conscience. Public schools would have to apply non-discrimination programs and policies, which would confuse children from conservative homes about their families’ values. Examples, sometimes distorted, of such demands and situations substantiate the fears. However, more analysis and constructive dialogue between the various factions are helping to dispel scare tactics and to clarify misunderstandings. That churches could ever be compelled to marry same-sex couples is highly improbable. As far as I have read, religious-liberty experts, legislatures, and courts agree on that point, because churches, as independent institutions, can operate on the basis of their own internal regulations. The law cannot compel a church to marry even a hetero couple. Nowhere in the world has the Mormon Church ever been compelled to solemnize the marriage of a man and a woman when it deemed one or both as not compliant with its criteria for temple marriage. The Catholic Church has never been compelled to wed a man and a woman when canon law forbade it, for example, because one of them had divorced only civilly or because the bride or groom suffers from “antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse.”[49]

In the case of conscientious objectors in civil marriage procedures and in religiously affiliated services, it seems that proper exemptions can be established in most cases.[50] However, an important facet here is that growing acceptance of sexual orientation also leads to the defusing of many of the situations that people fear. Same-sex marriage is about the positive commitment between two people and cannot be put on par with other ethical issues, such as compelled cooperation in abortion or euthanasia. The normalization of LGBT individuals’ involvement in society illustrates this evolution in countries where same-sex marriage has been legal for more than a decade and has become a nonissue. As adoption agencies discover that stable and well-adjusted same-sex partners can be excellent parents and can raise children equally well as heterosexuals, the fear of working with such a couple wanes.[51] As marriage registrars, wedding photographers, florists, or cake bakers learn to focus on love rather than on gender, initial feelings of principled refusal can fade away. As children get involved with a friend who has two dads or two moms, and as their heterosexual and homosexual parents get to know each other, the experience opens doors.[52] In time, all of such developments can make persons of good will understand that non-discrimination programs and policies aim at a more charitable society.

These considerations are not meant to minimize the complexity or the validity of the debate on religious freedom.[53] First, the concern about coercion is also reciprocal: “The real threat to religious liberty rests not in the ability of citizens to marry in contravention of one or more sects’ doctrines, but in seeking to ‘protect’ those religious doctrines by imposing them as law controlling all.”[54] Second, the debate encompasses other, more global and far-reaching issues than the LGBT topic alone. The risk of a religion imposing broad restrictive norms on the whole of society, far beyond what universal ethics can accept, is as real as a government’s eliminating religious displays and activities which it con-siders incompatible with a civil society. Is the former or the latter worse? It depends on each case and on a wide array of factors.[55]

3. Improving the Image of the Church

As part of its ambitious missionary effort, the Mormon Church has been trying for decades to improve its standing against frequent misrepresentations in the media and in literature. Its success has been limited, as surveys confirm. The Prop 8 debacle showed how the present power of social media can amplify the backlash. In 2012, during the U.S. presidential election, the numerous worldwide media reports about Mormonism frequently portrayed the Mormon Church as ultra-conservative, with discriminatory policies that persisted in its present homophobia. Prop 8 was often cited as illustration. On the other hand, Mormons Building Bridges’ participation in the Salt Lake Gay Pride Parade was picked up by various media around the world and hailed as a ray of hope and change. Such difference in media impact cannot go unnoticed at Church headquarters. Equally telling are the incessant waves of public criticism leveled at the Catholic Church for some of its unswerving positions, both from the outside as massively from the inside. Whereas the Catholic leadership, from its peculiar powerful structure, continues to shrug off such attacks, it is more awkward for an active missionary church if negative publicity continues and even grows.

Outside the United States, it has been painful to see how members of area presidencies, mostly American or under American pressure, thought it necessary to make the voice of the Church known in countries where the legalization of same-sex marriage was being debated or had already been approved. Some of these seventies asked local Mormon stake presidents and bishops to get involved in campaigning against same-sex marriage. As far as I have heard, such requests mostly fell on deaf or bewildered ears. Mormons in tiny minority situations, as they are in most countries in the world, have other concerns than taking on their host society, attracting negative attention from human rights defenders, and isolating themselves even more than before for an already lost cause. Many of these local Mormons could also not understand why they should try to interfere in non-Mormon lives. Moreover, even if the proposed legalization of same-sex marriage triggered quite some debate in a few countries, overall it shriveled to a non-existent issue once same-sex marriage was approved. But had the local Mormon Church acted, the stigma of its already intolerant image would have been reinforced.

Though the Mormon Church insists on “understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender,” rejecting same-sex marriage in civil society will be increasingly interpreted as a disgraceful attitude, if not plain discrimination. Some can argue that maintaining the rejection would win the sympathy of conservative citizens in nations around the world. To hope for such positive consideration toward the Church is to grossly miscalculate where such unbendable conservatism still prevails. Most countries that have already legalized same-sex marriage have done so with fairly wide support, often including support from more conservative parties—with the understanding that “conservative” outside the United States usually means “moderate” to American ears. The staunch opponents to same-sex marriage usually belong to uncompromising Christian churches from which little sympathy toward Mormonism is to be expected. And the Mormon Church would not want the praise of “conservative” countries, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Uganda, that criminalize homosexual acts and persecute or even execute gays and lesbians. At some point, to continue the battle against same-sex marriage will not be worth the stigma of intolerance, the adversity from the media, the barrier to missionary work, the loss of members, or the internal tensions it creates.

4. Distinguishing Guidelines for Members and for Non-Members

Religions have the tendency to generalize their doctrines and norms as valid for the whole world. That aspiration is beneficial in the promotion of universal values such as justice, peace, or respect for human life. At some point, however, churches detail the scope of some of these values. For example, respect for human life, as we saw, differs in the respective Catholic and Mormon directions when it comes to abortion. Still, both churches formulate their principles as if meant for the whole world—hence, the Catholic repudiation of the Mormon standpoint.

The Mormon Handbook 2 is “a guide for members of ward and stake councils” and applies to Latter-day Saints. Though many of the moral principles in the Handbook can be considered as having universal value, many others do not. The paragraph on “Same-Gender Marriages” states:

As a doctrinal principle, based on the scriptures, the Church affirms that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

Sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same gen-der, are sinful and undermine the divinely created institution of the family. The Church accordingly affirms defining marriage as the le-gal and lawful union between a man and a woman.[56]

How valid can this be for the non-Mormon world? If valid, the first sentence already asserts a form of exclusion for the whole Roman Catholic clergy, from the pope to every parish priest, as well as monks and nuns, for whom celibacy is the rule. The irony is that the Catholic Church bases that rule also on the scriptures—renouncing marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 19:12), abiding by Paul’s counsel that it is morally superior not to marry (1 Cor. 7:8, 38) and following the example of the unmarried Jesus. It is also easy to counter the Mormon viewpoint that marriage is essential for the “eternal destiny” of God’s children, as it is not a biblical concept (Matt. 22:23–30).

As to the rest of the Handbook paragraph on same-sex marriage, the Mormon Church has the right to consider sexual relations proper only between a “legally and lawfully” wedded husband and wife and to discipline those who transgress only as far as it concerns its members. It may condemn those relations as “sinful” for the millions of non-Mormon couples who for social, economic, or administrative reasons cannot marry “legally and lawfully” or simply choose not to marry, though one can wonder what divisive effect such public condemnation of “the others” has, both inside and outside the Church. The same applies to same-sex couples who are not members. The Church has no jurisdiction over them.

Of course, inasmuch as the Handbook paragraph considers under “any other sexual relations” forms of irresponsible, selfish, cruel, or inhuman sexual behavior, the condemnation of such destructive behavior has universal value. But the statement makes no such distinction. As to non-hurtful relations between consenting adults, if Church leaders become willing to clarify that the Mormon view on marriage and sexual relations only applies to its own membership, without judging others, it would help decrease the pressure among Latter-day Saints to meddle with the lives of others, in particular of those who aspire to bring stability and security to their form of marriage.

5. Separating Civil Marriage and the Religious Wedding Ceremony

In worldwide perspective, a fundamental difference exists between civil marriage and the religious dimension for church members. It seems the Mormon Church, mainly due to its U.S. perspective, is not used to disentangling the two, since in the United States a recognized Church minister has the legal authority to marry two persons. The result is a conviction that marriage belongs to the religious realm and that Church authorities have the overall moral authority to pronounce who can marry.

However, most countries belonging to the Christian realm, which includes Europe, Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, Australasia, and Oceania, recognize only civil marriage as legally valid. The same is true in a number of Asian countries, such as Japan. The civil registration of marriage must precede any religious wedding, which is seen as an optional ceremony to solemnize the event, not a legal marriage. Such a civil regulation of marriage applies the same norms to all, guarantees uniform registration, avoids interfaith issues, and ensures equality—hence the relative ease with which these countries can legalize same-sex marriages, since gender, just like race or religion, cannot be a discriminating factor. Note that in a few countries, the religious representative of a recognized church, who has formally obtained the authority of a civil servant, can combine the civil marriage with the religious part.

If the Mormon Church can come to accept civil marriage in its separate legal realm, as it has to do already in most countries where it operates, and the subsequent religious wedding in its sacramental sphere, it could more easily consider same-sex marriage as a purely civil matter, unrelated to the Church’s religious perspective.[57]

6. Valorizing the Distinct Unitive Function in Marriage

This item moves my considerations to an internal step of moral interpretation. It is difficult to predict whether this adjustment would become the easiest or the most difficult. Logic could make it easy, principles difficult, and inflexibility impossible.

The Mormon Church has deeply invested itself in condemning homosexual relations with an emphasis on their unacceptable genital dimension. But the Church also justifies this condemnation because it does not consider same-sex marriage as a possibility; hence, any homosexual relations are bound to be sinful. In a 2006 interview with Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman on same-sex attraction, the situation of unmarried homosexuals is compared to that of any other unmarried person: “We expect celibacy of any person that is not married.”[58]

The comparison, however, is uneven when heterosexuals can marry and homosexuals can’t. Logic begs to correct the equation: If same-sex marriage is legally allowed in civil society, then sexual relations within such marriages are not sinful. For the Catholic Church, as we saw, that step is impossible because such a union is “inherently nonprocreative” and the condemnation is universal for humankind. The Mormon Church has, at least in theory, more leeway because, as explained above, it can view the unitive function of sexual relations separately, as a way “to express love and to strengthen emotional and spiritual bonds.” But it can accept such relations only within the bonds of marriage. On the basis of those two premises, it does not seem an impossible step to also accept that, at least in the civil realm, a legally married gay or lesbian couple is not acting improperly. Even more, according to Mormon sexual ethics, it would be preferable for them to marry rather than having sex outside the bonds of marriage.

7. Reviewing Marriage in the Context of Eternal Destiny

I hesitated to include this last factor. The preceding considerations, which could facilitate the Church’s acceptance of same-sex marriage, are more factual and based on pragmatic arguments. Here I move into a speculative doctrinal area. But the topic is difficult to avoid because the Mormon rejection of same-sex marriage has fundamentally to do with beliefs regarding the afterlife. The very first sentence of the Handbook paragraph on same-sex marriage reads:

As a doctrinal principle, based on the scriptures, the Church affirms that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.[59]

Marriage is indeed a fundamental part of Mormon soteriology. Gospel Fundamentals states:

To live in the highest part of the celestial kingdom is called exaltation or eternal life. To be able to live in this part of the celestial kingdom, people must have been married in the temple and must have kept the sacred promises they made in the temple. They will receive everything our Father in Heaven has and will become like Him. They will even be able to have spirit children and make new worlds for them to live on, and do all the things our Father in Heaven has done. People who are not married in the temple may live in other parts of the celestial kingdom, but they will not be exalted.[60]

Essential to this view of “exaltation” is thus progression to godhood as a married couple, which includes the ability “to have spirit children”—hence, it seems, the implied need for a heterosexual dyad to procreate.

As already clear from the preceding discussion, that eternal perspective should not be a reason to deny the privilege of a civil marriage “until death do you part” to same-sex couples, in particular if they are not even members of the Church. In the context of legal debate, the use of theological arguments carries no weight, and certainly not if the argument is, in the eyes of outsiders, of such a farfetched nature as sex in heaven to have spirit offspring.[61]

But there is more to it. How tenable, historically and theologically within Mormonism itself, is the argument of the ability “to have spirit children” in heaven as basis for a doctrinal rejection of same-sex marriage on earth? The following discussion is not meant to argue in favor of such a revision that same-sex marriage would become acceptable in a Mormon temple. Rather, its aim is to review some of the tenets of the afterlife argument.

The concept of eternal marriage was introduced in the context of plural marriage (D&C 132). The historical and theological developments around this concept have been widely studied. I recognize their complexity, but the general outlines seem to be commonly accepted. The early introduction of polygamy under Joseph Smith found a justification in the weaving of dynastical bonds that would add to eternal glory—hence the initial “spiritual” marriages, both polyandrous and polygynous, even crossing lines among already-married couples. In the same period, Joseph Smith announced his expansive views on the progressive nature of God and the potential godhood of human beings. To what extent he accepted an active sexual life as a divine attribute seems less clear, but may be assumed. The terms “a continuation of the seeds forever and ever” and “as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue” in the revelation of plural marriage (D&C 132:19, 30) point to such understanding. Plural wives are given, not only “to multiply and replenish the earth,” but “for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men” (verse 63). The begetting of physical children on earth seems to continue as “having” spiritual children in heaven, but what the latter meant technically was left to interpretation and imagination.

In Utah, polygamy became structured polygyny, openly proclaimed, including sexual relations and offspring, with elaborate social, moral, and theological justifications. For the theological part, Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, and others sexualized God, gave substance to his divine wife or even wives, tied their union to the birth of myriads of spirit children in the preexistence, justified polygamy for helping the choicest of those spirits come to earth in faithful families of chosen “Israelite” lines, and imagined the same divine procreative future for exalted gods and their goddesses on distant worlds in the universe. The speculations were uninhibited (and sometimes contradictory), the concretizations audacious, including the teaching that God the Father literally impregnated Mary. Plural marriage was defined as a prerequisite for exaltation.

With the end of official support for polygamy in 1890, the necessity of plural marriage for exaltation was abolished, but what remained was the plan of progression, from preexistent spirit children, through earth probation, to the exaltation a couple earns through eternal marriage. That attainment of godhood still included the divine function of “having” spirit children, so that each exalted couple could become heavenly parents. Though these doctrines were now expressed in more sober, sanitized terms, the nineteenth-century sources, as well as more recent, equally explicit texts by outspoken Church authorities, clearly confirm the procreative functions as part of exaltation. It is not surprising that outsiders who describe Mormon doctrine often focus on that peculiar perspective. Anti-Mormonism turned it into The God Makers. Vulgar derision turns it into sordid depictions. Moreover, all that polygamy could prompt in prurient fascination tainted the rest of Mormon theology. Even modern, neutrally meant treatises on Mormonism continue to focus on those bizarre sexual aspects, based on the sources written by Mormon authorities from the 1850s up to now.

But to what extent are sexual relations essential to “having” spirit children and therefore “essential to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children?” Mormon scriptures and leaders’ commentaries allow at least two interpretations of “having” spirit children. Next to literal sexual relations, pregnancy, and birth, there is the organization of “intelligence”—eternal matter—into “intelligences,” understood as individual spirit beings or the precursors thereof. Whether the two interpretations can intersect or not is unclear. But the tangible representation of divine sex and the birthing of billions of spirits raises awkward questions as to frequency, timing, and the lingering background of polygamy.[62] Eugene England remarked, “God has certainly found more efficient ways to produce spirit children than by turning celestial partners into mere birth machines. To anticipate such a limited, unequal role for women in eternity insults and devalues them.”[63]

Could the Mormon concept of eternal destiny therefore not focus more on its broader message—the stirring vision of eternal togetherness? If chastely and lyrically expressed, the possibility of eternal togetherness is an ideal for a loving couple, for parents and children, or for dear friends, in particular in the face of death. Numerous poets have imagined it or lamented its absence. Eternal togetherness is one of the most poignant and tender doctrines of Mormonism. Joseph Smith’s vision of the eternities, where God’s children blend in a network of blissful generations—referring to the biblical promises to Abraham and to the “planting in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers”—has an unmistakable grandeur. That sacred emotion was probably closer to Joseph Smith’s glorious panorama of the eternities than what the cruder and often shocking assertions of later Church leaders included. Precisely that difference brings us to consider the place of same-sex partnership in the religious realm of Mormonism.

Is the “eternal destiny” of God’s children only and of necessity a literal continuation of marital relations, including sex and child-bearing as part of divine “love,” with the perpetuation of the procreative function because that is what heavenly parents do?

Or is “eternal destiny” the ultimate admission of God’s worthy children into a celestial world of family relations, intertwined through all those marriages over the course of human history—a majestic network which genealogical research tries to reconstitute even now as much as possible? That network also includes the unmarried, the infants, children who died young, and—who could exclude them?—gays and lesbians, because all of these are also part of families. The basis here is also love, but in a different meaning of the unitive function—the unification of humankind in familial relations.[64] This vision of the celestial world does not exclude the continuation of marital relations, but it does not require them. Eternal marriage can and should live on as a core tenet of Mormon faith, but without being so crucial as to devalue all other forms of eternal joy.

Note that the history of the more detailed doctrine of divine sexual functions as part of preexistence and worlds to populate runs pretty much parallel with the doctrines that detail racial groups in the preexistence, fence-sitters, and the priesthood ban. Since these doctrines were apparently never emphasized by Joseph Smith but were subsequent developments, would not also in this case the conclusion apply, as with the explanations for the priesthood ban, that “the Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding”?[65]

Conclusion

On the occasion of the election of Pope Francis in March 2013, the First Presidency of the Mormon Church released a statement of “warm wishes,” which included the sentence: “We have been honored and pleased as our two faiths have worked together on issues of faith, morality and service to the poor and needy.”[66]

Service to the poor and needy is evident. Humanitarian cooperation should meet no boundaries or restrictions. Catholics and Mormons, together with all people of good will, can combine forces in any situation of material need. And they do. But how well have the two churches worked together, or can they work together, on issues of faith and morality?

In comparing the Catholic and the Mormon churches, this article hardly touched on matters of faith, in the sense of theological tenets. The divide there is colossal, even if both churches use similar vocabulary for many concepts. Official and semi-official Catholic statements on Mormonism make clear that the latter does not belong to the Christian family and that its theology and added scriptures are blasphemous.[67] From its side, the Mormon Church, in spite of occasional diplomatic language, cannot hide that numerous passages in its founding texts reciprocate with similar characterizations.

As to morality, this article tried to show that, although the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church stand at first glance on common ground in human life ethics, even there the differences are substantial. Giving each other occasional support in publicly debated matters of “morality,” such as with Proposition 8, turns out to be a perilous endeavor. As soon as the differences come into play, the one church cannot support the other anymore, such as with ESCR or with birth control insurance coverage. To what extent the positions on same-sex marriage may diverge in the future remains to be seen, but the various factors mentioned in this article indicate that the Mormon Church is prone to respond more flexibly to social change and human needs.

Indeed, a basic difference from the Catholic Church resides in the guarded openness of Mormon leaders to alter viewpoints and in the subsequent modifications that Mormon policies can undergo in favor of more equality and tolerance. That is the privilege of a living church where even one of its highest and famously doctrinaire leaders could say:

Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept.[68]

---

Author's Note: I wish to thank Lavina Fielding Anderson, Craig Harline, and Armand L. Mauss for their valuable comments on the drafts of this arti-cle. Of course, the responsibility for the content is only mine.

Editor's Note: The Dialogue Foundation provides the web format of this article as a courtesy. There may be unintentional differences from the printed version. For citational and bibliographical purposes, please use the printed version or the PDFs provided online and on JSTOR.

[1] See, for example, Richard P. McBrien, The Church: The Evolution of Catholicism (New York: Harper Collins, 2008); Aidan Nichols, The Shape of Catholic Theology: An Introduction to Its Sources, Principles, and History (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991).

[2] Numerous books and articles have been written on Vatican II and continue to be written as to its long-term effects. See, e.g., Massimo Faggioli, Vatican II: The Battle for Meaning (Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press, 2012); Mathew L. Lamb and Mathew Levering, eds., Vatican II: Renewal within Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008); John W. O’Malley, What Happened at Vatican II (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2008); Melissa J. Wilde, Vatican II: A Sociological Analysis of Religious Change (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2007).

[3] See, for example, Rachel Anne Fenton, “Catholic Doctrine versus Women’s Rights: The New Italian Law on Assisted Reproduction,” Medical Law Review 14, no. 1 (2006): 73–107; Rishona Fleishman, “The Battle against Reproductive Rights: The Impact of the Catholic Church on Abortion Law in Both International and Domestic Arenas,” Emory International Law Review 14 (2000): 277–314; Anthony Gill, Rendering unto Caesar: The Catholic Church and the State in Latin America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998); Mala Htun, Sex and the State: Abortion, Divorce, and the Family under Latin American Dictatorships and Democracies (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2003); Carolyn M. Warner, Confessions of an Interest Group: The Catholic Church and Political Parties in Europe (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2000).

[4] I do not fully reference the basic Catholic magisterial documents I quote from, nor similar basic Mormon texts such as Handbook 2 or The Family: A Proclamation to the World. These documents, provided by the respective official church sites, are readily found on the internet. The English texts of the Catholic documents I quote from come directly from the Vatican site.

[5] See, for example, Charles E. Curran, ed., Change in Official Catholic Moral Teachings (New York: Paulist Press, 2003); Cathleen M. Kaveny, “Development of Catholic Moral Doctrine: Probing the Subtext,” University of St. Thomas Law Journal 1, no. 1 (2003): 234–252; John T. Noonan Jr., A Church That Can and Cannot Change: The Development of Catholic Moral Teaching (South Bend, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005); John Seidler, “Contested Accommodation: The Catholic Church as a Special Case of Social Change,” Social Forces 64, no. 4 (1986): 847–74.

[6] Armand L. Mauss, The Angel and the Beehive: The Mormon Struggle with Assimilation (Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1994); Mauss, “Rethinking Retrenchment: Course Corrections in the Ongoing Campaign for Respectability,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 44, no. 4 (2011): 1–42.

[7] It is noteworthy that, also among Catholic populations, there are vast differences between countries, between ethnic groups, and between urban or rural situations, as to religious identity, forms of devotion, liturgical preferences, and compliance to rules—a diversity unknown in the centralized, correlated Mormon Church. For example, considered in their average conduct, Dutch Catholics are quite different from their Polish or Irish coreligionists, who, in turn, would be surprised at Catholicism in some regions in Latin America or in Africa. Catholicism in the United States, even taking into account its internal diversity, has become more conservative and principled than in many West European countries. This worldwide diversity is often the result of retention strategies: local Catholic leaders allow Catholicism to adapt to the local religious market situation in order to keep or to regain adherents. The directions can be as varied as re-traditionalization, modernization, or pseudo-indigenization. The literature on these “Catholicisms” is vast. A few examples: Karen Andersen, “Irish Secularization and Religious Identities: Evidence of an Emerging New Catholic Habitus,” Social Compass 57, no. 1 (2010): 15–39; R. Scott Appleby, “Diversity as a Source of Catholic Common Ground,” New Theology Review 13, no. 3 (2013): 15–25; John Caiazza, “American Conservatism and the Catholic Church,” Modern Age 52, no. 1 (2010): 14–24; Edward L. Cleary, The Rise of Charismatic Catholicism in Latin America (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2011); Kees de Groot, “Two Alienation Scenarios: Explaining the Distance be-tween Catholics and Roman Catholic Church in the Netherlands,” in Religious Identity and National Heritage: Empirical-Theological Perspectives, edited by Francis-Vincent Anthony and Hans-Georg Ziebertz (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 195–212; Nicholas Jay Demerath III, “The Rise of ‘Cultural Religion’ in European Christianity: Learning from Poland, Northern Ireland, and Sweden,” Social Compass 47, no. 1 (2000): 127–39; Steffen Dix, “Religious Plurality within a Catholic Tradition: A Study of the Portuguese Capital, Lisbon, and a Brief Comparison with Mainland Portugal,” Religion 39, no. 2 (2009): 182–93; Frances Hagopian, ed., Religious Pluralism, Democracy, and the Catholic Church in Latin America (South Bend, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2009); Ludovic Lado, Catholic Pentecostalism and the Paradoxes of Africanization: Processes of Localization in a Catholic Charismatic Movement in Cameroon (Leiden: Brill, 2009); Cristián Parker Gumucio, “Catholicismes Populaires Urbains et Glob-alisation: Étude de Cas au Chili,” Social Compass 45, no. 4 (1998): 595–618; Guillermo Trejo, “Religious Competition and Ethnic Mobilization in Latin America: Why the Catholic Church Promotes Indigenous Movements in Mexico,” American Political Science Review 103, no. 3 (2009): 323–42.

[8] Note, however, that the aims of Vatican II and of correlation were quite different. In the terms of Armand Mauss’s distinction between assimilation and retrenchment, Vatican II was more an effort at assimilation, i.e., how to bring the Catholic Church into the modern world, closer to the people, away from Latin, with more democratic participation and dialogue, decentralization, and more adaptations to local cultures. The Mormon correlation movement aimed at more central control through worldwide standardization in organization and curriculum, including a formal attachment to the King James language in the standard works—hence, retrenchment.

[9] Paul VI, Humanae Vitae [Encyclical Letter on the Regularion of Birth], sec. 11–12.

[10] See, for example, Donald P. Asci, The Conjugal Act as a Personal Act: A Study of the Catholic Concept of the Conjugal Act in the Light of Christian Anthropology (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2002); John Boyle, ed., Creative Love: The Ethics of Human Reproduction (Front Royal: Christendom Press, 1989); Lisa Sowle Cahill, “Catholic Sexual Ethics and the Dignity of the Person: A Double Message,” Theological Studies 50 (1989): 120–50; Frank R. Flaspohler, “All Who Live in Love: The Law and Theology behind Same-Sex Marriage,” Loyola Journal of Public Interest Law 11, no. 1 (2009): 87–130; Benedict M. Guevin, “Reproductive Technologies in Light of ‘Dignitas Personae,’” The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 10, no. 1 (2010): 51–59; John Haas, “The Inseparability of the Two Meanings of the Marriage Act,” in Reproductive Technologies, Marriage, and the Church: Proceedings of 1988 Bishops’ Workshop, edited by Donald G. McCarthy (Braintree, Mass.: Pope John Center, 1988), 89–106; James P. Hanigan, “Unitive and Procreative Meaning: The Inseparable Link,” in Sexual Diversity and Catholicism: Toward the Development of Moral Theology, edited by Patricia Beattie Jung (Collegeville: Liturgical Press), 22–38; Bernard Häring, “The Inseparability of the Unitive-Procreative Functions of the Marital Act,” in Contraception: Authority and Dissent, edited by Charles E. Curran (New York: Herder, 1969), 176–85.

[11] Handbook 2, 21.4.4.

[12] Ibid.

[13] True to the Faith (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2004), 26.

[14] See Donald W. Hastings, Charles H. Reynolds, and Ray R. Canning, “Mormonism and Birth Planning: The Discrepancy between Church Authorities’ Teachings and Lay Attitudes,” Population Studies 26, no. 1 (1972): 19–28; Tim B. Heaton and Sandra Calkins, “Family Size and Contraceptive Use among Mormons: 1965–75,” Review of Religious Research 25, no. 2 (1983): 102–14; Melissa Proctor, “Bodies, Babies, and Birth Control,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 36, no. 3 (2003): 159–75.

[15] Humanae Vitae, sec. 14.

[16] “Birth Control,” Catholic Answers, imprimatur August 10, 2004 (accessed April 21, 2013).

[17] In an HIV-discordant couple, only one of the two partners is HIV-infected. See Luc Bovens, “Can the Catholic Church Agree to Condom Use by HIV-Discordant Couples?” Journal of Medical Ethics 35, no. 12 (2009): 743–46. For studies of contraception in Catholicism, see M. John Farrelly, “Contraception as a Test Case for the Development of Doctrine,” The Heythrop Journal 49, no. 3 (2008): 453–72; Rachel K. Jones and Joerg Dreweke, Countering Conventional Wisdom: New Evidence on Religion and Contraceptive Use (New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2011); John T. Noonan Jr. and John Thomas Noonan, Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists, enlarged edition (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2012).

[18] Humanae Vitae, sec. 16.

[19] Humanae Vitae, sec. 10.

[20] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2370.

[21] Code of Canon Law, canon 1398.

[22] The case drew worldwide attention. See details and media references in the Wikipedia entry (accessed April 21, 2013).

[23] Handbook 2, 21.4.1.

[24] Ibid.

[25] “Abortion,” Catholic Answers, August 10, 2004 (accessed April 21, 2013).

[26] John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae [Encyclical Letter on the Value and Inviolability of Human Life], sec. 14.

[27] See, for example, the 2008 Instruction Dignitas Personae by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

[28] See Cindy Wooden, “Embryos Cannot Be Destroyed Even for Important Research, Says Pope,” Catholic News Service, November 14, 2011 (accessed April 20, 2013); Pat Perriello, “Stem Cell Research and the Francis Papacy,” National Catholic Reporter, April 15, 2013 (accessed April 30, 2013).

[29] “Statement Regarding Stem Cell Research,” August 10, 2001 (accessed April 20, 2013).

[30] See Jan Cienski, “Mormons May Be Key in Stem-Cell Debate,” Worldwide Religious News, August 4, 2001 (accessed April 20, 2013).

[31] “Embryonic Stem-Cell Research,” Newsroom of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (accessed April 20, 2013).

[32] “Commentary—Embryonic Stem-Cell Research,” Newsroom of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, May 26, 2005 (accessed April 20, 2013).

[33] Handbook 2, 21.3.3.

[34] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2277.

[35] John Paul II, Salvifici Doloris [Apostolic Letter on the Christian Meaning of Human Suffering], sec. 19. See also John Paul II, “Address to the Participants in the International Congress on ‘Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas,’” March 20, 2004 (accessed April 20, 2013).

[36] Handbook 2, 21.3.8.

[37] Isaiah Bennett, “Did the Mormons’ President Downplay a Central Teaching of Mormonism?” Catholic Answers (accessed April 20, 2013).

[38] Edward Peters, “Review of Isaiah Bennett, When Mormons Call,” Canon Law Info, updated January 10, 2013 (accessed April 23, 2013).

[39] Though Latin America remains overwhelmingly Catholic (with internal variations), Pentecostals grew from an estimated 12 million in the 1970s to an estimated 75 million in 2006. See Pew Research, “Overview: Pentecostalism in Latin America,” October 5, 2006 (accessed April 30, 2013). The phenomenon has been widely studied. See, for example, James W. Dow, “Protestantism in Mesoamerica: The Old within the New,” in Holy Saints and Fiery Preachers: The Anthropology of Protestantism in Mexico and Central America, edited by James W. Dow and Alan R. Sandstrom (Westport: Praeger Publishers, 2001), 1–23; Toomas Gross, “Changing Faith: The Social Costs of Protestant Conversion in Rural Oaxaca,” Ethnos: Journal of Anthropology 77, no. 3 (2012): 344–71; Bernardo Guerrero, “The Street Is Free: Identity and Politics among Evangelicals in Chile,” Religion, State and Society 40, no. 1 (2012): 11–23; Carlos Garma Navarro, “Religious Change in Mexico: Perspectives from Recent Data,” Social Sciences and Missions 24, no. 1 (2011): 75–100; David Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant? The Politics of Evangelical Growth (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990).

[40] Paul Freston, “Religious Pluralism, Democracy, and Human Rights in Latin America,” in Religion and the Global Politics of Human Rights, edited by Thomas Banchoff and Robert Wuthnow (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 102.

[41] As quoted in Samuel Escobar, “Christianity in Latin America: Changing Churches in a Changing Continent,” in Introducing World Christianity, edited by Charles E. Farhadian (Chichester, West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing, 2012), 174.

[42] “LDS church unveils plans to do less door-to-door proselytizing,” Catholic Answers, June 24, 2013 (accessed July 8, 2013).

[43] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2357.

[44] In the magisterial document “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons,” June 3, 2003.

[45] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2358. In 1986 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith sent a letter to the Catholic bishops “on the pastoral care of homosexual persons” in which it deplores “that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs.” However, most of the long letter is to reiterate that homosexuality is a “moral disorder” and to condemn those who within the church argue otherwise. See the magisterial document “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons,” October 1, 1986.

[46] Keith Fourier, “On Plane Back to Rome: What Did the Pope Really Say about Homosexual Practice vs. Media Hype?” Catholic Online, July 30, 2013 (accessed July 31, 2013).

[47] Matt Canham, Derek P. Jensen, and Rosemary Winters, “Salt Lake City Adopts Pro-Gay Statutes—with LDS Church Support,” Salt Lake Tribune, November 10, 2009 (accessed April 5, 2013); Erik Eckholm, “Mormons Endorse Plan to Admit Gay Scouts,” New York Times, April 26, 2013 (accessed May 7, 2013); Stephanie Mencimer, “Mormon Church Abandons Its Crusade against Gay Marriage,” Mother Jones, April 12, 2013 (accessed May 5, 2013); “Mormon Church Shift on Gay Marriage Brings Momentum to Pro-Equality Camp,” Huffington Post, March 13, 2013 (accessed April 27, 2013); Peggy Fletcher Stack, “New Mormon Church Website Has Softer Tone on Gays,” Salt Lake Tribune, December 7, 2012 (accessed April 17, 2013); Peggy Fletcher Stack, “Years of Tension Yield to Thaw between Gays, Mormons,” Religion News Service, January 3, 2013 (accessed April 16, 2013).

[48] Handbook 2, 21.4.6.

[49] Code of Canon Law, canons 1084–5.

[50] Jurisdictions to determine if such exemptions differ from country to country: see Bruce MacDougall, Elsje Bonthuys, Kenneth Norrie, and Marjolein van den Brink, “Conscientious Objection to Creating Same-Sex Unions: An International Analysis,” Canadian Journal of Human Rights 1, no. 1 (2012): 127–64. Exemptions, it should be recognized, create their own set of challenges, but these can be overcome. See Michael Kent Curtis, “Unique Religious Exemption from Antidiscrimination Laws in the Case of Gays? Putting the Call for Exemptions for Those Who Discriminate against Married or Marrying Gays in Context,” Wake Forest Law Review 47, no. 2 (2012): 173–209; Robin Fretwell Wilson, “Insubstantial Burdens: The Case for Government Employee Exemptions to Same-Sex Marriage Laws,” Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy 5, no. 2 (2010): 318–68.

[51] The well-being of children with same-sex parents is a legitimate concern. The issue has been used extensively to oppose same-sex marriage. See Courtney G. Joslin, “Searching for Harm: Same-Sex Marriage and the Well-Being of Children,” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 46, no. 81 (2011): 81–102. Long-term, population-based sample analyses to measure the well-being of children with same-sex parents are still in the making, but existing studies give reassuring indications. See, e.g., Alicia Crowl, Soyeon Ahn, and Jean Baker, “A Meta-Analysis of Developmental Outcomes for Children of Same-Sex and Heterosexual Parents,” Journal of GLBT Family Studies 4, no. 3 (2008): 385–406; Jeremy R. Garrett and John D. Lantos, “Marriage and the Well-Being of Children,” Pediatrics 131, no. 3 (2013): 559–63; Timothy F. Murphy, “Same-Sex Marriage: Not a Threat to Marriage or Children,” Journal of Social Philosophy 42, no. 3 (2011): 288–304; Andrew J. Perrin, Philip N. Cohen, and Neal Caren, “Are Children of Parents Who Had Same-Sex Relationships Disadvantaged? A Scientific Evaluation of the No-Differences Hypothesis,” Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health 17, no. 3 (2013): 327–36; Ellen C. Perrin, Benjamin S. Siegel, and the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, “Technical Report: Promoting the Well-Being of Children Whose Parents Are Gay or Lesbian,” Pediatrics 131, no. 4 (2013): e1374 -e1383; Daniel Potter, “Same-Sex Parent Families and Children’s Academic Achievement,” Journal of Marriage and Family 74, no. 3 (2012): 556–71.

[52] The process is mutually reinforcing: “Children in same-sex families are generally doing well but their situation could be improved if their parents’ relationship were to be socially and legally recognized.” Guido Pennings, “Evaluating the Welfare of the Child in Same-Sex Families,” Human Reproduction 26, no. 7 (2011): 1609. Similarly, “studies suggest that there is an association between the stigma that same-sex parent families experience and child well-being.” Simon Robert Crouch, Elizabeth Waters, Ruth McNair, Jennifer Power, and Elise Davis, “ACHESS–The Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families: Background Research, Design and Methodology,” BMC Public Health 12 (2012): 646. See also Juliet E. Hart, Jon E. Mourot, and Megan Aros, “Children of Same-Sex Parents: In and Out of the Closet,” Educational Studies 38, no. 3 (2012): 277–81. In other words, comparative studies on child well-being will gain in validity if they can be conducted in environments where same-sex parents are as well accepted as others. Legalizing same-sex marriage also has vital implications for the basic legal rights of their children. See Catherine E. Smith, “Equal Protection for Children of Same-Sex Parents,” Washington University Law Review, forthcoming; Tanya Washington, “What about the Children? Child-Centered Challenges to Same-Sex Marriage Bans,” Whittier Journal of Child and Family Advocacy 12, no. 1 (2012): 1–22.

[53] For an analysis of the Mormon position on religious freedom within shifting cultural backgrounds in the United States, see Mauro Properzi, “LDS Understandings of Religious Freedom: Responding to the Shifting Cultural Pendulum,” Journal of Mormon History 38, no. 4 (2012): 128–47. Among the publications that discuss same-sex marriage and religious freedom, I found the following helpful: Eric Alan Isaacson, “Are Same-Sex Marriages Really a Threat to Religious Liberty?” Stanford Journal of Civil Rights & Civil Liberties 8, no. 1 (2012): 123–53; Steven Kettell, “I Do, Thou Shalt Not: Religious Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage in Britain,” The Political Quarterly 84, no. 2 (2013): 247–55; Douglas Laycock and Thomas C. Berg, “Protecting Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty,” Virginia Law Review in Brief 99, no. 1 (2013): 1–9; Ira C. Lupu and Robert W. Tuttle, “Same-Sex Equality and Religious Freedom,” Northwestern Journal of Law &Socia lPolicy 5, no. 2 (2010): 274–306; Michael J. Perry, “The Right to Religious Freedom, with Particular Reference to Same-Sex Marriage,” Journal of Law, Religion and State, 1, no. 2 (2012): 147–79.

[54] Isaacson, “Are Same-Sex Marriages Really a Threat to Religious Liberty?” 151.

[55] Also, the debate on religious freedom plays out differently in various countries. Arguments used by religious leaders in the United States can be misinterpreted and misused in other settings, while governmental limitations of religious freedom can be defended as needed to counter sectarian radicalization that can destabilize a country. More comparative insights are needed to understand these competing demands and concerns, both from religion and from government, in order to find appropriate balances between them in international perspective. For this discussion, see, for example, Rex Ahdar and Ian Leigh, Religious Freedom in the Liberal State, 2d ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013); Fred Dallmayr, “Whither Democracy? Religion, Politics and Islam,” Philosophy and Social Criticism 37, no. 4 (2011): 437–48; Francois Facchini, “Religion, Law and Development: Islam and Christianity—Why Is It in Occident and not in the Orient That Man Invented the Institutions of Freedom?” European Journal of Law and Economics 29, no. 1 (2010): 103–29; Brian J. Grim and Roger Finke, The Price of Freedom Denied: Religious Persecution and Conflict in the 21st Century (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2011); Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehar, Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide, 2d ed. (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2011); Samuel James Rascoff, “Establishing Official Islam? The Law and Strategy of Counter-Radicalization,” Stanford Law Review 64, no. 1 (2012): 125–90; Timothy Samuel Shah, Alfred Stepan, and Monica Duffy Toft, eds., Rethinking Religion and World Affairs (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012); John Witte Jr. and Nina-Louisa Arold, “Lift High the Cross: Contrasting the New European and American Cases on Religious Symbols on Government Property,” Emory International Law Review 25, no. 5 (2011): 5–55.

[56] Handbook 2, 21.4.10.

[57] On a side note, generalizing the requirement of a preceding civil marriage to the whole church, also in the United States, and defining the temple ceremony as a “sealing,” not as a marriage, could help alleviate the tragic situations where family members cannot attend the temple ceremony. I am a personal witness of what heartbreak and enmity toward the Church the present situation causes, in particular in the case of young converts who join the Church without their parents and subsequently marry in the Church. The civil marriage could become the festive event where all are invited, while the sealing, a few days or weeks later, could be a sober ceremony receiving its full religious attention from the couple and the initiated. It could be a uniform system for the whole Church worldwide.

[58] Interview with Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman: “Same-Gender Attraction,” Newsroom of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, December 12, 2012 (accessed April 21, 2013). The interview was given in 2006.

[59] Handbook 2, 21.4.10.

[60] Gospel Fundamentals (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2002), 201.

[61] In their opposition to same-sex marriage, churches usually emphasize their theological arguments for their own membership, while stressing the more secular arguments in the public debate. See the article by Kettell, note 54. In that sense, the Mormon Church’s argumentation against same-sex marriage is somewhat ambivalent as the core theological reason is avoided in the public debate.

[62] Taylor G. Petrey raises such questions in his article “Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 44, no. 4 (2011): 106–41. Weird calculations of pregnancy and birth rates of Mormon “goddesses” are also found in anti-Mormon material.

[63] Eugene England, “On Fidelity, Polygamy, and Celestial Marriage,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 20, no. 4 (1987): 148.

[64] Is it possible that the Mormon Church is already in a process of de-emphasizing the doctrine of literal offspring in heaven in favor of a more graspable and less challenging imagery of eternal family life? “To have spirit children” in married afterlife is still part of the 1997 edition of Gospel Principles: “Heavenly Father has given us the law of eternal marriage so we can become like him. We must live this law to be able to have spirit children” (242), but the second sentence does not appear anymore in the printed version of 2009 (220). That sentence is still in chapter 38 of the online version (accessed August 3, 2013). The 2009 edition kept one earlier mention of the concept in presenting the plan in the preexistence: “We would become heavenly parents and have spirit children just as He does (11). In True to the Faith (2004) no reference is made to having spirit children as part of exaltation. The text defines exaltation as follows: “Eternal life, or exaltation, is to inherit a place in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, where we will live in God’s presence and continue as families” (52). That representation seems to accentuate a more classic eternal togetherness as an extension of family life rather than the procreative dynamics “to have spirit children and make new worlds for them to live on,” as stated in Gospel Fundamentals (201). One may wonder if these rephrasings are part of a deliberate effort to down-play similar daring Mormon doctrinal traditions such as the Lorenzo Snow couplet, which President Hinckley seemed to trivialize in his talking to the press. See Michael W. Fordham, “Does President Gordon B. Hinckley Understand LDS Doctrine?” FAIR (accessed August 4, 2013).

[65] “Church Statement Regarding ‘Washington Post’ Article on Race and the Church,” Newsroom of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, February 29, 2012 (accessed April 23, 2013).

[66] “First Presidency Offers ‘Warmest Wishes’ to Newly-Elected Pope Francis,” Newsroom of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, March 13, 2013 (accessed April 20, 2013).

[67] Again, the American West, with the historic coexistence of Mormons and Catholics, is not representative of the rest of the world. Since the middle of the nineteenth century, scores of Catholic authors have published scathing critiques of Mormonism. In the 1980s the denigration became part of the broader anti-cultist movement. The 2001 rejection by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of the validity of Mormon baptism is significant not only in a theological sense, but also in its time frame as President Gordon B. Hinckley had been actively seeking for more interfaith tolerance and cooperation in the preceding years. In 2008 the same congregation directed Catholic dioceses throughout the world to keep the Latter-day Saints from microfilming information contained in Catholic parish registers “so as not to cooper-ate with the erroneous practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” Chaz Muth, “Vatican Letter Directs Bishops to Keep Parish Records from Mormons,” Catholic News Service, May 2, 2008 (accessed April 29, 2013). The abrupt move, ten days before Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to the United States with an ecumenical prayer service attended by Mormon apostles M. Russell Ballard and Quentin L. Cook, seemed a shot across the bow. The recent election of a pope from Argentina does not augur well for a Catholic-Mormon rapprochement, taking the inroads of the Mormon Church in Latin America into account. As noted previously, the present surge in Mormon missionary work and strategies is not prone to lead to better institutional relations on the highest level, though local initiatives of interfaith dialogue and cooperation will meet little obstruction. Catholic Answers offers the present assessment of Mormonism: “While the Catholic Church would reject nothing that is true or good in Mormonism or any other world religion, Catholic theology would have to note that there is a tremendous amount in Mormonism that is neither true nor good. Further, because Mormonism presents itself as a form of Christianity yet is incompatible with the historic Christian faith, sound pastoral practice would need to warn the Christian faithful: Mormon theology is blasphemous, polytheistic, and cannot be considered on par with the theology of other Christian groups,” mentioned in “What Does the Catholic Church Say about the Practices and Beliefs of Mormonism?” (accessed May 17, 2013).

[68] Bruce R. McConkie, “All Are Alike unto God,” Address, CES Religious Educators Symposium, Brigham Young University Speeches, August 18, 1978 (accessed April 20, 2013).

[post_title] => “As Our Two Faiths Have Worked Together”—Catholicism and Mormonism on Human Life Ethics and Same-Sex Marriage [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 46.3 (Fall 2013): 106–141
Wilfred Decoo writes in 2013 ““As Our Two Faiths Have Worked Together”— Catholicism and Mormonism on Human Life Ethics and Same-Sex Marriage.” He expains, “I analyze a number of factors that could ease the way for the Mormon Church to withdraw its opposition to same-sex marriage, at least as it concerns civil society, while the Catholic Church is unlikely to budge.” [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => as-our-two-faiths-have-worked-together-catholicism-and-mormonism-on-human-life-ethics-and-same-sex-marriage [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-08-05 23:36:12 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-08-05 23:36:12 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=9459 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 9621 [post_author] => 1865 [post_date] => 2018-03-16 15:27:26 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-03-16 15:27:26 [post_content] =>

Whatsoever you seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever you bind on earth, in my name and by my word, saith the Lord, it shall be eternally bound in the heavens.

D&C 132:46

The issue of homosexual relationships is among the most public struggles facing religious groups in America today.[1] The issue is not as simple as gay people versus religious groups, as rhetoric on either side often suggests; but it has become increasingly apparent that there is significant overlap of people who identify both as homosexual and religious. Mormon writing on homosexuality often has had a pastoral character, aimed either at easing the transition for those seeking to leave the Church or smoothing the way for those who desire to remain within it.[2] Those who have thought to advocate change with the LDS Church and culture have focused primarily on “attitudes” toward homosexuality encouraging “understanding and tolerance for homosexual people.”[3] Too often this discussion of homosexuality has focused on either its etiology, or its relationship to the will, though neither the appeal to nature nor nurture resolves the question of ethics and meaning.[4]

Alan Michael Williams suggests that the question that Latter-day Saints must face is “how the Mormon ‘family’ can continue to make sense soteriologically when it does not represent the diversity of American families.”[5] Williams’s question is ultimately a social one—about a soteriology “making sense” in the context of an America where Mormon notions of family look increasingly anachronistic. For Latter-day Saints, the question is not simply a social one, but a theological problem of soteriological significance. The theological and theoretical work that may serve as a basis for reimagining the practices of the Church with respect to homosexual relationships has yet to begin with any seriousness.

What follows is a thought experiment on the question of how Mormons might imagine different kinds of sealing relationships other than heterosexual marriage. Such an experiment neither constitutes Church doctrine nor intends to advocate itself as Church doctrine. Rather, this essay provides an occasion to think critically about the intellectual and theological problems posed by the reality of alternative relationships outside of heterosexual norms. This essay treats the theological resources that can account for and make legible particular kinds of homosexual relationships within Mormonism. I use the term “homosexual relationships” to describe the particular dilemma for Mormon thought. Though contemporary Mormon discourse distinguishes between homosexual desires and sexual practices, permitting the former but rejecting the latter, both desires and practices obscure relationships as a dimension of homosexual experiences.

The opacity of the term “homosexuality” and its multiple and limiting meanings make it particularly unhelpful. The artificiality and historical contingency of our terms “homosexual” and “heterosexual” to describe “species” of persons is problematic for thinking socially and theologically.[6] Given that Mormonism imagines ideal heterosexuality, not as desires or practices, but as eternal relationships, could this same framework help us to reimagine the permissibility of homosexual relationships within Mormonism?

The LDS theological focus on marriage is not reducible to “sexuality” since there are many circumstances in which marriages may be entirely celibate, such as the case of physical incapacitation. Nor should we reduce homosexual relationships to “sexuality,” since such an equation also distorts not only the actual practice of such relationships but is inconsistent with our own understanding of the salvific character of relationships per se—not the details of sexual practices performed within those relationships.

Any attempt to think creatively and theologically within Mormonism to reconcile the tension between the LDS Church and those who identify as homosexual must investigate the ideologies and theologies that inform the current tension. Some may feel that no reconciliation is possible, that LDS teachings cannot and should not accept homosexual relationships as intelligible. This position is certainly viable, though it requires defense rather than simply repetition and assertion. We are forced to diagnose either way what is problematic with homosexual relationships according to current LDS theology.

As I understand it, much of the theological objection to homosexual relationships lies in current LDS understandings of the afterlife and the kinds of relationships that will exist there. First, these relationships are frequently understood to be reproductive relationships, at least among those who occupy the highest degree of the celestial kingdom.[7] Second, the ordinance of sealing binds these reproductive families together, sealing only those who can presumably reproduce either in this life or the next. Finally, the heterosexual pairs of men and women should possess the proper “gender,” which is eternal. Homosexual relationships cannot be eternal because they are not able to reproduce by means of natural biological methods and confuse the natural gender they should possess. I will address these claims in order to suggest how it may be possible to imagine sealed homosexual relationships as compatible with key doctrines of Mormonism.

Celestial Reproduction

The belief in divine reproduction constitutes a central tenet for many Mormons, in spite of its rather thin canonical support. Even defining what exactly is meant by this belief in divine reproduction can be particularly unclear. At issue is determining exactly what is meant by the belief that human beings are a “spirit son or daughter of Heavenly Parents.”[8] For instance, in a recent essay exploring “common ground” between womanist theology and LDS theology, professors of political science at Brigham Young University Valerie M. Hudson and Alma Don Sorenson asserted: “The primary work of God is to have children and nurture them into godhood.” In a clarifying footnote, the authors backed away from this bold statement with the significant caveat: “Actually, have is not the right word here. In LDS theology, God does not create intelligence; rather, God organizes intelligences to the point that they can be called God’s children, a process that is known as ‘spirit birth.’”[9] The ambivalence on this point is a persistent tension in Mormon thought. That is, the doctrine of spiritual birth stands at odds with the doctrine of eternal intelligences, and to this day Mormonism has not resolved this tension.[10] On the one hand, “spirit birth” is a divine reproduction that mirrors human reproduction, requiring a male and female partner; and on the other hand, “spirit birth” is a more metaphorical “organization” that bears little resemblance to reproduction as a result of sexual intercourse. The former model of spirit birth depends on a heterosexual pair (at least if divine bodies are biologically constrained without access to the kinds of technologies human bodies may benefit from) and is often used as the prototype for the heterosexual family, as the authors quoted above argue. The latter model of spirit birth, however, requires nothing in particular about the sexual or reproductive acts of God, whose organization of spirits likely has little to do with the reproductive organs he or she (or his or her partner) might have.

This doctrine of spirit birth faces a few significant challenges. In Doctrine and Covenants 93—and repeated in many other of Joseph Smith’s speeches, translations, and revelations—individual human identity is thought of as eternal, perhaps in explicit disagreement with the doctrine of spirit birth as it was developing among some of his disciples in 1843–44.[11] The doctrine of spirit birth seeks to reconcile itself with this doctrine of eternal intelligences by positing a four-fold progressive anthropology: from intelligence, to spirit, to mortal body, and finally to a glorified body. In this view, Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother may not be the “parents” of intelligences, but are parents of spirits—in some sense having given “birth” to them. Advocates of “spirit birth” based on heterosexual reproduction generally insist that it is similar, if not identical, to the birth of mortal bodies. As it is frequently imagined, the process of male-female mutual divinization entails not only a sexual relationship, but also a reproductive one in order to populate future worlds. Such a notion may be tied to the promises of eternal increase, “a continuation of the seeds forever and ever” (D&C 132:19) in the revelation given on celestial marriage. In this view of the marital relationship, mixed-sex couples are eternally engaged in the reproduction of spirit children.

While articulating the spirit birth process as providing the intelligence with a spirit in a way analogous to how mortal birth provides the spirit with a physical body, the analogy is strained to the point of breaking. If reproduction as we know it now offers a model for heavenly reproduction so as to exclude homosexual relationships by definition, then must we imagine that male gods deposit sperm in the bodies of female gods (who menstruate monthly when they are not pregnant), that the pregnant female god gestates spirit embryos for nine months and then gives birth to spirit bodies? While some LDS thinkers imagine an eternally pregnant Heavenly Mother, I see no reason why we must commit to this kind of literal pregnancy as the reason for divine female figures.[12] In mortal birth, parents with bodies provide lower-stage spirits with bodies in order to bring them to the same level. However, in this view of spirit birth, divinized parents provide intelligences with spirits, two levels below their own stage of progression. Mortal bodies give birth to equal mortal bodies, yet in this understanding of spirit birth, glorified bodies give birth to inferior spirit bodies. There is no equivalency between the two understandings of birth because they accomplish very different things in very different circumstances.

What would it mean for homosexual relationships if we were to substitute the tentative doctrine of literal divine reproduction for other models of “birth”? For instance, the process of “birth” is not used to describe each of the series of progression from intelligence to spirit to mortal body to resurrection. Resurrected bodies need not be born from resurrected beings but are organized from matter. We need not consider that spirit bodies must be literally born but may be “organized” in an analogous way to the resurrection. Even the model of baptism, which marks a spiritual rebirth, may be thought of as a model for how spirit children are born to divinized parents. In such models, biological reproduction is not needed to explain celestial parentage. Such ideas are certainly not the logical consequence of the notion of divine embodiment.

The issue of God’s embodiment is not as clear cut as it may initially appear. While we recognize continuity in appearance and even substance with the future exalted body, we also acknowledge that it is quite different. As Blake Ostler explains, “The sense in which the Father’s body is like a human body must be qualified.”[13] For instance, a divine body is not constrained by space and time in the ways that mortal bodies are. From scriptural accounts, divine bodies can appear, disappear, pass through walls, and resist entropy. While these scriptural accounts affirm that it is possible for divine bodies to perform functions such as eating and drinking, they also suggest that there is no necessary requirement that they do so in order to sustain life. Why then, do we imagine that sexual union as we know it in mortality is a necessary function for the production of life in divine bodies if these bodies are so dissimilar in every other way from mortal bodies? Could not sexual union be a possibility for divine bodies but not be a necessity for creation, just as alimentary functions may be possible but not necessary?

In addition to the resurrection, the creation provides a better model for thinking about how this “spirit birth” might occur than the process of mortal parturition. In both the canonical and ritual accounts of creation, women are entirely absent.[14] Creation of the earth, organization of the elements, and even the creation of the living bodies of Adam and Eve all occur without the presence of female figures. The creation as we know it is capable of being performed with an all-male cast. This has the effect of not only making women superfluous to creation and salvation, but also of putting a male-male relationship as the source of creativity, productivity, and the giving of life itself.

The story of Adam and Eve in LDS scripture and ritual is often cited as the example of divinely authorized heterosexuality.[15] Yet the creation of both Adam and Eve does not in any way affirm heterosexual reproduction as the method of divine creation either spiritually or materially. Indeed, creation according to God’s “word” is attested in all scriptural accounts available to Latter-day Saints (Gen 1–2; Moses 2–3; Abr. 4–5). Adam’s body is formed “from the dust of the ground . . . but spiritually they were created and made according to my word” (Moses 3:7). Both spiritual and material formation takes place without any sexual union. Furthermore, males alone perform the creation of Adam’s body. Even Eve is “reproduced” from a male body with the help of other males. The Lord penetrates the body of Adam and creates Eve. The capacity for Adam’s body to reproduce by means of another male provides scriptural precedent in the foundational story of humanity to the variety of possibilities available for Latter-day Saints to conceive of reproduction independent of heterosexual union.

Jesus’s birth from Mary may also provide a way of thinking about the process of giving birth that does not involve heterosexual union. While the male-male creation and male-female creation may be found in Mormon thought already, perhaps the model of the virgin birth—of female pregnancy without male penetration—could serve as an example of how female-female relationships might reproduce with only minimal assistance of a male participant, like the sperm donor for the modern female-female reproductive relationship. Though some early speculation in LDS thought suggested that God the Father did have sex with Mary, Mary’s virginity has been affirmed in official LDS doctrine.[16] Rather than seeing the conception of Jesus as a wholly exceptional event, James E. Talmage has suggested that this method of procreation was, “not in violation of natural law, but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof.”[17] While with Adam we have seen that male bodies may reproduce on their own, or with the help of another male, with Mary we see that female bodies may also reproduce without sexual intercourse. Or perhaps even the model of Adam reproducing Eve parthenogenically might also be a capacity of divine female bodies. Both scriptural accounts offer models of divine creation and reproduction not based on heterosexual union.

Though we have models of reproduction and creation that might suggest their possibility for same-sex partners, we Latter-day Saints face another theological question: Are creation and salvation male-only priesthood activities? The possibility of reproduction in the female-female relationship does not address the centrality of the male-only priesthood in LDS thought. A male-only priesthood represents a significant limitation for female-female relationships, linking the exclusion of women from exercising priesthood power and authority to the exclusion of women’s homosexual relationships. The fact that males can hold the priesthood allows the possibility for male-only creative relationships (like the male members of the Godhead) since priesthood may be held and exercised entirely independent of women in LDS practice. But if women do not have access to the priesthood—whatever we may mean by that term—, would they not be able to create without men? The autonomy afforded to males to create in Mormon tradition comes at the expense of females.

Historical precedents of women healing and blessing notwithstanding, most of the functions of the priesthood have not been exercised by women.[18] Further, promises to women that they would be given the priesthood (or in some sense share it) were conditional on their relationship to their husband.[19] Feminist concerns about the ability of men to act independently in the Church, while women are subject to male partnership as a prerequisite for their actions, are magnified in the consideration for female-female relationships. We may need to rethink women’s dependent status with respect to the priesthood in tandem with rethinking the possibility of homosexual relationships. Thinking through what the priesthood means in an eternal context—which would presumably not include things like the authority to ordain officers, bless the sick, administer sacraments and other administrative or temporally bounded notions of priesthood authority—is an essential task for thinking about whether women might be excluded from the eternal priesthood activities of creating and saving.

If divine creation and reproduction cannot be used to exclude the possibility of nonheterosexual relationships in LDS theology, what about mortal reproduction? How can the command to “multiply and replenish” the earth be fulfilled (Gen 1:27)?[20] In the context of the Church’s endorsement of ballot initiatives in several states to define marriage as between a man and a woman in the 2008 elections, the Church explained its interest in the issue in a document called “The Divine Institution of Marriage” that appeared in the online LDS Newsroom on August 13, 2008.[21] The issue of producing children is presented as a central reason for defining marriage as a heterosexual institution. Its authors reason, “Only a man and a woman together have the natural biological capacity to conceive children.” This argument is repeated later, stating that marriage is “legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide.” Marriage should be restricted to mixed-sex couples because “marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults.”[22]

While from a public policy perspective the Church asserts the necessary link between marriage and procreation, in practice having children is neither a requirement for Latter-day Saint marriages after they have been sealed, nor is the ability to have children a prerequisite for sealing. Neither marriage nor sex is thought of in exclusively procreationist terms.[23] While LDS teaching may consider procreation a religious desideratum, it cannot and should not be a reason to exclude someone from receiving the blessings of sealing, especially if afterlife creation has nothing to do with mortal procreation. There is no requirement or expectation of natural fertility to qualify for marriages, even sealings, in Latter-day Saint practice.[24] There is no reason to exclude nonreproductive couples from the blessings of sealing on the basis of reproductive capacity alone. But this lack of capacity to reproduce in no way diminishes the responsibility to provide for and rear children. Indeed, the wording of this obligation to rear children is not connected to reproductive capacity at all, but rather to the obligations that able couples have to provide children, by means of adoption or other forms of reproduction technology available today, with the education and formation to become responsible adults. Further, it is certainly the case that it is, in fact, possible for nonheterosexual couples to take care of children, either their own from previous relationships, through medical assistance, or by means of adoption. The authoritative teaching that families should care for and rear children into responsible adults suffers no harm if we continue to teach that all families, heterosexual or not, take this as a religious responsibility.

Sealings as Kinship

The LDS rite of sealing is currently practiced as a means of authorizing relationships between heterosexual couples and their children.[25] Past and present practices of sealings also point to ways that we might reconceive of sealing as untethered from the heterosexual biological family. I suggest that the practice of sealing is about ritually producing kinship relations that are not reducible to reproductive couples and bloodlines. Kinship may be defined as the practices of ritually marking relationships of care, trust, and bonding that are greater than friendship or community. That is to say, there are not predetermined relationships that count as kinship, but rather kinship emerges as a special kind of relationship within society. Sexual and reproductive relationships are one way that human societies practice kinship, but by no means the only way. Indeed, the biological basis for kinship is neither universal in human society, nor is it the only way that Latter-day Saints think about kinship. Rather, kinship is a way of making the biological results of sexual reproduction meaningful. Judith Butler suggests, “Kinship is itself a kind of doing, a practice that enacts that assemblage of significations as it takes place. . . .[T]hat norm acquires its durability by being reinstated time and again.”[26] In this understanding, reproduction acquires the significance of kinship rather than being constitutive of it.

Studies of kinship over the last century have emphasized its central role in human society.[27] Psychoanalytic, functionalist, and structuralist analyses of kinship suggested that it was the key to the development of subjectivity and to the very existence of civilization itself. The LDS teaching that “the family is the fundamental unit of society” owes its debt to this modern cultural assumption.[28] The hypothesis that kinship structures require a father and a mother is a feature of some twentieth-century theorists’ work on kinship.[29] This view, built on the Oedipal drama, assumes that the subject comes into being and culture by passing through this privileged social structure.[30] This argument is implicitly used to justify the insistence upon both a father and a mother in “The Divine Institution of Marriage.”[31] In this claim, the relations between the sexes gain significance only through reproduction, which marks reproduction as the foundational element in kinship.[32] The problem is not simply the insistence that heterosexual kinship guarantees the continued transmission of culture, but that the argument is more often that culture must guarantee the continued transmission of heterosexuality.[33]

Recent anthropological work has challenged the assumption that broader models of kinship are identical structurally (father-mother-child) to the modern Western nuclear family. The topic specifically at issue here is whether nonheterosexual kinship may qualify as a recognizable form of kinship. Certainly, there are numerous forms of kinship that do not conform to the reproductive heterosexual family organized by legal marriage. This model for defining kinship does not coincide with the way that kinship relations are established in African American,[34] gay and lesbian,[35] and some rural Chinese cultures,[36] at the very least.[37] Such post-kinship studies denaturalize the biological family as the basis of kinship and complement alternative ways of ordering society.[38]

LDS sealings for nonheterosexual relationships could offer a set of regularizing terms under which such existing social relationships are ritually legitimized.[39] For the Church to acknowledge nonheterosexual unions would be to acknowledge what already happens in practice—namely, that homosexual relationships of care and commitment, including the raising of children, exist. As it stands, the Church legitimizes heterosexual marriage as the only acknowledged way of marking kinship. To expand this definition is not to authorize any and all practices. Rather, same-sex marriage is really modeled on heterosexual practices of establishing legitimacy by means of long-term relationships of filiation. Homosexual activists have not universally accepted this project of privileging state-authorized marriage as the only way of establishing kinship.[40] Indeed, many see gay marriage as a profoundly conservative means of filiation.[41] For the Church to accept gay marriage would be to continue to privilege certain kinds of kinship over others, excluding certain sexual and relational possibilities. The relevant questions for sealing nonheterosexual couples are not the legal issues that link health care, hospital visitation, and tax benefits to marital status. For Latter-day Saints, the sense of purpose and divine partnership, as well as spiritual safeguards and consolation in life and death that sealings endow, are blessings that might apply to kinship relationships beyond the heterosexual, reproductive family.

These broader understandings of kinship practices not only serve as a better anthropological model for the multiplicity of culture, including modern Western culture, but also better explain historical precedents of the LDS sealing ritual, which similarly created kinship in nonreproductive relationships.[42] Though discontinued by President Wilford Woodruff in 1894, many men and women (most often married couples) were sealed to prominent nineteenth-century Church leaders through the “law of adoption” regardless of blood or reproductive relationships.[43] Prior to the Woodruff reform, the adoption sealing was intentionally a means of establishing new kinds of kinships other than familial-reproductive, though utilizing the vocabulary of the family. As Samuel Brown explains, “The Mormon heaven was emphatically not the Victorian hearth of the increasingly popular domestic heaven. . . . Smith’s heaven consisted of one boundless family of eternal intelligences.”[44] The practice of “adoption,” in which men and their families were sealed to other men and their families points to alternative ways of establishing kinship.[45] Instead of sealing genealogical chains, this system of kinship connected new social units of nonbiological families with the ultimate goal of uniting all of humanity into one sacred network.[46] In Orson Hyde’s “Diagram of the Kingdom of God,” he envisions the universal family tree made up of different branches with prophets at the head of each branch. To each prophet is sealed large kingdoms. From each of these branches extend still smaller branches, with even smaller branchings from them. Hyde describes how, in this patriarchal order, “every man will be given a kingdom and dominion, according to his merit, powers, and abilities. . . . There are kingdoms of all sizes, an infinite variety to suit all grades of merit and ability.”[47] This sense of rulership is not meant to suggest that the prophets are the literal fathers of the greatest number of people, but rather that, because of righteousness (not fecundity), their kingdoms are the greatest. In Parley P. Pratt’s terms, the “royal family” is one singular family that consists of “friends and kindred.”[48] This bond is not forged by a genealogical link, but by the sealing itself. As Joseph Smith proclaimed in the King Follett Discourse, “Use a little Craftiness & seal all you can & when you get to heaven tell your father that what you seal on earth should be sealed in heaven.”[49]

It wasn’t until after Woodruff’s temple reforms that proxy temple sealings were administered for deceased ancestors, including those who had rejected the faith in mortality. In 1894, the Utah Genealogical Society was formed as a response to this new interest in proxy temple work made possible by the new revelation and policy shift.[50] Woodruff explained the new practice which reversed the previous ban on sealing children to deceased parents: “The Lord has told me that it is right for children to be sealed to their parents, and they to their parents just as far back as we can possibly obtain the records, and then have the last obtainable member sealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith.”[51] This new practice centered on biological families, but also relied on the earlier notion of kingdoms, with Joseph Smith as the adoptive father of this dispensation. In time, the notion of dispensational kingdoms would recede ever more behind kingdoms based on individual lineage, thus paving the way for the contemporary emphasis on the nuclear family.[52] The new proxy sealings of married couples reduced the need for proxy adoption and also introduced greater flexibility in who could be sealed to whom, allowing for those who hadn’t been members of the Church in mortality to be sealed posthumously to living spouses or for ancestors to be sealed to one another. Less emphasis was placed on getting the earthly sealings absolutely correct, shifting the ultimate decisions about validity of a sealing from earthly ordinances to justice in the afterlife, noting that there “all will be made right.”[53] More important than making sure that one was sealed to a righteous person was performing the sealing itself.

One need not return to this earlier notion of the sealing as kinship for examples of nonreproductive or biological relationships but may rather explore the misrecognition of how the ritual is practiced today to link nonreproductive or biological kin. The clearest example is the current understanding of the theology of LDS adoption after the reformation of the adoption practices in the late nineteenth century. The case of nineteenth-century adoptions as a practice of establishing kinship in ways that are not biologically based poses a challenge to the assumption that biology is the basis of kinship.

Anthropologists have traditionally distinguished between “true” and “fictive” kinship, though this distinction rests on an assumption that privileges the biological relationship regardless of how families themselves treat such children. But the assumption that parents have a different relationship to biological than to “fictive” kin fails to account for how kinship may be extended at all.[54] It is, of course, often the case that families make no distinction between biological and adoptive children and, indeed, often reject the premises of the distinction. In LDS practice, nonbiological children are ritually incorporated into a new kinship structure by means of the sealing following legal adoption.

Perhaps one might suggest in anthropological terms that the LDS sealings of legally adopted children do mark adoptive kin as separate from those “born in the covenant.” The ritual itself certainly marks the crossing of a boundary, but the point is that, after the ritual, there is no meaningful distinction between biological and adoptive kin. In fact, though incredibly rare, it is possible that even those who were “born in the covenant” may be sealed anew to adoptive parents.[55] Rather than consider the biological child who has been born within a LDS kinship structure as already covered by the blessings of sealing a priori, it is possible for this child’s sealing to take place in the adoptive family. Here, the sealing ritually marks how the kinship structure takes precedence over and replaces the biological family.[56]

The case of divorce and the cancellation of sealings further reinforces the principle that biology is less important than the sealing itself. President Ezra Taft Benson explained that the children of parents whose sealing was cancelled “are entitled to birthright blessings, and if they remain worthy, are assured the right and privilege of eternal parentage regardless of what happens to their natural parents or the parents to whom they were sealed.”[57] Benson’s view here represents a continuation of the reforms under Woodruff that emphasized the sealing itself as important, not necessarily to whom one is sealed. Further, it distinguishes biological kin from the blessings of kinship through sealing, promising kin on the basis of the sealing even if biological kin cannot fulfill that role.

When kinship replaces reproduction in the logic of the sealing, we may consider how alternative relationships of care, modeled on, but not identical to parent-child and husband-wife, as well as those not yet regularized or named, offer a better model for understanding both the purpose and possibilities of the sealed relationship, whether those sealings entail a sexual relationship between partners or not. Mormon models of kinship, both past and present, displace and replace the biological and the sexual relationship as markers of kinship, suggesting alternative modes and models for establishing such relationships. The heteronormative notion of family neither corresponds to a universal ideal nor reflects the actual practice of kinship among Latter-day Saints. Understanding sealings as ritually marking and normalizing relationships as kinship offers a more accurate understanding of how sealings have been practiced and are practiced today, as well as how they may be practiced at some future time.

Eternal Gender

The concept of “gender” remains an important term in LDS discourse about homosexuality and is a necessary site of critical inquiry.[58] The question of homosexual relationships is intimately bound up in conceptualizations of gender differences. The semi-canonical 1995 document “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” (hereafter “Proclamation”) announces: “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”[59] The notion of an eternally persistent gender functions to regulate normative behavior that is believed to correspond to the attributes of an eternally “gendered” subject. “The Divine Institution of Marriage” suggests that same-sex marriage causes “gender confusion,” with the result that “the rising generation of children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identity as a man or a woman.”[60] It further asserts that there are “inherent differences between the genders.”[61] The appeal to a “natural” and “inherent” sexual identity that is at risk of being “confused” presumes a certain kind of sexual difference rooted in heterosexuality. LDS concepts of gender difference are as much about rejecting homosexuality as they are about ordering the relationship between men and women. It is necessary to address the ideas of incommensurable “genders” as the basis of heterosexual priority in the Church.

What exactly is meant by the term “gender” in LDS discourse? Since second-wave feminism divided biological “sex,” meaning male and female bodies, from socially constructed “gender,” meaning culturally assigned social roles, the sex/gender distinction has had a great impact on how the term “gender” is understood in American society. Yet in my reading of LDS statements on the subject, this distinction is not operative, and significant attention to defining the term is absent. The term “gender” seems to be deployed without a single definition of what is meant, leaving the broadest possible semantic range.

Gender as a category is variously applied to cover three separate aspects of human identity, though they are often conflated under this single term. As one example, an official LDS booklet A Parent’s Guide published in 1985 explains: “Gender identity involves an understanding and accepting of one’s own gender, with little reference to others; one’s gender roles usually focus upon the social interaction associated with being male or female.”[62] Parsing this definition reveals that first, gender refers to the morphological bodies of males and females—what is taken to be self-evidently “one’s own gender.” Second, gender refers to an “identity” that males and females are supposed to possess that corresponds with their bodies, including heterosexual desires. Third, gender refers to the differing “roles,” purposes, and responsibilities that some Church leaders understand to be assigned to males and females. These three definitions refer to quite different things, which makes it difficult to know how exactly the term is used in different contexts.[63] When one adds the idea of gender as an eternal characteristic, these three definitions become even more complicated. I will examine each of these three notions of “gender” as they might serve as an objection to homosexual relationships.

First, “gender” is understood to refer exclusively to the morphological differences between bodies labeled “male” and “female.” In this sense, “gender” is a synonym for “sex,” the identifiable bodily characteristics of maleness and femaleness. If we restrict the understanding of “gender” to mean simply bodily difference, it is not clear that homosexual relationships would be impacted at all. Homosexual relationships do not interfere with this minimal definition of “gender,” since male and female bodies persist as such in these relationships. Nonheterosexual relationships, it would seem, do not require a changed belief in an eternal “gender” at all, as long as “gender” is understood to refer exclusively to bodily morphology. In the same way that the sex/gender distinction was deployed by second-wave feminists to argue for a fixed notion of different sexes, while suggesting that the way those differences were given meaning in culture were changeable, one could argue that homosexual relationships also affirm a fixed, eternal notion of sex, while seeing the particular configurations of relationships as variable.

Yet we might be wary of conceding this point too quickly. The notion of a morphological binary system of “sex” rooted in “nature” serves as an attempt to naturalize a particular division. Monique Wittig has argued, “The categories of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ . . . are political categories and not natural givens.”[64] The notion that sexual difference is political, rather than natural, suggests that the emphasis on the mark of sexual difference as reproductive capacity is rooted in the social and political world, even while appealing to “nature” as an outside authority.

In this way, a theory of sexual difference that claims to be rooted in “nature” is always already heterosexual, thus concealing its political import.[65] One must be aware that the binary division between male and female, taken to be on the order of not only nature, but also God’s will, has as its goal the sanctification of heterosexual sex.[66] There must be strict gendered correspondence between a spirit and a body, it is believed, because of God’s providence over creation. This view of the premortal gendered spirit is often put to use against transsexuality and intersexuality.

The problem with this view arises in explaining not only the real experiences of transsexual persons, but also the existence of intersexed persons whose bodies resist categorization in the gender binary. Anne Fausto-Sterling has suggested that as many as five “sexes” occur in nature.[67] The idea of a natural or inherent binary sexual difference in LDS discourse makes a legible “sex” the prerequisite to personhood, rendering the differently sexed “accidents of nature” illegible as children of God and divine potentials.[68]

The notion of an eternal gender, referring to physical differences alone, also faces significant theological problems. If gender is “an essential individual characteristic of premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose,” then presumably the premortal spirit of each individual necessarily corresponds in appearance to the body it inhabits as a kind of facsimile. The challenge with such a view is in saying what kinds of bodily characteristics correspond to one’s preexistent spirit. What is the relationship between one’s eternal identity and one’s contingent genetic makeup, including “sex”? What are the characteristics that make up a morphological sex? Is it just the genitals, or are premortal bodies also capable of reproduction? Do things like performed gender differences, relative height and weight, chemistry, hormones, and muscle build also factor into what makes the “genders” eternally different? Do premortal spirits have chromosomes? What defines physical “gender” that it can persist eternally?

The whole question of the relationship of the premortal spirit to the mortal body is at stake in the claim that “gender” belongs to both equally. If any of the particularities of one’s genetic and environmental circumstances may be said to not preexist with a particular spirit in a deterministic way, why then is sexual difference the exception? To assert that “gender” is more fundamental to one’s identity than these other contingent features begs the question: Of the many different features of human identity, why does sexual difference—whatever that may refer to—occupy a privileged place in the account of the eternal nature of the human being?[69]

In the second understanding of “gender,” the term refers not only to particular bodies, but also to an “identity” that is supposed to match to those bodies. What is meant by “identity,” and on what grounds is it done correctly or incorrectly? Gender identity is the relationship between sex, gender, and desire; and it is done correctly when all three align according to heterosexual norms. Early twentieth-century discourse about homosexuality thought of it in terms of pathological gendered “inversion,” suggesting that men and women who engaged in homosexual activity mistook their proper sexual identity as a result of confused social roles.[70]

Current LDS discourse uses the term “gender confusion” to speak about homosexuality.[71] Here, the stereotypical notion of male homosexuals as effeminate and female homosexuals as masculine functions to explain homosexuality. A correct gender identity can only be thought of in terms of heterosexuality. In this discourse, the transsexual and homosexual are indistinct since both have identified with a “sex” or “desire” that does not correspond correctly to their body. Such “identities” are rendered failures—or even impossible—in a framework that recognizes only some identities and is the impetus behind the pathologization of nonconforming gender identities.

Church teachings assert two ideas about gender identity that are in significant tension: first, that gender is an eternal, immutable aspect of one’s existence; and second, that notions of gender identity and roles are so contingent that they must be constantly enforced and taught, especially to young children.[72] To say that one “is” a particular gender by virtue of that individual’s body and also that one’s disposition or identity is of that gender suggests that, in the latter case, gender is not a question of ontology but of achievement. “The Divine Institution of Marriage” manifests this tension by appealing to an “inherent . . . natural identity” with respect to gender, but also positing that nature is so unstable as to require heterosexual marriage to make sure that it can “develop.”[73] In this understanding, male and female “identity” is not secured by the possession of a male or female body alone but must be enforced and made legible as “male” or “female” through practices like heterosexuality.[74] As Douglas A. Abbot and A. Dean Byrd put it, heterosexuality must be “encouraged” in children in order for it to take.[75]

But gender “identity” cannot be both inherent and taught. The contingency of “gender identity” here reveals that it is not, in fact, “natural” at all but rather must be maintained and enforced juridically. Gender is constantly at risk of failing to correspond to the sexed body. As Judith Butler explains, “There is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender; that identity is performatively constituted by the very ‘expressions’ that are said to be its results.”[76] The idea that gender is performed, not possessed, reveals just how unstable it is as a category for defining people.[77] Such a view—that gender is something that develops, or is achieved—suggests that there is no true or false gender, nor one that coheres with a precultural “nature.”

The use of the category of “gender” to describe one’s desires and sexual practices has been heavily discredited over the last several decades.[78] Rather, given the vast variability of gender “identities” of culturally recognized “masculine” or “feminine” traits among those who identify as either heterosexual or homosexual, the assumption that any given gender performance corresponds to a particular object of desire is entirely contingent. The old binary categories of hetero and homosexuals—with the caveat of bisexuals—does little to capture the wide variety of gender performance and sexual preference. The experiences of transexuals, transgender, drag, intersexuality, and the variety of gender performances in gay, lesbian, and straight cultures are not adequately understood through the category of gender as a system that matches “masculine” and “feminine” sexual desires to “male” and “female” bodies. The history of this categorization of sexual preferences in connection with gender relies on the same heterosexual matrix that it attempts to explain. Gender simply fails as a category for thinking about sexuality, and LDS discourse should move beyond such an infelicitous conflation.

The third understanding of “gender” in LDS discourse sees it as more than bodies and identity, but also as comprising roles—or as the “Proclamation” puts it, “eternal identity and purpose.” Gendered “purposes” or roles are laid out in the document: “By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.”[79] Earlier teachings of Church leaders suggested an even more expansive notion of gender roles that included prescribed ways of dressing and acting so as to appear properly male or female.[80] Like gender identity, gender roles must also be taught to children in order for them to be carried on.[81] This notion of “gender” as roles operates as a critique of homosexual relationships because at least one “confused” partner fails to conform to his or her “proper” gendered identity as masculine or feminine. Such a view of gendered roles may not include any assumed correspondence to capacity, but rather to responsibilities which each gender is meant to assume.[82]

This view may be used to object to homosexual relationships because such relationships may include one or both same-sex parents as subverting the role assigned to their “gender.” In this sense, “gender confusion” is the result, not of the presence of both “masculine” and “feminine” parents, but the failure of these traits to be possessed by men and women respectively. The notion that women are more innately caring and nurturing reinforces the instruction for women to reproduce and be the primary care-givers of their children. In recent LDS discourse, the title “mother” does not refer to a period in a woman’s life, one particular aspect of how a woman’s identity may be performed, or a particular category of women who have children. This view was expressed in its most extreme form by Sheri Dew, speaking as second counselor in the Relief Society general presidency, when she asserted that a “woman” is defined wholly as a “mother” since “motherhood is the essence of who we are as women.”[83]

In spite of the emphasis that parents must act as both masculine and feminine (ideally by males and females, respectively), LDS discourse has increasingly emphasized “equality” in the marital relationship. The “Proclamation” teaches both that “fathers are to preside over their families” and that “fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.” The tension between these two positions—fathers presiding but both parents as “equal partners”—remains largely unresolved. Indeed, what it means to preside and what it means to be equal are left entirely unexplained. When differences are minimized between the sexes, Elder L. Tom Perry can say, “There is not a president and vice-president in a family. We have co-presidents working together eternally for the good of their family. . . . [T]hey lead, guide, and direct their family unit. They are on equal footing.”[84] Yet while the rhetoric of equal partnership could and would apply to parents of the same sex, when it comes to the issue of “gender confusion” in homosexual relationships, the question of who presides is much more important than the fact that there is an equal partnership. The retention of earlier language about “presiding” alongside more modern emphasis on “equal partnership” reveals the necessity of hierarchical views of males and females in marriage as a necessary aspect of marking same-sex relationships as illegitimate.

The problem with an interpretation in which “gender” refers to roles is that it cannot explain what these roles might be in premortal and postmortal life. The current Relief Society general president, Julie B. Beck, asserts: “Female roles did not begin on earth, and they do not end here. A woman who treasures motherhood on earth will treasure motherhood in the world to come.”[85] Here, a woman’s eternal role is defined as “treasuring motherhood.” Motherhood is connected explicitly to mortal and postmortal realms, perhaps referencing the belief that divinized women will perform the same reproductive functions of “motherhood” as defined by mortal bodies. However, she avoids exploring how motherhood is understood as a “role” for premortal spirits, or even beyond birthing, the roles a Heavenly Mother might expect to perform in postmortality.

These predefined roles apply to men as well. President Gordon B. Hinckley stated that women do not “resent the strong leadership of a man in the home” and that the man “becomes the provider, the defender, the counselor, the breadwinner and lends support and gives support when needed.”[86] Yet in LDS discourse, Heavenly Father takes on the role of a single parent nurturing His children, while Heavenly Mother does little that could be called mothering from the perspective of mortal persons. If we accept a definition of “gender” that suggests that men’s role is being a “breadwinner” and women’s role is caring for children, cooking, cleaning, and other hallmarks of the twentieth-century American family division of labor, this understanding of gender is meaningless in an eternal realm.[87]

Further, the problem with dehistoricizing modern American divisions of labor is that such divisions fail to describe “gender” historically and cross-culturally. Anthropologists and theorists have shown the variability of “sex roles,” showing not only the cultural, but also the historical, contingency of what is considered to be masculine and feminine, which is what precipitated the theoretical division between sex and gender in the first place.[88] Even if one restricts gender roles to reproductive function, stripping away the divisions of household labor or access to public power as contigent features of mortal life, it is not clear that such roles could be construed as applying equally to the three phases of one’s eternal—premortal, mortal, and postmortal—life. The main problems for any theology that begins with a fixed notion of roles, gender binarism, or innate characteristics of what constitute masculine and feminine characteristics is that it rooted in a fantasmatic idealization of such differences rather than any universal instantiation.

Finally, I would like to address the frequent charge that homosexual relationships constitute gender “separatism.”[89] Valerie Hudson has gone so far as to call same-sex relationships “gender apartheid.”[90] The assertion faces a number of problems. In this understanding of same-sex relationships, the only meaningful and politically valuable mixed-sex interactions happen in marriages and procreation. But this assumption that nonheterosexuals cannot or will not engage in meaningful interactions with members of the opposite sex, including parents, siblings, children, co-workers, neighbors, and friends has no basis. The kinds of “separatist” feminist and gay and lesbian movements from earlier eras were more of a response to the injustice of patriarchal, heterosexual culture than a desire to cease all interaction with members of the opposite sex. If learning to interact with members of the opposite sex (or gender) really does hold a privileged position as a means to salvation over learning to master other kinds of relationships—such as those of different social, economic, racial, linguistic, national, or even religious backgrounds—there is no reason to suppose that same-sex companions cannot or would not develop those relationships. But the question of why mixed-sex relationships should be privileged above others must be seriously asked and explored.

Conclusion

At the turn of the twentieth century, as the Church began to embrace the new post-polygamy conception of families and formally ended the “law of adoption” as it had been practiced between adults, Wilford Woodruff prophetically suggested that there were more changes to come: “I have not felt satisfied, neither did President Taylor, neither has any man since the Prophet Joseph who has attended to the ordinance of adoption in the temples of our God. . . . [W]e still have more changes to make, in order to satisfy our Heavenly Father, satisfy our dead and ourselves. . . . [W]e have got to have more revelation concerning sealing under the law of adoption.”[91] The possibility of creating theological space within Mormonism for homosexual relationships rests not on the abandonment of any central doctrine of the Church, but rather on the revival of past concepts, the recovery of embedded theological resources, and the rearticulation of existing ideas in more expansive terms in order to rethink the possibilities of celestial relationships. At the heart of this recovery is a displacement of biological reproduction as the sole way of imagining kinship as well as the model for celestial (pro)creation. In both cases, reproduction fails to offer a universal foundation for meaningful kinship relationships as well as being a doctrinally suspect account of divine relationships. Such a recovery project has the benefit not only of including homosexual relationships, but also of laying a more solid ground for nonreproductive heterosexual relationships and other forms of kinship.

The numerous critiques of the category of gender in recent years cannot be ignored, even if Latter-day Saints opt for a continued emphasis on binary sexual difference. Whether from the critique of gender roles, gender essentialist notions of innate characteristics, or even the notion of biological difference itself, LDS theology faces serious credibility issues by continuing to hold to precritical assumptions about sexual difference. At the same time, however, there is nothing preventing Latter-day Saints from moving past these assumptions in order to more clearly focus on Mormonism’s distinctive teachings about kinship and salvation, which does not require an appeal to the suspect category of gender at all. The unimportance of gender as a category for salvation is significantly affirmed in both ancient and modern scripture: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28) and “he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God” (2 Ne. 26:33).

Or perhaps by appealing to the social basis of gender, rather than a supposed eternal standard, we may better make sense of its place and significance in our theological thinking. To admit the social basis of gender does not entail the elimination of gender, nor does it require a leveling of difference toward some androgynous ideal. Quite the opposite. Instead, we may see more of a proliferation of “genders,” released from the constraints of fantasies about a neat gender binary. Just as we do not imagine that only one (or two) races, body types, and hair colors are represented in the resurrection, we may also see a variety of “genders,” understood as either different kinds of bodies, different kinds of identities, and even different roles. We need not abandon the idea of “eternal gender,” but rather we can embrace the possibilities that it opens for us once freed from its artificial constraints. As one LDS manual puts it, backing away from its earlier claims about the fixed nature of gender: “There is nearly as much variation within each gender as there is between the genders. Each human being is unique. There is no one model except the Redeemer of all mankind. Development of a person’s gifts or interests is one of life’s most enjoyable experiences. No one should be denied such growth.”[92] Perhaps LDS ritual and rhetoric may embrace this variation, including homosexual relationships in the blessings of growth offered by sealing.

---

Note: The Dialogue Foundation provides the web format of this article as a courtesy. There may be unintentional differences from the printed version. For citational and bibliographical purposes, please use the printed version or the PDFs provided online and on JSTOR.

[1] For an excellent set of scholarly essays addressing the claim that scripture and tradition prohibit same-sex unions in Christianity and Judaism, see Mark D. Jordan, Meghan T. Sweeney, and David M. Mellott, Authorizing Marriage?: Canon, Tradition, and Critique in the Blessing of Same-Sex Unions (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2006).

[2] Many of these works have appeared in the form of how-to guides for “overcoming” homosexual “problems.” In recent years, some works have appeared that seek to accept an LDS and homosexual identity side by side. See, for instance, Carol Lynn Pearson, No More Goodbyes: Circling the Wagons around Our Gay Loved Ones (Walnut Creek, Calif.: Pivot Point Books, 2007); and Fred Matis, Marilyn Matis, and Ty Mansfield, In Quiet Desperation: Understanding the Challenge of Same-Gender Attraction (Salt Lake City: Shadow Mountain, an imprint of Deseret Book, 2004).

[3] Lowell L. Bennion, “Foreword,” in Peculiar People: Mormons and Same-Sex Orientation, edited by Ron Schow, Wayne Schow, and Marybeth Raynes (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1991), xi.

[4] As an example, witness the discussion framing of the causality of sexuality as either a genetic question or a question of social conditioning in William S. Bradshaw, “Short Shrift to the Facts,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 44, no. 1 (Spring 2011): 171–91.

[5] Alan Michael Williams, “Mormon and Queer at the Crossroads,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 44, no. 1 (Spring 2011): 75.

[6] Jonathan Ned Katz, The Invention of Heterosexuality (New York: Dutton, 1995); David M. Halperin, One Hundred Years of Homosexuality: And Other Essays on Greek Love (New York: Routledge, 1990), 15–40.

[7] On the degrees of the celestial kingdom, see D&C 131:1–4. Though “celestial marriage” was a synonym for polygamous marriage in the early LDS Church, today it refers exclusively to any marriage sealed in a temple.

[8] First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” accessed July 19, 2011.

[9] Valerie M. Hudson and Alma Don Sorenson, “Response to Professor [Linda E.] Thomas [on Womanist Theology],” in Mormonism in Dialogue with Contemporary Christian Theologies, edited by Donald W. Musser and David L. Paulsen (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 2007), 327.

[10] Blake T. Ostler, “The Idea of Preexistence in Mormon Thought,” in Line upon Line: Essays on Mormon Doctrine, edited by Gary James Bergera (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989), 141.

[11] D&C 93:29–33: “Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. . . . For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy.” Hale notes, “While it seems certain that Smith taught that gods procreate, he did not specify that their offspring are necessarily spirits. And it is equally unclear if the alternative possibility, that the offspring of the gods are physical children, would be any more plausible in the prophet’s thinking.” Van Hale, “The Origin of the Human Spirit,” in Line upon Line: Essays on Mormon Doctrine, edited by Gary James Bergera (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989), 122.

[12] Linda P. Wilcox, “The Mormon Concept of a Mother in Heaven,” in Women and Authority: Re-Emerging Mormon Feminism, edited by Maxine Hanks (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992), 3–21.

[13] Blake T. Ostler, The Attributes of God, Vol. 1 in EXPLORING MORMON THOUGHT (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2001), 352.

[14] The reference to the plural “Gods” in the creation account in the Book of Abraham 4–5 may include both male and female actors grammatically. However, in general Heavenly Mother’s creative role is limited to the creation of spirits, emphasizing her role as bearer of children rather than in the governance or creation of the earth. Wilcox, “The Mormon Concept of a Mother in Heaven.”

David L. Paulsen and Martin Pulido, “‘A Mother There’: A Survey of Historical Teachings about Mother in Heaven” BYU Studies 50, no. 1 (2011): 85, extensively document statements by LDS Church leaders on the existence and roles of Heavenly Mother, offering a view that “marshals evidence against some claims that General Authorities and other Church leaders have limited Heavenly Mother’s role to reproduction.” The sources they cite, as I read them, nevertheless tend to remain within a framework in which reproduction is a central role for Heavenly Parents, even if not the only role for women. With perhaps one exception from Charles W. Penrose in 1904, the evidence that they cite from Church leaders that Heavenly Mother is a “co-creator” does not clearly claim that her creative act extends beyond spiritual reproduction.

[15] Examples are abundant from both Church leaders and in conservative LDS theology. See, for instance, Jeffrey R. Holland, “Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction,” Ensign, October 2007, accessed July 19, 2011: “At the heart of this plan is the begetting of children, one of the crucial reasons Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden (see 2 Ne. 2:19–25; Moses 5:10–12). They were commanded to ‘be fruitful, and multiply’ (Moses 2:28), and they chose to keep that commandment. We are to follow them in marrying and providing physical bodies for Heavenly Father’s spirit children. Obviously, a same-gender relationship is inconsistent with this plan.” Hudson and Sorenson, “Response to Professor Thomas,” 329, argue: “God created only two beings at the dawn of human history: a man named Adam and a woman named Eve. We infer that no male-male or female-female relationship can substitute for the critical importance of male-female relations.”

[16] Camille Fronk, “Mary, Mother of Jesus,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 2:863–64.

[17] James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, 6th ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1922), 81.

[18] Jonathan A. Stapley and Kristine Wright, “Female Ritual Healing in Mormonism,” Journal of Mormon History 37 (Winter 2011): 1–85; Linda King Newell, “The Historical Relationship of Mormon Women and the Priesthood,” in Hanks, Women and Authority, 23–44.

[19] Gregory A. Prince, Power from On High: The Development of Mormon Priesthood (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1995), 204–8.

[20] In the document, “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” the unnamed authors explain, “The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.”

[21] The introduction to the document identifies its author only as “the Church.” This document, “explains [the Church’s] reasons for defending marriage between a man and a woman as an issue of moral imperative.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “The Divine Institution of Marriage,” LDS Newsroom, August 28, 2008, accessed July 19, 2011.

[22] Ibid.

[23] LDS discourse on sexual relations within marriage have come to see the purpose of sex as having to do with both procreation and relationships between spouses. Terrance D. Olson explains, “The purpose of appropriate sexual relations in marriage includes the expression and building of joy, unity, love, and oneness. To be ‘one f lesh’ is to experience an emotional and spiritual unity. This oneness is as fundamental a purpose of marital relations as is procreation.” Terrance D. Olson, “Sexuality,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 3:1306. Much of the shift in emphasis coincides with the acceptance of birth control. See Melissa Proctor, “Bodies, Babies, and Birth Control,” Dialogue 36, no. 3 (Fall 2003): 159–75.

[24] Joseph Smith was sealed in celestial marriages to women who were well past child-bearing years, like Patty Bartlett Sessions (age forty-seven), Elizabeth Davis Durfee (age fifty or fifty-one), Rhoda Richards (age fifty-eight), and Fanny Young (age fifty-six). Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997), 4–6. This practice continues today. Of the numerous examples one could note, Elder Dallin H. Oaks was sealed in 2000 to Kristen Meredith McMain, who was in her early fifties at the time, pre-sumably unable to naturally conceive.

[25] Paul V. Hyer, “Temple Sealings,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 3:1289, explains, “Among members of the Church sealing refers to the marriage of a husband and wife and to the joining together of children and parents that are to endure forever.”

[26] Judith Butler, Undoing Gender (New York: Routledge, 2004), 126.

[27] For a sustained argument against Levi-Straussian and Lacanian arguments for heterosexuality as a necessary structure for childhood development, see ibid., 118–27; and her Antigone’s Claim: Kinship between Life & Death (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000), 68–73.

[28] First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles, “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

[29] Notably, Claude Lévi-Strauss, The Elementary Structures of Kinship, rev. ed. (Boston: Beacon Press, 1969).

[30] In previous anthropological theories of kinship, David Murray Schneider, A Critique of the Study of Kinship (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1984), 123, has observed: “It is simply assumed that for all human beings, for all cultures, genealogical relatedness (however defined) is of value and is of significance . . . that it is, in short, privileged.”

[31] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “The Divine Institution of Marriage.” Ironically, the studies it relies on do not indict two same-sex parented families, but single-mother families, which are fully permissible in the Church. David Popenoe, Life without Father: Compelling New Evidence That Fatherhood and Marriage Are Indispensable for the Good of Children and Society (New York: Martin Kessler Books, 1996) and David Blankenhorn, Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem (New York: Basic Books, 1995). However, studies show that there is no persuasive evidence that children of same-sex parents or one homosexual parent face any risks or disadvantages relative to children in heterosexual homes. Child Welfare League of America, “Position Statement on Parenting of Children by Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults,” accessed July 20, 2011.

[32] For an example of a scholar who sees the only meaningful exchange between males and females in reproduction and heterosexual marriage, see Valerie Hudson Cassler, “‘Some Things That Should Not Have Been Forgotten Were Lost’: The Pro-Feminist, Pro-Democracy, Pro-Peace Case for State Privileging of Companionate Heterosexual Monogamous Marriage,” SquareTwo 2, no. 1 (2009), online journal (accessed July 21, 2011).

[33] Butler, Undoing Gender, 118–27.

[34] Carol Stack, All Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in a Black Community (New York: Harper and Row, 1974).

[35] Kath Weston, Families We Choose: Lesbians, Gays, Kinship (New York: Columbia, 1991).

[36] Cai Hua, A Society without Fathers or Husbands: The Na of China, translated by Asti Hustvedt (New York: Zone Books, 2001).

[37] Schneider, A Critique of the Study of Kinship, 43–94, focuses his study on the Yapese, who initially did not consider sexual coitus to be significant in establishing kinship.

[38] Schneider asks the simple question: “Are all genealogies equal?” Ibid., 124. His answer is “no” for two reasons: “One is that the defining features of the genealogy may be variously valued and have different meanings or significance in different cultures. The other is that when the nature and content of the genealogical relationship is taken into account—and these are known to differ from one culture to another—then the assumptions of the equivalence of the parent-child relationship is brought into serious question.” The question is of keen importance for Latter-day Saints who are engaged in the practice of tracing genealogies across time and cultures. If, for instance, our particular configuration of genealogical kinship does not accurately reflect those (configurations) operative in the times and cultures of our ancestors (not to mention our otherwise cultured contemporaries), have we adequately sealed kinship units together, even if they force our own understanding of kinship in a foreign way? That is to say, the genetic relationship is not necessarily the same as the value established in any particular form of kinship. We may think of marriage laws and customs as ways of regulating and normalizing certain kinds of kinship structures, but this is not to say that such customs are universal in practice or even universally desirable. If the proxy sealing practice for those who have died serves to replicate the kinship relationships of our ancestors in order to provide them with the blessings of eternal “families,” we would do well to better understand how their kinship relationships were structured.

[39] Alan Michael Williams, “Mormon and Queer at the Crossroads,” 67, poses the question: “Is a queer family any less a family because it is queer? Official Mormon discourse has not yet addressed the familiness of these households, even while they are increasing.”

[40] Michael Warner, The Trouble with Normal: Sex, Politics, and the Ethics of Queer Life (New York: Free Press, 1999).

[41] Theodore B. Olson, “The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage: Why Same-Sex Marriage Is an American Value,” Newsweek, January 9, 2010 (accessed July 19, 2011).

[42] While I have earlier defined kinship as a relationship that is ritually marked as other than friendship, it is useful to consider how the adoptive sealing may have functioned to make friendship a basis for kinship, as a disruption to family-reproductive relationships as the only basis for kinship. We may here consider what D. Michael Quinn in Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2001), 66–73, describes the “intense homosociality” of nineteenth-century Mormon culture as manifest in the way that kinship structures were being rethought. On July 23, 1843, in Nauvoo, Joseph Smith taught, “Friendship is one of the grand fundamental principles of ‘Mormonism’; [it is designed] to revolutionize and civilize the world, and cause wars and contentions to cease and men to become friends and brothers.” Joseph Smith et al., History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, edited by B. H. Roberts, 7 vols., 2d ed. rev. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1948 printing), 5:517. Here, friendship is posited as the basis of civilization, in contrast to the kinship structures described by later LDS teachers. Rather, Smith suggests that kinship (“brotherhood”) must be established through friendship, rather than the other way around. It is friendship that then serves as the basis for kinship. The significance of such a notion is that friendship, as in nonreproductive relationships, may be seen as equally desirable as kinship relationships, ritually marked through sealing, as a civilizing force.

[43] Jonathan A. Stapley, “Adoptive Sealing Ritual in Mormonism,” Journal of Mormon History 37, no. 2 (Summer 2011): 53–117. Stapley notes (p. 66) that, in the Nauvoo period, women and men were adopted at roughly the same rate. Most often men and women were sealed as couples, though there are some unmarried men that were adopted by sealing, as well as at least one case where an unmarried girl was adopted by sealing. Willard and Jeanetta Richards adopted a young woman (age eleven) whom they had cared for, for a period. Jonathan Stapley, email message to Taylor Petrey, July 22, 2011. See also Gordon Irving, “The Law of Adoption: One Phase of the Development of the Mormon Concept of Salvation, 1830–1900,” BYU Studies 14, no. 3 (Spring 1974): 291–314. See Journal of Mormon History 37, no. 2 (Summer 2011) for Samuel M. Brown, “Early Mormon Adoption Theology and the Mechanics of Salvation,” 3–52, and Jonathan A. Stapley, “Adoptive Sealing Ritual in Mormonism,” 53–118.

[44] Samuel M. Brown, “The Early Mormon Chain of Belonging,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 44, no. 1 (2011): 1–52.

[45] D. Michael Quinn, Same-Sex Dynamics, 136–40, rightly rejects the idea that such relationships constitute “same-sex marriage.” However, his claim that “this was an institutionalized form of mentor-protégé relationships between Mormon men” downplays the language of kinship—“father” and “son” of such relationships—even though he notes that, for instance, John D. Lee temporarily assumed the family name of Brigham Young, his spiritual father.

[46] Stapley and Wright, “Female Ritual Healing in Mormonism,” 55.

[47] Orson Hyde, “Diagram of the Kingdom of God, Millennial Star 9 no. 2 (January 15, 1847): 23.

[48] Parley P. Pratt, “Celestial Family Organization,” Millennial Star 5, no. 12 (May 1845): 193.

[49] Scott G. Kenney ed., Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 1833–1898, 9 vols. (Midvale, Utah: Signature Books, 1983–85), 2:364–65, quoted in Brown, “The Early Mormon Chain of Belonging,” 1.

[50] For the relevant events, see Stapley, “Adoptive Sealing Ritual in Mormonism,” 106–12.

[51] Abraham H. Cannon, Journal, April 5, 1895, quoted in ibid., 108. Stapley notes that, over time, the quest to find one’s dead proved an endless task and the idea of linking to Joseph Smith was eventually dismissed or forgotten: “In 1922, editors removed the instructions about sealing ultimate ancestors to Joseph Smith.” Ibid., 114.

[52] Ibid., 111.

[53] Woodruff and Joseph F. Smith, Letter to John D. T. McAllister, April 26, 1894, quoted in ibid., 116.

[54] Schneider, A Critique of the Study of Kinship, 124, observes, “If there is a bond created in the process of reproduction, that bond must be culturally significant to count for anything.”

[55] I am personally aware of one occurrence in the past decade where an adopted child who was “born in the covenant” was sealed to the adoptive parents. The adoptive parents were informed by letter how rare their situation was.

[56] Other examples of kinship that are not based on reproduction or biological relation are prevalent in LDS practice. Many members of the Church are “adopted” into the House of Israel, even while others are considered to be direct descendants. Discourse on Israelite identity has variously been asserted in terms of lineage and in terms of adoption. Armaund Mauss, All Abraham’s Children: Changing Mormon Conceptions of Race and Lineage (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2003), 17–40. While some versions of this doctrine imagine a change in the “blood” of the adoptee as part of this process, the very possibility of adoption across bloodlines already points to a kinship structure that precedes the reproductive family. Further, the notion of transformation itself, here in terms of transracial identity, as the result of the adoption may offer a model for transsexuals, who might also be ritually “adopted” into a new sex, perhaps as a part of a patriarchal blessing.

[57] Ezra Taft Benson, quoted in Elaine Walton, “Children of Divorce,” Ensign, August 2002, 40–41, accessed July 20, 2011.

[58] Williams, “Mormon and Queer at the Crossroads,” 67, adduces, “The issue of homosexuality for the Church is, at its core, about gender, as accepting same-sex parented families in full communion would upset the ecclesiastical relationship between men and women rather than necessarily disrupt theological ideas of marriage and parenthood.”

[59] The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles, “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

[60] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “The Divine Institution of Marriage.”

[61] Ibid. The text repeatedly emphasizes the centrality of a stable, heterosexual framing of gender: “gender differentiated parenting,” “gender differences are increasingly dismissed,” the need for a “clear gender identity,” and the erosion of “gender development.”

[62] A Parent’s Guide (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1985), “Chapter 4: Teaching Children: From Four to Eleven Years,” accessed June 23, 2011.

[63] The fact that the manual is anonymously authored, though presumably reviewed by General Authorities and the Correlation Review Committee, makes it impossible to deduce a more precise definition based on the authors’ backgrounds.

[64] Monique Wittig, The Straight Mind (Boston: Beacon Press, 1992), 13–14.

[65] Ibid., 11–12.

[66] See also Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York: Routledge, 1999), 3–44.

[67] Anne Fausto-Sterling, “The Five Sexes: Why Male and Female Are Not Enough,” The Sciences, March-April, 1993, 20–24. See also her book-length treatment on the sciences of sexual difference and gender, Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality (New York: Basic Books, 2000).

[68] Presumably intersexed persons are dismissed when President Kimball suggested, “With relatively few accidents of nature, we are born male or female. The Lord knew best. Certainly, men and women who would change their sex status will answer to their Maker.” “God Will Not Be Mocked,” Ensign, November 1974, 8. With respect to transsexuality, Elder Boyd K. Packer has declared, “There is no mismatching of bodies and spirits. Boys are to become men—masculine, manly men—ultimately to become husbands and fathers.” Conference Reports (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, October 1976), 101. This talk was later published in pamphlet form, Boyd K. Packer, To Young Men Only (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1976).

[69] For a brief overview of the history of the doctrine of eternal gender and some of the theological problems it raises for intersexual and transsexual persons, see Jeffrey E. Keller, “Gender and Spirit,” in Multiply and Replenish: Mormon Essays on Sex and Family, edited by Brent Corcoran (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1994), 171–82.

[70] See, e.g., Sigmund Freud, Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, translated and edited by James Strachey, 4th ed. (1962; New York: Basic Books, 2000). The American Psychiatric Association (APA) got rid of its diagnosis of homosexuality as a disorder in 1973. Gender Identity Disorder (GID) remains in the DSM-IV’s diagnostic catalogue, which is used by groups such as the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) as a predictor of homosexuality. NARTH seeks to “correct” homosexuality through psychological treatment. LDS pyschologist and activist against homosexuality A. Dean Byrd has served as president of NARTH. The connection between gender identity and sexual desires and practices remains murky at best. For a critique of the diagnostic assumptions about gender identity, see Butler, Undoing Gender, 75–100.

[71] This view appears in many recent descriptions of homosexuality in LDS discourse. For instance, “If governments were to alter the moral climate by legitimizing same-sex marriages, gender confusion would increase, particularly among children.” No author, “Strengthening the Family: Within the Bonds of Matrimony,” Ensign, August 2005, 17 (accessed July 19, 2011). See also Boyd K. Packer, “I Will Remember Your Sins No More,” Ensign, May 2006 (accessed July 19, 2011); The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “The Divine Institution of Marriage.”

[72] A Parent’s Guide, “Chapter 4: Teaching Children: From Four to Eleven Years,” asserts: “But members of the Church must not be deceived about one immutable truth: there is eternal significance in being a man or a woman. The history of the gospel from Adam to this final dispensation documents equal respect for the roles of men and women and the need for all men and women to develop their gifts to the utmost through living the commandments of God. But within that same gospel framework are some realities about differences between the two genders. This means that there are some exclusive things men are to do and some that women are to do. A most appropriate time for this development is the interlude between early childhood and adolescence.”

As recently as 2009, Elder Bruce Hafen of the Seventy defended the idea that homosexuality is the result of a prepubescent “block” on “normal emotional-sexual development.” He continued, “Adult men who have had such childhood experiences can often resume their normal development by identifying and addressing the sources of their emotional blockage, which usually includes restoring healthy, appropriate male relationships.” “Elder Bruce C. Hafen Speaks on Same-Sex Attraction” Evergreen International nineteenth Annual Conference September 19, 2009. The full address is posted online (accessed July 19, 2011).

[73] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “The Divine Institution of Marriage.”

[74] The notion that youth is a particularly vulnerable time for the “confusion” of gender identity is a frequent theme in some LDS discourse. For example, Boyd K. Packer teaches, “Now, I must speak of another danger, almost unknown in our youth but now everywhere about you. Normal desires and attractions emerge in the teenage years; there is the temptation to experiment, to tamper with the sacred power of procreation. These desires can be intensified, even perverted, by pornography, improper music, or the encouragement from unworthy associations. What would have only been a more or less normal passing phase in establishing gender identity can become implanted and leave you confused, even disturbed. If you consent, the adversary can take control of your thoughts and lead you carefully toward a habit and to an addiction, convincing you that immoral, unnatural behavior is a fixed part of your nature. With some few, there is the temptation which seems nearly overpowering for man to be attracted to man or woman to woman. The scriptures plainly condemn those who ‘dishonour their own bodies between themselves . . . ; men with men working that which is unseemly’ (Rom. 1:24, 27) or ‘women [who] change the natural use into that which is against nature’ (Rom. 1:26).” “Ye Are the Temple of God,” Ensign, November 2000 (accessed July 19, 2011).

[75] Douglas A. Abbot and A. Dean Byrd, Encouraging Heterosexuality: Helping Children Develop a Traditional Sexual Orientation (Orem, Utah: Millennial Press, 2009).

[76] Butler, Gender Trouble, 33.

[77] Butler explains: “Gender is an identity tenuously constituted in time, instituted in an exterior space through a stylized repetition of acts. The effect of gender is produced through the stylization of the body and, hence, must be understood as the mundane way in which bodily gestures, movements, and styles of various kinds constitute the illusion of an abiding gendered self.” Ibid., 179.

[78] Ibid., 9–44, 173–77.

[79] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

[80] President Kimball, “God Will Not Be Mocked,” Ensign, November 1974, 8, stated: “Some people are ignorant or vicious and apparently attempting to destroy the concept of masculinity and femininity. More and more girls dress, groom, and act like men. More and more men dress, groom, and act like women. The high purposes of life are damaged and destroyed by the growing unisex theory. God made man in his own image, male and female made he them. With relatively few accidents of nature, we are born male or female. The Lord knew best. Certainly, men and women who would change their sex status will answer to their Maker.”

[81] One official manual teaches that proper gender roles are communicated through positive feelings that parents have about gender roles: “We should also help children understand gender roles. This will help a child have a good feeling about being a girl or boy. Parents who feel good about their roles as men and women pass this feeling along to their children.” “Lesson 9: Chastity and Modesty,” The Latter-day Saint Woman: Basic Manual for Women, Part A (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2000), accessed July 19, 2011.

[82] Current official statements on eternal gender suggest a kind of role complementarity, “The nature of male and female spirits is such that they complete each other.” Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Handbook 2: Administering the Church, Section 1.3.1. (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2010), accessed July 20, 2011.

[83] Sheri L. Dew, “Are We Not All Mothers?” Ensign, November 2001 (accessed July 19, 2011).

[84] L. Tom Perry, “Fathers’ Role Is Anchoring Families,” LDS Church News, April 10, 2004, 15.

[85] Julie B. Beck, “A ‘Mother Heart,’” Ensign, May 2004, 76 (accessed July 19, 2011).

[86] Gordon B. Hinckley, quoted in Kristen Moulton, “Fathers Urged to Lead Their Families,” Daily Herald (Provo, Utah) April 25, 1998, A1, A2, quoted in Camille S. Williams, “Response to Professor Reuther,” in Mormonism in Dialogue with Contemporary Christian Theologies, edited by Donald W. Musser and David L. Paulsen (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 2007), 288.

[87] “Girls ought to be taught the arts and sciences of housekeeping, domestic finances, sewing, and cooking. Boys need to learn home repair, career preparation, and the protection of women. Both girls and boys should know how to take care of themselves and how to help each other. By example and by discussion, both sexes need to learn about being male or female, which, in summary, means becoming husbands and fathers or wives and mothers, here or hereafter.” A Parent’s Guide, “Chapter 4: Teaching Children: From Four to Eleven Years.”

[88] or an excellent history of this division, see Shira Tarrant, When Sex Became Gender: Perspectives on Gender (New York: Routledge, 2006).

[89] Didi Herman, The Antigay Agenda (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), 107.

[90] Hudson Cassler, “Some Things That Should Not Have Been Forgotten.”

[91] Wilford Woodruff, quoted in Stapley, “Adoptive Sealing Ritual in Mormonism,” 109.

[92] A Parent’s Guide, “Chapter 4: Teaching Children: From Four to Eleven Years.”

[post_title] => Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 44.4 (Winter 2011): 106–141
From Editor Taylor Petrey: “Toward a Post-heterosexual Mormon Theology”  was actually the first major article I ever published. I did not know what to expect, but it ended up being a widely discussed piece, accessed tens of thousands of times.⁠ To this day I still receive notes of appreciation for this article.  [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => toward-a-post-heterosexual-mormon-theology [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-07-14 12:52:25 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-07-14 12:52:25 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=9621 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 9828 [post_author] => 1310 [post_date] => 2018-03-17 21:49:50 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-03-17 21:49:50 [post_content] =>

Introductory note by Russell Arben Fox: In November of 2008, I posted some reflections on my blog about California's Proposition 8. It started a long conversation with many other individuals, some Mormon and some not, some California residents and some not, some straight and some gay, some married and some single, some scholars of philosophy, religion, government, and law, others just passionate and informed observers of the whole controversy.

It occurred to several of us that it would be valuable to put together, in a somewhat formal way, a sampling of our conversation, as well as to enlist some additional views from others who hadn't participated directly but who had something worth hearing nonetheless. The result is the following roundtable, a symposium of voices, all speaking briefly one way or another, and from a variety of ideological, religious, and intellectual perspectives, about Proposition 8, same-sex marriage, homosexuality, Christian doctrine, Mormonism and Mormon political activism, the nature and symbolic significance of marriage, the politics and constitutionality of marriage laws, and the personal, professional, and spiritual conflicts which this particular debate-certainly far from the last our nation will see-gave rise to.

The contributors are, in alphabetical order: Lindsey Chambers, a Ph.D. candidate in philosophy at the University of California-Los Angeles; Russell Arben Fox, an associate professor and director of the political science program at Friends University in Wichita, Kansas; Mary Ellen Robertson, director of Symposia and Outreach for the Sunstone Education Foundation, who lives in Ogden, Utah; Robert K. Vischer, an associate professor at the University of St. Thomas Law School in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and author of Conscience and the Common Good: Reclaiming the Space between Person and State (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2009); David Watkins, a lecturer in political science at Seattle University; and Kaimipono Wenger, an assistant professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, California.

Two Modes of Political Engagement

The Church’s Use of Secular Arguments

How We Talk about Marriage (and Why It Matters)

An Evangelical Perspective

The Political Is Personal

Four Reasons for Voting Yes

[post_title] => Six Voices on Proposition 8: A Roundtable [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 42.4 (Winter 2009): 106–141
After Prop 22 passed, it was overturned by the courts as a violation of the equal protection clause of the CA constitution. Opponents of same-sex marriage devised a new proposition to amenda the CA constitution to ban same-sex marriage and the LDS church announced its public support and activism for the measure in the summer of 2008 before the november election. It was a deeply contentious issue bringing national attention to the church whose members provided the bulk of the funding for its passage, nearly $40m. The issue was a breaking point for many in the church and the above roundtable attempts to offer a variety of legal and religious arguments for and against the measure.  [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => six-voices-on-proposition-8-a-roundtable [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-08-06 01:23:06 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-08-06 01:23:06 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=9828 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 9699 [post_author] => 1906 [post_date] => 2018-03-16 17:29:27 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-03-16 17:29:27 [post_content] =>

Although the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had been instrumental in the passage of Proposition 8 in California in 2008, it surprised the national press in November 2009 by publicly supporting Salt Lake City’s sexual orientation/gender identity non-discrimination ordinances in housing and employment.[1] In early 2009, Equality Utah, an organization for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Utahns, had proposed a “Common Ground” initiative because the Church, which heavily influences political discourse in the state, had stated after the Prop 8 campaign that it is not “anti-gay” and “does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.”[2] The initiative has not made much progress in the Utah State Legislature; but when it became clear that the city ordinances were sure to pass with religious liberties included (such as the right of a religious organization to hire only those of the same religion), the Church was in a position to follow through on its words. Church spokesman Michael Otterson stated before the city council: “Our community in Salt Lake City is comprised of citizens of different faiths and values, different races and cultures, different political views and divergent demographics. . . . The issue is . . . the right of people to have roofs over their heads and the right to work without being discriminated against.”[3]

The Salt Lake Tribune reported “secret meetings” between mid-level Church officials and queer activists prior to the unanimous vote.[4] As recently as a decade ago, the Church would probably have sided with more conservative voices, such as the Sutherland Institute, a public policy think-tank based in Salt Lake City which continues to publish objections to the ordinances and warns: “The meaning of marriage will die by a thousand cuts. Each new inclusion in the law of such vague terms as ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ represents a mounting threat to the meaning of marriage.”[5] Sutherland labeled the Church’s support “a public relations opportunity . . . [to] assuage the minds and soften the hearts of advocates of ‘gay rights’ in Utah.”[6] Here seems to be a suggestion that the Church’s support of the ordinances was a mere concession to deflect the backlash received after Proposition 8. In a city, country, and world of contending faiths and cultures, the Church is indeed sensitive to its reception at local, national and global levels.

Yet to pigeonhole the Church as acting only in response to such external reactions overlooks the prospect of actual LDS support for the nondiscrimination ordinances. The Church referred to them as “for those with same-sex attraction.”[7] It thus clearly acknowledged, at least to some extent, the “group” whom the ordinances were drawn up to protect. The definition of this group in Mormon culture, however, is in flux. Civil rights discourse would have individuals grouped on the basis of qualities subject to discrimination (such as “sex,” “race,” “sexual orientation,” or “gender identity”), but Mormon cosmology holds that the ultimate potential for all individuals is to become gods and goddesses like Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother,[8] to become divine parents of spirit children who will go through the formative experience human beings are currently undergoing. The faith avows a concept of eternal gender, connoting that human souls are gendered male and female and that marriage between these two genders is “ordained of God.”[9] Opposite-gender marriage and procreation have always been sacred for Mormons as foundations of this movement toward divine parenthood.

To this effect, in 1995, the Church issued a document titled “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” which declared that “gender” was “an essential characteristic of . . . eternal identity.”[10] The proclamation addressed concerns the Church had about changing gender roles, primarily in the United States, including rising divorce rates, single parenting, and the phenomenon of working mothers, as well as same-sex marriage and parenting. In the 1970s and ’80s during the Equal Rights Amendment campaign, the Church found itself under feminist criticism for its mantra that the genders were “different, but equal,” with the understanding that such “equality” stops short of occupational and ecclesiastical realms. The Church’s position against the ratification of the ERA included concern that the amendment would encourage a “blurring” of gender roles as well as forcing “states . . . to legally recognize and protect [same-sex] marriages” because “if the law must be as undiscriminating concerning sex as it is toward race, [then] . . . laws outlawing wedlock between members of the same sex would be as invalid as laws forbidding miscegenation.”[11] One might see how Apostle Boyd K. Packer’s warning in 1993 of the “ever-increasing frequency” with which local leaders had to “deal with” the “dangers” of “the gay-lesbian movement, the feminist movement . . . and the ever-present challenge from the so-called scholars or intellectuals” addressed what was and remains an interrelated conundrum for the Church.[12]

The language of “The Family” proclamation to some extent perhaps sought to pacify all three groups by providing interpretive clarity. Yet, since the proclamation’s issue, the Church has found itself under a spotlight due to its campaign against same-sex marriage underpinned by its avowal of gender essentialism.

In this article, I analyze Mormon[13] conceptions of gender and sexuality by employing the insights of gender theorist and sexual historian Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick. Sedgwick is one of a wide range of scholars who contend with the fact that gender and sexuality are not uniformly experienced or consistently expressed across time. In the academy, she is often referred to as one of the founders of “queer theory,” a field that emerged in the early 1990s at the intersection of feminist and LGBT studies. After laying out theoretical tools and a historical framework, I will then focus on homosexuality in Mormonism over the last thirty years in policy and social services.

Sexual Orientation and Its Contradictions

As a historian, Sedgwick writes about how homosexuality prior to the twentieth century was not simply called by a different name (such as “sodomy”); rather, the same-sex bonding of past eras was potentially erotic without taking on a separate term to differentiate it from the non-erotic.[14] Sedgwick uses “homosocial” to describe the same-sex bonding of the nineteenth century.[15] The word is an obvious analogy to today’s “homosexual” but is a neologism that takes into consideration the fact that homosexuality as a concept upon which identities are now constructed requires a link between “sexual object choice” and gender, a link not made en masse until the twentieth century.[16] Whereas the 1800s were home to the aberrational sodomite and the more frequent same-sex kiss, the 1900s were home for the homosexual as a species, a result of sexological classification.[17] A central problem of this classification system known as sexual orientation (in which people are categorized as homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual) is that the distinction between the homosocial and the homosexual is an unexacting science of acts and feelings. As Sedgwick writes: “The unbrokenness of the continuum [between the homosocial and the homosexual] is not a genetic one . . . but rather a strategy for making generalizations about . . . the structure of men’s relations with other men [and women’s relations with other women].”[18]

In the late 1980s, in a context of ritualized debates about homosexuality—questions of nature and nurture, sexual essentialism versus constructivism—Sedgwick contended that these debates are caused by the classification system of sexual orientation itself. Nature and nurture, she writes, rest upon “a very unstable background of tacit assumptions . . . about both nurture and nature.”[19] For instance, in everyday political discourse, one might hear ideas about the “biological” basis of homosexuality. Sedgwick remarks that biology tends to stand in for “nature,” triggering an “estrus of manipulative fantasy” that human technologies (whether assisted reproductive technologies, genetic engineering, or psychotherapy) might someday surmount. The nature/nurture binary is a “Cartesian bipolar psychosis that . . . [can] switch its polar assignments without surrendering a bit of its hold over the collective life.”[20] During the 1990s, Mormon leaders also attempted to resolve the nature/nurture debates, taking a similar stance on the limited insight of science. In 1995, Apostle Dallin H. Oaks wrote in the Ensign, the Church’s monthly periodical for adults: “The debate over whether, or the extent to which, specific behavior is attributable to ‘nature’ or to ‘nurture’ is centuries old. Its application to the subject of same-sex feelings and behaviors is only one manifestation of a highly complex subject on which scientific knowledge is still in its infancy.”[21] Oaks added: “It is wrong to use [homosexual] to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior.”[22]

Even now, more than fifteen years later, Mormon leaders are still keen on deploying “homosexual” as an adjective (homosexual acts, thoughts, feelings) and not as a noun (homosexual or gay persons); the Church upholds an attraction/behavior distinction.[23] Sedgwick clarifies that this framing does not escape the logic of sexual orientation but is, in fact, indicative of it. “Homosexual” as a noun and “homosexual” as an adjective are part of a contradictory dialectic.[24] The contradiction is that, in its noun form, “homosexual” posits a minority that “really is gay” while in its adjective form, it posits an impression that anyone might choose to be gay (or not) by engaging in particular acts and/or entertaining particular feelings agreed upon as homosexual. While the adjective form provides the notion that homosexuality is curable or at least controllable through behavioral adaptation, the catch is that particular acts and feelings must already be present in a cultural imagination to denote a homosexual status that is qualitatively different than everyday homosociality. In sum, if the adjective form exists in a culture, then the noun form is always extant, and vice versa.

Sedgwick suggested the noun/adjective dialectic is usefully described as producing competing minoritizing and universalizing discourses. Simply, “homosexual” as a noun is minoritizing because it will never be the case that every person is a homosexual. “Homosexual” as an adjective is universalizing because everyone can choose to engage in acts and/or entertain feelings constructed and labeled as homosexual (although many would prefer not to).

In the early twentieth century when the classification system was first employed by sexologists, Sigmund Freud’s notion of “innate bisexuality” was merely the dialectic problematically overlain onto a “proto-sexuality” of children. For Freud, homosexuality was the result of deterministic mishaps in a child’s development toward heterosexuality. Many of Freud’s colleagues and followers disagreed with his concept of innate bisexuality and instead considered heterosexuality to be natural while homosexuality and bisexuality were deviations. The quest for a cause and cure of same-sex desire in childhood ultimately made no sense, though, because many adults who might self-identify as gay would not say they had had gay childhoods (while many others would say that they were indeed gay as children), and some “proto-gay” children do not later identify as gay in adulthood.

During Freud’s heyday, homosexuality was called “inversion” (the “effeminized” male child and the “masculinized” female child), but this notion also proved problematic, as many people with same-sex attraction are “gender conforming” in all ways but sexual desire—that is, they can pass publicly as stereotypically masculine or feminine and not be suspected of having the desires they do. This passing of some, and the inability to pass of others, (as well as the fact that many heterosexuals are sometimes perceived to be gay) points to a second contradiction that Sedgwick explains as resulting from the classification system. Homosexuality has been framed as gender-nonconforming yet at the same time as a “group” within each gender (gay and lesbian).[25] This second contradiction explains why homosexuality and transgenderism (or gender variance that may have little to do with sexuality) have often been conflated, but it also demonstrates that the historical relationship between sexuality and gender is quite entangled.

Mormons and Sexual Orientation

In the 1950s and ’60s, when Mormon leaders first spoke publicly on homosexuality, it was condemned as unnatural and unnecessary and therefore as illegitimate and sinful; an orientation toward the same sex was considered implausible.[26] Like much of the rest of America at the time, Mormons regarded homosexual feelings and acts as chosen and therefore amenable to repentance and correction—an affliction to be cured. This position altered slightly during the last quarter of the twentieth century when the choice of homosexuality was nuanced to include feelings as temptations to be resisted but which were not sinful in themselves unless acted upon. While this shift might be said to have occurred because curing homosexuality proved unfeasible (or an “orientation” was given credence through scientific experiment), what a poststructuralist historian like Sedgwick shows is that such a shift was the inevitable consequence of a classification system in which “experts”—both clinical and spiritual—who discern what aspects of desire are voluntary are compelled to make concessions about which aspects are not.[27]

This development paralleled another. By the 1970s, sexuality in LDS culture began to be seen as not just for procreation, but also to enhance sexual happiness within marriage.[28] This change had two main catalysts that had developed in America throughout the twentieth century. The first was an overwhelming consensus that sex for pleasure was not necessarily physically or emotionally harmful. Initially, this concept was a movement away from nineteenth-century notions of “vital force,” or the idea that men possessed a limited quantity of sexual fluids that, when released detrimentally, affected their health. For many Christian groups, vital force was linked to “original sin”: Sexual desire was imbued with vice and led to children who were born as sinners like their parents. For nineteenth-century Mormons who had rejected the concept of original sin, polygamy was seen as the best way to adhere to God’s commandment to be “fruitful and multiply.” Mormons believed that sexuality, when employed with reproductive intent, could be health-giving (a gift from God for being obedient) rather than a draining of life force.[29] By the 1920s, when the vital-force model had fallen from scientific grace (and polygamy had fallen from societal grace), most Americans understood sexual happiness as essential to marital intimacy between one man and one woman; the question became one of the moral standing of sexuality without reproductive intent. While the country underwent a sexual revolution during the 1960s, even by the 1970s and early ’80s, LDS leaders spoke routinely against masturbation and oral sex, finding these practices “wicked” in their self-indulgence. By the 1990s, Church leaders ceased asking married couples about their sexual activities (except for assuring marital “chastity,” by which they meant “fidelity”); they also stopped asking about particular practices, except for the use of pornography, which remains strongly condemned in and outside of marriage.

The second main catalyst was feminist thought. Nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century (or “first-wave”) feminists called for a woman’s right over her body, which includes the right to choose pregnancy as opposed to being required to birth children, given the dangers of childbirth. Mid- to later-twentieth-century feminists (“second-wave”) called for a women’s right to sexual pleasure that need not necessarily lead to pregnancy and motherhood (nor even be in the context of marriage) given the advent of reliable birth control and the rising financial independence of women. Many LDS women came to distrust second-wave feminists who, during the time of the ERA, homogenized them as “victims” of their beliefs in divine marriage, motherhood, and gender symmetry. Sentiment against “feminism” has continued to pervade LDS thought ever since, as most Latter-day Saints are unread in more nuanced post-1980 (“third-wave”) feminism(s).[30]

While homosexuality had been condemned in large part due to its non-potentiality for procreation, by the 1980s this argument no longer provided full justification, as Mormons increasingly engaged in intentionally non-procreative sex within their marriages for the purpose of shared sexual happiness. In the 1980s, heterosexuality was considered by many Mormon therapists to be the only “true” orientation while homosexuality was classified as “gender dysphoria”—a trope that continues within the culture to this day.[31] This logic opened up space for non-procreative sex to be acceptable as long as it occurred within the intimate bounds of marriage between one man and one woman; in other words, acceptable and normative sexuality was linked to gender and not just reproduction.

In the 1990s, official discourse by the upper echelon of Church leaders, whom members ritually sustain as “prophets, seers, and revelators,” saw a rise in use of the phrase “same-gender attraction,” described as an aff liction that should not be acted upon. One way of thinking of the phrase “same-gender attraction” is as an expression of homosexuality without the “sex” (and thus without the sin, leading to a “love the sinner, hate the sin” approach), although Church leaders also maintain that “same-gender attraction” itself should be resisted as non-normative desire, as something against which one must struggle.[32]

Today, the Church seems to me to be in a precarious position. In maintenance of what I will call an “eternal heterogender,” Church leaders have ventured into making definitive statements about the “mystery” of this particular “affliction.” In recent years, the question has been said to be resolved in the next life where “same-gender attraction” will be “repaired.”[33]

Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland has also recommended that Latter-day Saints not use their sexual feelings as primary identifiers (such as in use of the words “gay,” “lesbian,” “bisexual,” or “straight”) and to concentrate only on sexual behavior (no sex outside of marriage); yet this statement is made, paradoxically, in an article whose title identifies people by their sexual feelings: “Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction.”[34] This paradox arises from the fact that, in using “homosexual as an adjective,” Mormons have written themselves into the logic of sexual orientation, not out of it. Holland’s request that Mormons not use their sexual feelings to identify themselves might be read as a kind of nostalgia for an earlier period when the Church did not have to deal with people asserting a sexual orientation or feelings of attraction to the same sex. Yet absence of the classification system by no means equals automatic heterosexuality. In the past, cultural forces along the lines of gender, race, and class dictated “ideal” family structures, just as those forces continue to do so today.[35] D. Michael Quinn’s work on nineteenth-century Mormonism points to a church that, without an established concept of sexual orientation, saw a greater tolerance of same-sex intimacy, even while acts of sodomy (both homosexual and heterosexual) were condemned as unnatural because they were non-procreative.[36] In the twenty-first century, powerful forces outside the Church—both secular and religious—consider same-sex desire not as a mystery with which people must struggle, but as natural feelings that can manifest themselves in intimacy that is morally neutral.

1980s Changes in LDS Therapeutic Discourse

Throughout America during the first half of the twentieth century, various reparative therapies were administered in hopes of changing same-sex desire to opposite-sex desire. Brigham Young University was endorsing electroshock therapy as late as the 1970s. Homosexual Mormons were coaxed into marriages with an assumption that their desires for the same sex would disappear in the context of spousehood and parenting but, if not, could be eliminated or substantially reduced (or heterosexual desire could be added) through the use of reparative therapies.

A turning point might be best characterized by the 1987 statement of Gordon B. Hinckley, then first counselor in the First Presidency of the largely non-functioning President Ezra Taft Benson: “Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices.”[37] In his 2005 study of gay Mormons, sociologist Rick Phillips argues that conversations among Church leaders, LDS Social Services, and faithful members during the 1980s moved the Church to “compromise” its policies on homosexuality—from assertions that homosexuality was freely chosen to a more careful consideration of desire with a continued condemnation of homosexual practices.[38] Phillips suggests that this modification occurred because curing homosexuality proved untenable despite decades of attempts.

This explanation, however, does not take into account the historical development of the diagnosis. For example, Phillips summarizes the movement as a shift from Mormon sentiment against “being gay” to against “acting gay,”[39] which is confusing since “being gay” has never been part of official LDS vocabulary except in terms of its negation. A better explanation would be that, while some in LDS Social Services subscribed to a minoritizing view of homosexuality in the 1980s—claiming that homosexuality was “incurable” except by “miracle”[40] (in essence, attesting that some indeed are “gay”)—the culture as a whole merely shifted to the universalizing realm of acts. The goal changed from becoming heterosexual, per se, to becoming marriageable. Same-sex desire, insofar as it had been understood to be of a certain quality over decades of clinical classification, was believed to be, in most cases, neutralizable in service of married life. I would not describe this as a compromise, as Phillips does, but rather as a strategic reassertion.

Even given this reassertion, Hinckley’s 1987 statement that marriage should not be regarded as a cure came in the midst of a change in Mormon sexual mores generally: a movement from sexuality being understood as primarily for reproduction, to affirming sexuality as important both procreatively and recreatively—for reproduction, of course, but also as an element of happiness within marriage. Thus, while a Latter-day Saint no longer needed to be heterosexual to be worthy, one had to be prepared to perform heterosexually (and not just reproductively) on account of one’s spouse. Church leaders recognized by the 1980s that marriages suffered if same-sex desire was not sufficiently addressed prior to marriage or the happiness of one’s spouse would be compromised. In 2006, Elder Oaks stated in hindsight: “To me [Hinckley’s statement] means that we are not going to stand still to put at risk daughters of God who would enter into such marriages under false pretenses or under a cloud unknown to them.”[41] This framing conjures notions of male selfishness (see next section) if the given aff liction was not attended to beforehand, but “risk” also implies physical danger. By the late 1980s, Church leaders had become concerned during the nationwide panic over the “gay plague” that HIV was being transmitted to LDS wives from LDS husbands who were secretly having sex with men.[42]

As Phillips shows, the 1980s saw sentiment within the Mormon therapy community that a homosexual orientation was a tangible phenomenon to the extent that a cure for same-sex desire seemed doubtful. But others agreed that a kind of logic was needed for a new era of neutralization, whether or not an orientation was verifiable. In their 1987 article “Homosexuality: Getting Beyond the Therapeutic Impasse,”[43] LDS therapists Ann and Thomas Pritt attempted to provide this logic. They alleged that homosexuality was more than a set of behaviors and/or feelings; rather, it was a “way of life” that required “years of pathological coping [that] . . . affect[s] most areas of the lives of those moving toward gender dysphoria.”[44] The Pritts’ dismissal of sexual orientation and their replacing it with gender dysphoria is significant for three reasons. First, because marital sex that lacked procreative intent had become normative in Mormon culture, the wrongfulness of homosexuality could no longer be articulated in terms of reproduction alone but was constructed as an issue of gender—hence, “gender dysphoria.” The fact that many heterosexual couples cannot reproduce reinforces this point. Second, this dysphoria was explained as something one acquired through behavior (or “choice”) so that gender-conformity was, in principle, all that was required to unravel it. Third, with gender-conformity as a cure of sorts, the Pritts resorted to stereotypes about what makes all homosexuals gender-nonconforming. This framing also conf lates transgenderism with homosexuality. Their answer: unfilled emotional bonding with members of the same sex.

The data the Pritts relied upon to make this claim were Mormons whose attempts at same-sex pairing were unsuccessful and led to unhappiness, a circular logic that it was homosexuality that failed their clients rather than Mormonism’s heteronormative environment. The Pritts made a cognitive leap that homosexuality could be “changed” into heterosexuality through “appropriate” same-sex bonding. They wrote: “All of their thoughts and behaviors are involved in their ‘coming out’ process, so their entire self will necessarily be involved in their ‘coming in’ to their very real heterosexuality.” This therapeutic process was said to require that past transgressions and thoughts be kept “strictly confidential” due to “homophobia and long-held misconceptions about the nature or possibility of change, [as] many people would see these growing men as they had thought they were, rather than what they really were and were becoming.” Here, homophobia, as it remains understood within the Mormon context, is made clear: It is the fear, banishment, bad-mouthing, or ill-thought toward persons that prevents the construction of shared spaces where “heterosexuals [can] . . . comfortably establish healing relationships with identity-impaired individuals.”[45]

That the Pritts attempted to match their theological ideals—gender complementarity and reproduction within marriage—with real world queer encounters is obvious. For them, homosexuality was a kind of underdeveloped homosociality; heterosexuality was attained through a struggled, perhaps lifelong performance. The Pritts’ logic, however, raises the question of whether linking homosexuality with gender-nonconformity can ever be done without stereotyping. As Sedgwick comments: “Attributions of a ‘true’ ‘inner’ heterogender may be made to stick . . . so long as dyads of people are all that are in question. [But] the broadening of view to include any larger circuit of desire must necessarily reduce the inversion . . . trope to a choreography of breathless farce.”[46]

In other words, if heterosexuality were ubiquitous, then it would not need to be made compulsory; it would simply happen on its own for all people. Calling homosexuality “gender-nonconforming” is an attempt to preserve an essential heterosexuality within desire itself. This essential heterosexuality might correlate to a theological ideal of gender complementarity, but to make this ideal fit the world will require a “choreography of farce.” As an example of how this choreography plays out, the Pritts’ notion of “change” stems from their data of homosexuals as unhappy and feeling guilt and remorse after committing acts deemed sinful. Practically speaking, the “change to . . . very real heterosexuality” might include an avoidance of homosexual behavior, a tight self-control on sexual attraction, and a maintenance of a belief in a “true, inner heterogender.”[47] All of these factors, however, point to celibacy and not heterosexuality; an actual performance of heterosexuality within marriage has yet to occur. Using the Pritts’ schema, homosexuals who are unrepentant and speak of love and happiness in the context of same-sex relationships are simply lost to their “pathology”; their happiness might be described as unhappiness in disguise or as a temporary illusion of happiness destined to become disappointment. Such sentiments seem deficient in empathy, though, and would be interpreted by the majority of today’s psychological community as signs of heterosexism.

A therapeutic stance that resembles that of the Pritts today is maintained most notably by LDS therapist A. Dean Byrd, a past president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), who has written and contributed to several books on homosexuality. Much like the immediate descendants of Freud, Byrd declares heterosexuality to be the only “true” orientation. He rejects the notion of homosexuality as innate (or a minoritizing view of homosexuality), attesting that it can be changed. The field of psychology, however, has long since problematized and moved beyond questions of sexual determinism and is now interested in sexuality over one’s lifespan.[48] The field has been introspective of its history, recognizing that the campaign to cure homosexuality was merely for the sake of upholding heterosexuality as superior. Byrd, on the other hand, paints a one-dimensional picture of a field overwrought with politics and averse to science. As recently as September 2009, Elder Bruce C. Hafen, a member of the third-ranked First Quorum of the Seventy, following the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, cited Byrd approvingly,[49] which means his work remains relevant in terms of a discourse analysis; however, his use of gender stereotypes and his propagation of misinformation about human sexuality is harmful and regrettable.[50]

The 1990s: The Proclamation on the Family

In conservative Christian communities during the 1990s, the idea that people were separatist when they engaged in homosexual behavior (rather than merely experiencing same-sex desire) gained traction.[51] Increasingly, Latter-day Saints in the pews asked that a “hate the sinner who sins” environment be replaced with “love the sinner, hate the sin.” The latter approach was viewed as more inclusive and conducive to helping practicing homosexuals cease their behavior and encourage those who felt tempted to never engage in “experimentation.” In essence, these Saints were asking for a Church atmosphere sans “homophobia,” as they understood the term. In his 1995 article, Elder Dallin Oaks quoted a letter from a parent:

Another concern we have is the way in which our sons and daughters are classified as people who practice deviant and lascivious behavior. Perhaps some do, but most do not. These young men and women want only to survive, have a spiritual life, and stay close to their families and the Church. It is especially damaging when . . . negative references are spoken from the pulpit. . . . Many simply cannot tolerate the fact that Church members judge them as “evil people,” and they, therefore, find solace in gay-oriented lifestyles.

Oaks responded: “The person that’s working [to resist] those tendencies ought not to feel himself to be a pariah. Now, quite a different thing is sexual relations outside of marriage. A person engaging in that kind of behavior should well feel guilt. . . . It’s not surprising to me that they would feel estranged from their church.”[52] Here is a movement of blame in which those given to “those tendencies” find solace in “gay-oriented lifestyles” because either (a) the culture pushed them away, and/or (b) the individual was separatist. In both explanations, homosexuality is framed as the source of the division, and Oaks expresses surprise at those who “feel that the Church can revoke God’s commandments”[53] to bridge the divide.

Outside the Church, a growing consensus had found homosexuality to be neither a sign of illness nor homosexual behavior an estrangement from God. Gays and lesbians in search of marital rights in the 1990s, pedestaled by gay rights organizations, forced conservative Christians, including Mormons, to grapple with non-libertarian queer activism.[54] Gordon B. Hinckley, speaking as Church president in 1998, stated that “those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians” are “love[d] as sons and daughters of God,” but the Church could not “stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation.” Hinckley added: “To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families.”[55]

Yet is a queer family any less a family because it is queer? Official Mormon discourse has not yet addressed the familiness of these households, even while they are increasing. Nadine Hansen, an LDS lawyer, argues that, since the family was already central to Mormon theology long prior to the 1990s and in light of the Church’s attempted intervention in the 1993 litigation regarding same-sex marriage in Hawaii (and its later involvements in Alaska in 1998 and California in 2000 and 2008), a “subtext” of homosexuality is key to understanding the proclamation’s timing. This point is particularly important given the politically mobilizing language in the proclamation on the family: “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.” Hansen has stated: “I am unaware of any time or circumstance under which the Church has urged members or government leaders to enact a single measure to strengthen ‘the family,’ other than legislation that would undermine homosexual relationships.”[56] Yet, as mentioned already, concern over same-sex marriage was on the Mormon agenda as early as the 1970s during the time of the ERA. I would adduce that the issue of homosexuality for the Church is, at its core, about gender, as accepting same-sex parented families in full communion would upset the ecclesiastical relationship between men and women rather than necessarily disrupt theological ideals of marriage and parenthood. It is no coincidence that religions that validate same-sex marriage also ordain women. As Sedgwick writes: “It has yet to be demonstrated that . . . patriarchy structurally requires homophobia”—consider ancient Greece, for example. Rather, the different shapes of “male and female homosociality . . . will always be articulations . . . of the enduring inequality of power between women and men.”[57]

Insofar as homosexuality had been understood within the Church as stemming from an aff liction that lends to a kind of selfishness if not kept in check,[58] this selfishness has been gendered male.[59] Women who do not want to marry or produce offspring are considered to have problems adhering to their gender, as opposed to any credence being given to their desire, whether same-sex or otherwise. Internalized, this stance has rendered lesbian voices within the Church dim. The desire of the male, on the other hand, is reasoned to be of desire only; the Church has exercised diligence in displaying a conquering of male same-sex desire. The contradictions of this gendered discourse emerged during the 1990s with the increased public visibility of lesbian motherhood. The “lesbian as mother who is unselfish” quieted conservative Christian discourse of homosexuality as mere selfishness as well as deflecting arguments that homosexuality is wrong because it is non-procreative.[60]

In the LDS context, the conversation concerning the wrongfulness of homosexuality saw a gradual shift from ideas of carnal selfishness and reproductive incapacity in the 1970s and ’80s to a question of a God-ordained family structure and gender roles in the 1990s and beyond, as evidenced in the language of the proclamation on the family. Essentializing gender roles was a succinct way to “protect” the traditional family after the Church came to terms with the following two realities: (1) non-heterosexuality is not just a question of sex, but also often of love and family-building, and (2) sexual happiness (or carnal selfishness) is often part of marital intimacy.

God-ordained gender roles do not hold up in an American court of law, though. As Judge Vaughn Walker concluded in 2010 regarding Proposition 8 in California: If mandating sexual activity, child-bearing, and child-rearing to occur within marriage were really in the state’s best interest, the proposition did not help this at all because it requires some sexual activity, child-bearing, and child-rearing to occur outside of marriage.[61] In other words, Walker did not find gays and lesbians to be separatists but in fact made the same argument that had concerned the Church during the ERA campaign: “Because of their relationship to one another,”[62] gays and lesbians are discriminated against due to their biological sex.

A Dialectic in Full Swing: The 2000s

Elder Packer in 1978 stressed that use of “homosexual” was dangerous because it might lead people to believe they really are homosexual.[63] By the turn of the twenty-first century, it was not possible for the Church to avoid the terms “gay/straight” and “sexual orientation.”[64] A believing Mormon in good standing with the Church today can self-identify as gay and even claim to have a homosexual orientation, provided he or she acknowledges or at least chooses to act only upon his or her “eternal heterogender.” LDS therapists who still advanced the idea of heterosexuality as the only true orientation explained this new phenomenon of Mormons self-identifying as gay as the result of bad science infiltrating Mormonism and indoctrinating its youth; it was the product of a “worldly” conspiracy asserting that homosexuality is innate.[65] On the part of Mormons who self-identified with “same-gender attraction,” “being gay” was a vernacular way of describing consistent same-sex desire with little to no opposite-sex desire, not unlike the Kinsey scale that does not require one to identify with one of two poles for a life course but allows one to place oneself somewhere on a continuum for now (including the poles) and to be open to what the future might bring.

Church leaders in the 2000s referred to celibacy as the only other possibility for the unmarried—an acceptable but lesser option given the “blessings of eternity” that marriage is said to provide. In a 2006 co-interview with Apostle Oaks, Lance B. Wickman, of the First Quorum of the Seventy, compared “same-gender attraction” with disability. He spoke of his disabled daughter who “stand[s] at the window of my office which overlooks the Salt Lake Temple and look[s] at the brides and their new husbands as they’re having their pictures taken. . . . [S]he’s at once captivated . . . and saddened.”[66] Her image served as a call for humility among those whose differences do not place them beyond the realm of marriageability in this life. Only “same-gender attraction” that is unable to be controlled was deemed to reasonably necessitate lifelong celibacy.[67] Mormon scholar Ron Schow noted in 2007 that descriptions of “same-gender attraction” as being “repaired in the next life,” like disabilities that may not be “repaired” in this one, have been expressed by Church leaders only as recently as the last decade.[68]

In an era of the internet and increased media representations of happy and productive queer people not considered identity-impaired or sinful, Church leaders have had the difficult task of creating continued stigma for categories of identity no longer considered shameful by large segments of American society. They have done this, in part, by steering the rising generation of Latter-day Saints away from the “worldly” designations of identity (such as “gay” or “lesbian”) that their peers use and toward what are termed more “eternal” signifiers. An example of this task at work appears in a 2007 article by LDS Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland. Holland recounted a conversation with a young man in his early twenties who was not sure he should remain a member of the Church. He did not think he was “worthy” because he was “gay.” Holland queried: “And?” noting for his readers the surprise on the young man’s face. Holland asked the young man whether he had violated the “law of chastity” (no sex outside of marriage), to which the young man answered that he had not. The apostle thanked him for “remaining clean” and then told him that knowing “the cause of your feelings” is not as important as knowing that he has “not transgressed.” Holland then told the young man: “You serve yourself poorly when you identify yourself primarily by your sexual feelings, [as] that isn’t your only characteristic, so don’t give it disproportionate attention. You are first and foremost a son of God, and He loves you.” Although the phrase “son of God” does not explicitly mean a “heterosexual son of God,” if the young man were to remain unmarried and celibate as a result of his struggle (or for whatever other reasons), he will become, to a large extent, a cultural outsider by midlife. Holland makes this fate clear at the end of the article when he says: “I weep with admiration and respect at the faith” of a second man who, now in his thirties, remains chaste, “struggling,” and “has not yet married.”[69]

Holland’s weeping for those who struggle with desire is intertwined with an opposing disciplinarian stance: “All human beings struggle, so you are no different than I am,” as expressed through his request that the young man not identify himself by his sexual feelings. This weeping-disciplinary dyad is dialectical; it resembles the God-like faces of mercy and wrath. This duality overlays Sedgwick’s discussion of the contradictory minoritizing/universalizing tendency that occurs when sexuality is linked to gender. The “merciful” stance taken by Holland—that of weeping for those who struggle with desire—demonstrates an acknowledgment of a minority for whom desire is considered an issue. Holland does not cite studies that give percentages of how many Americans are gay, but he does state that there are “thousands like him [the thirtysomething man], male or female, who ‘fight the good fight’ . . . who struggle with . . . same-gender attraction.”[70] Apostle Oaks made the “merciful” gesture as well when he said in the 2006 co-interview with Wickman: “Perhaps there is an inclination or susceptibility to such feelings that is a reality for some and not a reality for others.”[71] Nevertheless, the “wrathful” or universalizing stance is always taken in the same frame and given greater credence. For Holland, being “gay” is the result of a series of choices, acts, and reflections through which anyone might choose to be gay. For Oaks, the same is true: “Out of such susceptibilities come feelings, and feelings are controllable. If we cater to the feelings, they increase the power of the temptation. If we yield to the temptation, we have committed sinful behavior.”[72] In brief, the minoritizing/universalizing dialectic takes the following outline: “Same-gender attraction” becomes just like any other “affliction” (such as a disability or a propensity toward anger) and is therefore framed as not-unique, even though it is also paradoxically talked about as uniquely afflicting some people.

This binary thinking is important to explicate because it forecloses a livable middle ground for many Mormons today. On one end of the mercy/wrath binary are success stories to be emulated in which desire has been conquered or is sufficiently controlled and in which one has aligned himself or herself to find ultimate joy in the LDS life sequence (gender dyadic marriage and parenthood). On the other end are the Stuart Matises[73] of Mormonism whose “last desperate act[s] . . . [are] forgiven by the mercy of the Atonement.”[74] When it comes to suicides in Mormon culture over the issue of homosexuality, Holland remarked “mercifully” upon meeting with the parents of Stuart Matis: “We must find ever-better ways to help the Stuart Matises of the Church . . . while they ‘fight the good fight’ in the gender-attraction they face.” He then “wrathfully” added: “I am only heartbroken that [Stuart] felt that he could not keep on fighting.”[75] As with Oaks and the question of the pariah, this approach defers blame. Either (1) we will give more love to the next one, and/or (2) it is the mysterious affliction that causes a kind of selfishness (read: weakness) that took our child from us. The disconnect here is that these suicides are not of an anomic variety in which the person lacked love in his or her life or lacked a worldly niche in the community. Often such suicides are acts of altruism in which the person feels that killing himself or herself is for the good of the community. In other words, self lessness, not selfishness, motivates the decision to die. Mormon scholar Hugo Olaiz has referred to the situation as one of “spiritual codependency” in which, “when bad things happen [namely, suicides by queer church members], they are guiltless tragedies.” Because the “theological puzzle of homosexuality” is described as “resolved in the afterlife,” Olaiz finds that Mormonism today leans toward a “culture of death” for many of its members.[76] Church leaders might describe suicide as never the answer, and individual wards may try to ensure that it welcomes those with this “struggle”; still, the framing of a life as one of “struggle” to be resolved by mysterious means after death is ultimately what is unwelcoming.

The “merciful” or minoritizing aspect of the binary has permitted the rise of queer voices that are considered legitimately Mormon and who, with their families, have worked to create livable middle grounds. Evergreen International was founded in 1989; and like its evangelical counterpart, Exodus International, changing orientation was its focus throughout the 1990s. Today, both organizations focus on the universalizing realm of acts.[77] Ty Mansfield, a Mormon thirtysomething who has spoken at Evergreen conferences and is a director of another queer Mormon organization called North Star (2006), stated in In Quiet Desperation, a popular 2004 book co-authored with Stuart Matis’s parents, “Just as we do not worship heterosexuality, so our salvation is not based upon the mortal realization of it.”[78] Such a declaration is common in evangelical ex-gay culture, where the opposite of gay is often described as “holy” and not as “straight.”[79] This kind of thinking can open up discursive space to question the privileging of marriage over singleness; it can also lead one to question the comparative leniency afforded heterosexual transgressions over homosexual ones.[80]

Mansfield has not questioned Mormonism’s doctrine of eternal marriage. In fact, he asserts that it is “idolatrous” for those who “experience same-gender attraction” to use it as a “catch-all rationalization for failing to . . . prepare” for eternal marriage.[81] However, he stated in a 2009 essay, “Clinically Single,” that the importance his faith places on marriage has the unfortunate effect of equating singleness with loneliness.[82] A kind of faithful activism has arisen in the last decade, which can be summarized as follows: Instead of maintaining a closet for everyone to “come in” as heterosexual, many believe they should “come out” as “same-gender attracted” for their Church’s well-being (to raise awareness of homophobia) and their own well-being (so long as they choose to act in accordance with their “eternal heterogenders”). In another 2009 essay, “A New Conversation for a New Generation,” Mansfield quoted a friend who had decided to be “out” within his Mormon community: “When I made the final decision to use my real name, knowing the potential for backlash, I decided that there is a war being waged and our side is losing while the gay rights organizations are winning. We are losing because people like me feel the need to hide and pretend. I pretend not out of fear of the gay rights organizations; I pretend out of fear of the negative reaction I will get from people in the Church.”[83]

The effect that such thinking will have on the culture will continue to be seen in coming years. Therapist Dean Byrd fears that “from acceptance [of same-gender attraction as normative], there is only a short distance to celebration.”[84] His sentiment finds some validation in Mansfield’s “merciful” prose in In Quiet Desperation: “Even love expressed in ways contrary to the Father’s eternal purposes for His children still retains elements of love’s grandeur.”[85] In official Mormon discourse, actual same-sex intimacy always receives the brunt of “wrath” and wrath alone.

The faithful activism of these Mormons and their families is encumbered by “wrathful” statements in recent Church literature, such as those in a 2007 pamphlet titled God Loveth His Children: “An adverse influence [to one’s spirituality] is obsession with or concentration on same-gender thoughts and feelings. It is not helpful to flaunt homosexual tendencies or make them the subject of unnecessary observation or discussion. It is better to choose as friends those who do not publicly display their homosexual feelings.”[86] Statements like these reveal the precarious position in which the Church has put itself. Should In Quiet Desperation never have been published because the book puts Stuart Matis’s and Ty Mansfield’s homosexual feelings on public display? Should Evergreen and North Star disband because “same-gender attraction” is their focus? Such statements create concern among those who try to stay faithful to the Church by supporting and associating with others they view as like themselves.[87]

Concluding Thoughts, Future Directions

Some gay Mormons who grew up before the 1980s have noted that their pain of growing up in a homophobic environment that insisted they be cured has been invalidated by the Church’s movement toward a more merciful, “love the sinner, hate the sin” stance.[88] In the previous section, I demonstrated how this “mercy” provides only an aura of inclusivity, as it is always tempered with exclusionary “wrath.” This mercy/wrath binary is indicative of the minoritizing/universalizing dialectic described by queer theorist Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick. The binary plays out in Mormonism through the notion of “same-gender attraction” whereby desire is both minoritized and dismissed through a universalizing framework of “eternal gender.” The minoritizing element helps explain why the Church supported the Salt Lake City nondiscrimination ordinances in 2009 while the universalizing element explains its continued position against same-sex marriage.

With regard to accounts of American sexual history, Mormonism disrupts the understanding of this history as a singular emergence of the homosexual/heterosexual dyad at the beginning of the twentieth century.[89] While the Church engaged with the dyad as early as the 1950s, it really subscribed to it only when sex within marriage was seen as having the important function of sexual happiness as well as reproduction and when gender roles were interpreted as essential to one’s eternal identity.

The Church’s involvement in the California same-sex marriage campaigns in 2000 and 2008 may have helped slow the tide, but Americans in many cities are leaning more and more toward acceptance of same-sex desire and intimacy as normative and morally neutral. That is, gays and lesbians are increasingly not viewed as separatists, regardless of whether their sexual feelings are thought of as “innate.” In terms of debates that compare race with sexuality (miscegenation with same-sex marriage), the 1978 LDS policy change to allow ordination of black men has sometimes been framed as late-coming, such that the Church is consequently presented as “behind the times” in terms of sexuality discourses, too.[90] This reasoning tends to rest problematically on a minoritizing-only framework in which sexuality is like race because of aspects of “immutability.” Rather, how might the Church change using its own universalizing logics as it did in 1978?

Today’s Mormon youth are in a position in which, even if they do not use the concept of sexual orientation to define themselves (and concentrate only on sexual behavior), by the time they are in their twenties, they must still grapple with the workings of the closet, due to the universalized expectation of marriage. How do they interpret “same-gender attraction” and “eternal gender” as models of self-definition? My sense is that they neither assimilate to nor strictly oppose these concepts but transform them in creative ways online and with their families and friends. These youth often do not “struggle” with sexuality, so Mormonism must struggle to find a place for them as they grow up. The relative absence of the closet in many gay-affirming locales where people no longer need to “come out” or “stay in” to be “in” has led many non-Mormon American queer youth to not define themselves by their sexuality, either.[91] Thus, the debate among the next generation is likely to move away from the specific modality of sexuality to questions of how the Mormon “family” can continue to make sense soteriologically when it does not represent the diversity of American families.

---

Note: The Dialogue Foundation provides the web format of this article as a courtesy. There may be unintentional differences from the printed version. For citational and bibliographical purposes, please use the printed version or the PDFs provided online or on a scholarly database.

[1] Matt Canham, Derek Jensen, and Rosemary Winters, “Salt Lake City Adopts Pro-Gay Statutes—with LDS Church Support,” Salt Lake Tribune, November 11, 2009, http://www.sltrib.com/ci_13758070 (accessed March 1, 2010).

[2] “Common Ground Initiative,” Equality Utah website, http://www.equalityutah.org/action/common.html; “Church Responds to Same-Sex Marriage Votes,” http://newsroom.lds.org/article/church-responds-to-same-sex-marriage-votes, November 5, 2008 (both accessed October 20, 2010).

[3] “The Church Supports Nondiscrimination Ordinances,” http://newsroom.lds.org/article/church-supports-nondiscrimination-ordinances (accessed October 20, 2010).

[4] Canham, Jensen, and Winters, “Salt Lake City Adopts Pro-Gay Statutes.”

[5] “Sutherland’s Statement on LDS Response to Nondiscrimination Ordinances,” November 10, 2009, http://www.sutherlandinstitute.org /news/news_details.asp?id=631 (accessed October 20, 2010).

[6] Ibid.

[7] “The Church Supports Nondiscrimination Ordinances.”

[8] The wife of God (or Heavenly Mother) is hardly mentioned officially. See Margaret Toscano, “Is There a Place for Heavenly Mother in Mormon Theology?: An Investigation into Discourses of Power,” Sunstone Magazine 133 (July 2004): 14–22.

[9] “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” (Salt Lake City: Intellectual Reserve, 1995). Regarding spiritual gender identity or the question of transgenderism in Mormonism, Apostle Boyd K. Packer, “To Young Men Only,” October 2, 1976, pamphlet (N.p.: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), http://mentalhealthlibrary.info/library/sex/sexlds/sexldsmag/links/foryoungmen/foryoungmen.htm (accessed October 20, 2010), stated in 1976: “There is no mismatching of bodies and spirits.” He made this statement in the context of conflating homosexuality and transgenderism, discussed below.

[10] “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” sustains the LDS view that women/mothers are “primarily responsible for the nurture of their children” and men/fathers are “responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families.” Children were said to be “entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother.”

[11] “The Church and the Proposed Equal Rights Amendment: A Moral Issue,” 23-page insert in Ensign, March 1980.

[12] Boyd K. Packer, “Talk to the All-Church Coordinating Council,” May 18, 1993, http://www.zionsbest.com/face.html (accessed October 20, 2010). Although this speech was never published, a transcript of it was leaked onto the internet in 1993. Packer was highly perceived as instrumental behind the singling out of scholars, many of whom wrote on feminist topics, for excommunication later that year. The media dubbed the exiled scholars “the September Six.” In 2007, in an interview for the Public Broadcasting Service documentary, The Mormons, interviewer Helen Whitney inquired why “those particular groups [gays, feminists, intellectuals] . . . were of special concern.” Packer stated: “We . . . feel and think and know that the ultimate end of all activity in the Church is that a man and his wife and their children can be happy at home. . . . Down some of those paths you have a right to go, but in the Church, you don’t have a right to teach and take others there.” Apostle Dallin H. Oaks was also asked the question in his interview. Oaks stated that “in any day the watchmen on the tower are going to say intellectualism is a danger to the Church.” He also said that he has “felt the benefits of feminism,” but believes it has some “troublesome aspects” such as leading women to think “I don’t want a family, I want a career,” which “goes against eternal values.” Neither man spoke of the LGBT movement. “President Packer Interview Transcript from PBS documentary,” http://newsroom.lds. org/article/elder-oaks-interview-transcript-from-pbs-documentary; “Elder Oaks Interview Transcript from PBS documentary,” http://newsroom.lds.org /article/elder-oaks-interview-transcript-from-pbs-documentary, July 20, 2007 (both accessed October 20, 2010).

[13] Mormon demographics have shifted. By 2009, less than 45% of the Church’s membership lived in America; the proportion is not currently reflected in the leadership. “Facts & Statistics,” http://newsroom.lds.org/facts-and-stats, October 18, 2010 (accessed October 20, 2010). Therefore, non-American and American immigrant Mormons should be included when I say “Mormon.” Unfortunately, these perspectives are beyond the scope of this essay.

[14] Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985), 1–2.

[15] Mormon historian D. Michael Quinn also uses “homosocial” in his Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1996).

[16] Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Epistemology of the Closet (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), 44–48. Sedgwick states that it was French philosopher Michel Foucault, who in an “act of bravado,” labeled the year “1870” as the “birth of modern homosexuality.” Sedgwick reminds us, though, that any monolithic historical narrative can obscure the nuanced conditions of the present.

[17] Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality (New York: Pantheon Books, 1978), 43.

[18] Sedgwick, Between Men, 2.

[19] Sedgwick, Epistemology of the Closet, 40–41.

[20] Ibid., 43. By “Cartesian,” Sedgwick is referring to the idea that the mind is somehow separate from the body, a trope for which sixteenth-century philosopher René Descartes is usually blamed.

[21] Dallin H. Oaks, “Same-Gender Attraction,” Ensign, October 1995, 7.

[22] Ibid.

[23] In October 2010, in response to a petition from the Human Rights Campaign, Church spokesman Michael Otterson reiterated that the Church “distinguishes between feelings or inclinations on the one hand and behavior on the other.” “Church Responds to HRC Petition,” http://newsroom.lds.org/article/church-mormon-responds-to-human-rights-campaign-petition-same-sex-attraction, October 12, 2010 (accessed October 20, 2010).

[24] Sedgwick, Epistemology of the Closet, 1.

[25] Ibid., 1–2.

[26] See, for example, Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1969), 85: “Many have been misinformed that they are powerless in the matter, not responsible for the tendency, and that God ‘made them that way.’ . . . Does the pervert think God to be ‘that way’?”

[27] Sedgwick, Epistemology of the Closet, 225.

[28] Official policy did not reflect this cultural change until the 1990s. The General Handbook of Instructions, Vol. 1 (Salt Lake City: Intellectual Reserve, 1999), 157, cautioned members against judging each other on their family planning decisions. Sexuality was described as not just for procreation, but as also a “divinely approved . . . means of ex-pressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife.” See Melissa Proctor, “Bodies, Babies, Birth Control,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 36, no. 3 (Fall 2003): 175.

[29] See B. Carmon Hardy and Dan Erickson, “‘Regeneration—Now and Evermore!’ Mormon Polygamy and the Physical Rehabilitation of Humankind,” Journal of the History of Sexuality 10, no. 1 (2001): 40–61.

[30] Amy Hoyt, “Beyond the Victim/Empowerment Paradigm: The Gendered Cosmology of Mormon Women,” Feminist Theology 16, no. 1 (2007): 89–100.

[31] See, for example, the writings of therapist A. Dean Byrd. For a critique of Byrd, see William S. Bradshaw, “Short Shrift to the Facts,” a review of Douglas A. Abbott and A. Dean Byrd, Encouraging Heterosexuality: Helping Children Develop a Traditional Sexual Orientation, this issue. See also Apostle Boyd K. Packer, “To the One” (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1978), 7–8, in which he again conf lates homosexuality and transgenderism, framing both in terms of inappropriate “masculine” and “feminine” attributes and relations.

[32] As Dallin Oaks summarized “same-gender attraction” in 2006: “The line of sin is between the feelings and the behavior. The line of prudence is between the susceptibility and the feelings. We need to lay hold on the feelings and try to control them to keep us from getting into a circumstance that leads to sinful behavior.” “Same-Gender Attraction: An Interview with Elders Oaks and Wickman,” posted August 2006, http://newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction (accessed October 20, 2010). According to the official pamphlet, God Loveth His Children, 11 pp. (N.p.: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2007), 6: “Attractions alone do not make you unworthy. If you avoid immoral thoughts and actions, you have not transgressed even if you feel such an attraction.”

[33] An example of this logic can be found in Elder Bruce Hafen’s speech to Evergreen International in 2009: “Come resurrection morning—and maybe even before then—you [addressing the Evergreen audience] will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex.” “Elder Bruce C. Hafen Speaks on Same-Sex Attraction,” September 19, 2009, http://newsroom.lds.org/article/elder-bruce-c-hafen-speaks-on-same-sex-attraction (accessed October 20, 2010). The doctrine that “afflictions” will be removed after death after enduring them with “patience” comes from Alma 34:39–41. Still, Alma 34:34 indicates that the “same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have the power to possess your body in that eternal world.” In my ethnographic research for this essay, I have found that Mormons who identify with the phrase “same-gender attraction” are divided on the issue of whether they believe they are broken and need/will receive repair. For an analysis of this address, see James F. Cartwright, “Dialogue with Elder Hafen: Part 1—Doctrine” and Part 2— “Research Issues,” By Common Consent (Newsletter of the Mormon Alliance) 16, no. 1 (January 2010) and 16, no. 2 (March 2010).

[34] Jeffrey R. Holland, “Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction,” Ensign, October 2007, 42–45.

[35] As an example, sexual historian Bruce Burgett, “On the Mormon Question: Race, Sex, and Polygamy in the 1850s and the 1990s,” American Quarterly 57, no. 1 (2005): 83, recounts how nineteenth-century Mormons were criticized by their contemporaries as acting like “Africans” and “Asians” due to their polygamous family structures. At the heart of these racial metaphors was the question of the proper “American” way of acquiring capital and progeny.

[36] Quinn, Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans, chap. 4.

[37] Gordon B. Hinckley, “Reverence and Morality,” Ensign, June 1987, 45. Hinckley’s statement was also published in “First Presidency Statement on AIDS,” Ensign, July 1988, 79.

[38] Rick Phillips, Conservative Christian Identity and Same-Sex Orientation: The Case of Gay Mormons (New York: Peter Lang, 2005), 39–41.

[39] Ibid., 40.

[40] Ibid., 39.

[41] Oaks, in “Same-Gender Attraction: An Interview with Elders Oaks and Wickman.”

[42] In 1986, Carol Lynn Pearson published Good-bye, I Love You (New York: Random House) about her experiences with her ex-husband who died of AIDS, one of the first books to speak to the issue of homosexuality in a Mormon context.

[43] Ann Pritt and Thomas Pritt, “Homosexuality: Getting Beyond the Therapeutic Impasse,” AMCAP [Association of Mormon Counselors and Psychotherapists] Journal 13, no. 1 (1987): 37–66.

[44] Ibid., 58.

[45] Ibid., 58, 59.

[46] Sedgwick, Epistemology of the Closet, 87.

[47] Pritt and Pritt, “Homosexuality,” 55, suggest that therapists “encourage . . . individuals to affirm the truth about themselves, that they indeed are heterosexual and always have been. Such would not be ‘passing,’ or deceptively presenting a false front for purposes of temporarily fitting in. Rather, it would entail an exercise of faith in one’s own self and a determination to make ‘the unseen seen.’”

[48] See, for example, psychologist Lisa Diamond, Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women’s Love and Desire (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2008), 257, 138, who states that arguments concerning the innateness of homosexuality might have short-term political use, but in the long run may “systematically disenfranchise” women. “Perhaps in-stead of arguing that gay/lesbian/bisexual individuals deserve civil rights because they are powerless to change their behavior, we should affirm the fundamental rights of all people to determine their own emotional and sexual lives.” Byrd can find no ally in Diamond since freedom of choice for him is unidirectional: toward heterosexuality. Byrd states in “Interview: An LDS Reparative Therapy Approach for Male Homosexuality,” AMCAP Journal 19, no. 1 (1993): 91, that he “acknowledge[s] the right of individuals with same-sex attraction to choose a gay lifestyle,” but he is not in the business of helping clients who make that particular choice. NARTH distorted as “change by choice” Diamond’s work on sexual fluidity—which consisted of interviews of women who experienced sexual variation not by choice. Diamond protested this misrepresentation in Brian Maffly, “U. Psychologist Says Sex Research Distorted,” Salt Lake Tribune, November 11, 2008, http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10958958 (accessed October 20, 2010). Byrd’s statement on Diamond’s work was: “If it says ‘fluidity’ it says ‘fluidity.’ How you interpret it is something else.” Ibid. In other words, for Byrd and for NARTH, if the goal is heterosexuality, then the fact that it is reached spontaneously is beside the point, so long as people “choose” to maintain it.

[49] “Elder Bruce C. Hafen Speaks on Same-Sex Attraction.”

[50] Byrd’s Mormons and Homosexuality (Orem, Utah: Millennial Press, 2008) bears the publisher’s advertisement on the back cover that it is “the best LDS analysis of the issue of homosexuality available.” Yet much of the interior suggests material written in an earlier era when homosexuality was equated with child molestation, pedophilia, dysfunctional parent-child relationships, and disease. I find it difficult to take Byrd seriously as a scholar, but I also worry that his clout is substantial in the Mormon therapy community. Mormon scholar Ron Schow stated in 2007 that the Church has “abandoned” Byrd’s paradigms as laid out in the 1990s, but he may have been too optimistic in his appraisal, since the idea of homosexuality as a kind of gender dysphoria is still popular with many Mormons. Ron Schow, “LDS Resources Blog,” October 15, 2007, http://ldsresourcesinfo.blogspot.com/ (accessed October 20, 2010).

[51] Didi Herman, The Antigay Agenda (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), 107.

[52] Oaks, “Same-Gender Attraction.”

[53] Ibid.

[54] Herman, The Antigay Agenda, 109.

[55] Gordon B. Hinckley, “What Are People Asking about Us?,” Ensign, November 1998, 70.

[56] Nadine Hansen on Panel: Kaimipono Wenger, Clark Pingree, and Nadine Hansen, “California’s Continuing Battle over Same-Sex Marriage,” August 6, 2008, Salt Lake Symposium, video, http://ldshomosexuality.com/?p=166 (accessed May 1, 2010).

[57] Sedgwick, Between Men, 4–5.

[58] Packer, “To the One,” 10, made this point explicitly: “Have you explored the possibility that the cause [of homosexuality], when found, will turn out to be a very typical form of selfishness—selfishness in a very subtle form?”

[59] There is a popular, but sexist, line of reasoning that can be summarized as follows: Gay men are promiscuous (read: selfish) because women naturally tame men through marriage. Besides the fact that many men (gay or otherwise) are monogamously minded, it is also the case that men have historically had power over women’s bodies, so much so that a women had no legal recourse even if her husband raped her or brought disease into the relationship. Many women responded to this situation by necessarily taming their husbands, reinforcing the idea that women “naturally” do this. One can see how Packer’s 1978 link between homosexuality as selfishness might be related to assumptions about the “nature” of sex and gender inside and outside of marriage. The absence of the lesbian in this discourse is also highly visible.

[60] Herman, The Antigay Agenda, 51–54.

[61]  erry v. Schwarzenegger, 2010 US Dist (N CA), p. 128, http://www. equalrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Prop8Decision. pdf (accessed October 20, 2010).

[62] Ibid., 120–21.

[63] Packer, “To the One,” 2, 3; he further stated that “it is easy—very easy—to cause the very things we are trying to avoid.”

[64] For example, Church spokesman Michael Otterson in October 2010 used the words “gay” and “sexual orientation” when addressing the public after a string of public suicides by queer youth: “This past week we have all witnessed tragic deaths across the country as a result of bullying or intimidation of gay young men. We join our voice with others in unreserved condemnation of acts of cruelty or attempts to belittle or mock any group or individual that is different—whether those differences arise from race, religion, mental challenges, social status, sexual orientation or for any other reason.” “Church Responds to HRC Petition.”

[65] See, as examples, Byrd, Mormons and Homosexuality (2008) and, the next year, a text for therapists by Dennis Dahle et al., Where to Turn and How to Help: Understanding Same-Sex Attraction (Salt Lake City: Foundation for Attraction Research, Millennial Press, 2009).

[66] Wickman, in “Same-Gender Attraction: An Interview with Elders Oaks and Wickman.”

[67] Chosen singleness for a life course is frowned upon in Mormonism, having negative soteriological consequences. D&C 132:16–17. Those who are involuntarily single are consoled by the promise of mar-riage and children in the next life.

[68] Schow, “LDS Resources Blog.”

[69] Holland, “Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction,” 42, 45.

[70] Ibid., 45.

[71] Oaks, in “Same-Gender Attraction: An Interview with Elders Oaks and Wickman.”

[72] Ibid.

[73] In 2000, Matis committed suicide at age thirty-two during the Proposition 22 campaign in California.

[74] Fred and Marilyn Matis and Ty Mansfield, In Quiet Desperation: Understanding the Challenge of Same-Gender Attraction (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2004), 40.

[75] Ibid.

[76] Robert A. Rees, Hugo Olaiz, Ron Schow, and William S. Bradshaw, “Steps in the Right Direction? Evaluating New LDS Publications on Homosexuality,” Sunstone Symposium, Session 336, Salt Lake City, July 30, 2005, MP3 audio file, https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/shop /products/symposium-sessions-free/steps-in-the-right-direction-evaluating-new-lds-publications-on-homosexuality/ (accessed October 20, 2010).

[77] Evergreen’s stated mission is to help people who “want to diminish same-sex attractions and overcome homosexual behavior.” http://www.evergreeninternational.org/about_us.htm (accessed October 20, 2010).

[78] Matis, Matis, and Mansfield, In Quiet Desperation, 181.

[79] Lynne Gerber, “The Opposite of Gay: Nature, Creation, and Queerish Ex-Gay Experiments,” Nova Religio 11, no. 4 (2008): 24.

[80] Ibid., 21.

[81] Matis, Matis, and Mansfield, In Quiet Desperation, 181–82.

[82] Ty Mansfield, “Clinically Single,” North Star website, July 2009, http://northstarlds.org/directors_2009-07.php (accessed October 20, 2010). In May of 2010, Mansfield married his wife at the Salt Lake Temple, demonstrating his belief that “‘men are that they might have joy’”—including joyful bachelorhood—“but ‘in this world your joy is not full.’” Matis, Matis, and Mansfield, In Quiet Desperation, 182.

[83] Anonymously quoted in Ty Mansfield, “A New Conversation for a New Generation,” November 2009, http://northstarlds.org/direc-tors_2009-11.php (accessed October 20, 2010). That the friend remains anonymous in Mansfield’s essay, despite the fact that he is quoted as “coming out,” creates an interesting double message.

[84] A. Dean Byrd et al., “A Slippery Slope that Limits the Atonement,” review of In Quiet Desperation, The Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR) website, http://www.fairlds.org/Reviews /Rvw200505.html (accessed October 20, 2010).

[85] Matis, Matis, and Mansfield, In Quiet Desperation, 179.

[86] God Loveth His Children, 9. In his 2006 interview with Wickman, Oaks stated: “In a nutshell . . . if you are trying to live with and maintain ascendancy over same-gender attractions, the best way to do that is to have groups that define their members in terms other than same-gender attractions.” “Same-Gender Attraction: An Interview with Elders Oaks and Wickman.”

[87] Schow, “LDS Resources Blog.”

[88] Buckley Jeppson and Jeff Nielsen, “Gays in the Mormon Universe,” Sunstone Symposium, Session 316, Salt Lake City, August 12, 2006, MP3 audio file, https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/shop /products/symposium-sessions-free/gays-in-the-mormon-universe/ (ac-cessed October 20, 2010).

[89] My thanks to Bruce Burgett for this insight.

[90] D. Michael Quinn, “Prelude to the National ‘Defense of Marriage’ Campaign: Civil Discrimination against Feared or Despised Minorities,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 33, no. 3 (Fall 2000): 1–52, analogized race and sexuality in this political analysis.

[91] See Bertram Cohler and Phillip L. Hammack, “The Psychological World of the Gay Teenager: Social Change, Narrative, and ‘Normality,’” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 36, no. 1 (2007): 47–59.

[post_title] => Mormon and Queer at the Crossroads [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 44.1 (Spring 2011): 53–84
This essay explores conflicting messages within LDS teaching on LGBT rights, when it both opposed same-sex marriage and in the wake of Prop 8 also came out in support of other LGBT rights that display both wrath and mercy. It explores a theory of LDS teachings on homosexuality along these lines, as well as the context of shifting norms around sexual identity. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => mormon-and-queer-at-the-crossroads [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-12-29 04:01:00 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-12-29 04:01:00 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=9699 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 10164 [post_author] => 2090 [post_date] => 2018-03-21 03:04:24 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-03-21 03:04:24 [post_content] =>

The battle over same-sex marriage in America is shaping up as one of the defining political and moral controversies of this decade. The issue has been the subject of numerous legislative debates, initiative measures, and court cases. On October 18, 2004, the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued the following statement regarding the issue:

We of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reach out with understanding and respect for individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender. We realize there may be great loneliness in their lives but there must also be recognition of what is right before the Lord.

As a doctrinal principle, based on sacred scripture, we affirm that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. The powers of procreation are to be exercised only between a man and a woman lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same gender, undermine the divinely created institution of the family. The Church accordingly favors measures that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and that do not confer legal status on any other sexual relationship.[1]

This is a hard doctrine for many Latter-day Saints. Many of us have family members or loved ones who have endured great suffering because of their sexual orientation. Often they are among the most talented, trustworthy, and goodhearted people we know. I have two homosexual cousins. One of them began living a homosexual lifestyle in the 1970s and recently died of AIDS. The other married and had children before publicly acknowledging his sexual orientation but continues to provide financial and emotional support to his ex-wife and children. Wouldn’t it have been better for my cousins had society and the Church been more understanding of their condition and permitted them to aspire to marriage with compatible partners, rather than condemning them to lives of secrecy, shame, discrimination, excommunication, and, in one case, early death?

During my lifetime, homosexuals and other minorities and oppressed groups of many kinds (e.g., racial minorities, religious minorities, women, the aged, and the disabled) have fought for and achieved greater social acceptance and legal protection. Probably most Americans would view the social and legislative accomplishments of the various civil rights movements as among the most important achievements of American society during the last fifty years.

Already the gay rights movement has achieved much. Laws outlawing sodomy between consenting adults have been declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court;[2] laws have been enacted in many states protecting gays and lesbians from hate crimes and employment discrimination; and gays and lesbians have achieved greater acceptance in the media and in society in general. Some Latter-day Saints view the approval of same-sex marriage as a logical and inevitable next step in the battle for civil rights and are dismayed to see the Church they love on the wrong side of history.

Thus, the case for same-sex marriage seems compelling, particularly from the perspective of those who either have a homosexual orientation or who care deeply about someone who does, or of those who care about protecting the rights and dignity of minorities who suffer from persecution because of their sexual or marriage practices. (Our Mormon forebears could tell us something about that.) Nonetheless, I believe that the case against same-sex marriage is more compelling and that, as Latter-day Saints, we will likely be called upon to articulate and support that case in the ongoing culture wars.

The battle over same-sex marriage is fought on several fronts: constitutional, scriptural, and sociological. I will briefly discuss some of the constitutional and scriptural arguments before turning to the sociological arguments, which will take up the bulk of the article.

The Constitutional Arguments

Although legislation permitting same-sex marriage has been enacted in a number of foreign countries[3] and legislation permitting same-sex civil unions or domestic partnerships has been enacted in several U.S. states,[4] to date, no U.S. state has enacted legislation approving same-sex marriage.[5]To date, the principal victories achieved by advocates of same-sex marriage in the United States have been in the courts. The first key victory was in the 1993 decision of Baeher v. Lewin,[6] in which the Hawaii Supreme Court interpreted the Hawaii ban on same-sex marriage as violating the Hawaii constitution. A lower state court in Alaska followed with a similar ruling[7] and, in 2003, so did the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.[8] In Vermont, the state’s highest court ruled that the state legislature must either approve same-sex marriage or adopt legislation that affords same-sex couples who enter into civil unions the same rights under state law as married couples.[9]The court rulings in both Hawaii and Alaska were invalidated by legislative initiatives amending their respective constitutions before any same-sex marriages were actually performed, and a similar initiative challenge has been mounted in Massachusetts. In the meantime, however, same-sex marriages have been performed in Massachusetts since 2004.

In general, the legal argument that prohibiting same-sex marriage is unconstitutional goes something like this:

1. State prohibitions of same-sex marriage are classifications based on sex, and/or are governmental actions that impinge upon the fundamental privacy and due process rights of individuals.
2. Classifications or governmental actions of this type may be upheld only if they can be justified by a sufficiently strong governmental interest.
3. The justifications that are put forth by the state (e.g., promoting procreation, ensuring an optimal setting for child rearing, preserving state resources) are not sufficiently compelling.

The opinions mandating same-sex marriage are eloquently, even poetically, written and, at least on the surface, appear to be logical extensions of prior constitutional decisions. But constitutional interpretation is more an art than a science and can never be a merely deductive process. While constitutional provisions are often written in unconditional terms (e.g., freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, nonestablishment of religion), in practice, no constitutional freedom is absolute, and judges must decide cases based upon competing constitutional considerations, custom, precedent, and practical considerations, not on logic alone. For example, while the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, that freedom does not extend to shouting “fire” in a crowded theater or to malicious defamation of a public figure. So it is often neither reasonable nor advisable to carry a particular constitutional principle to its logical conclusion in a particular case.

Legal scholars generally agree that, in deciding constitutional cases, it is important that judges give great weight to the intent of the framers of the constitutional provisions and to judicial precedents. Otherwise, it would be difficult to know what the law is. On the other hand, many legal scholars grant the judiciary some freedom to depart from original intent and precedent in deciding constitutional cases as circumstances change, new technologies develop, and societal notions of key constitutional principles (such as free speech, cruel and unusual punishment, and privacy) evolve.

How, then, is a judge to know whether to extend a particular constitutional principle to a given situation (such as same-sex marriage) where an extension would be logically permissible but has never been done before? I leave the comprehensive consideration of this question to constitutional scholars and instead advance a modest rule of thumb: Wherever the line of judicial restraint may lie, a court has surely crossed it if (1) the framers of the Constitution that the court is interpreting would likely “roll over in their graves” if they knew the interpretation the court is giving to their language, and (2) the decision is likely to outrage a significant portion of the population. Decisions that violate this rule of thumb tend to bring the judiciary into disrepute, overly politicize the judicial selection process, and make the nation less a nation ruled by laws and majorities, and more a nation ruled by judges.[10]

It is clear that the framers of the Hawaii, Alaska, Vermont, and Massachusetts constitutions were not thinking about same-sex marriage when they drafted the constitutions of those states. Granted the societal attitudes of their times, it also seems fair to assume that, had the framers known that at a future time a court would construe their language as mandating same-sex marriage, they would have redrafted the constitutions to preclude that construction. Also, while public support of same-sex marriage is growing in the United States, it remains highly controversial, with recent nation-wide polls indicating that a majority of Americans oppose it.[11] Thus, the court decisions that mandate same-sex marriage violate my rule of thumb test and were wrongly decided.

Moreover, the court decisions mandating same-sex marriage set a dangerous precedent: If constitutional principles of privacy, equal protection, and the like are to be read broadly enough to require same-sex marriage, why should they not be extended to require state sanctioning of polygamy,[12] group marriages, brother-sister marriages (assuming one party agrees to be sterilized), or any other nontraditional family/sexual arrangement that consenting adults may propose?

Of course, my argument for judicial restraint says nothing about the merits of same-sex marriage: it says only that the legislatures or the people, and not the courts, should decide. Also, while court decisions will continue to be important in the same-sex marriage debate, the ultimate decision will be made in the court of public opinion. Any court decision will eventually be overturned, by constitutional amendment if necessary, if public opinion is sufficiently opposed.

The Scriptural Arguments

For Christians who interpret the Bible literally, the case against same-sex marriage might go something like this:

1. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

And said, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Matt. 19:4–6; quoting Gen. 2:24

Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

1 Cor. 11:11

2. Sexual relations between members of the same sex are forbidden by God.

Neither shalt thou lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Lev. 18:22

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Lev. 20:13

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

Rom. 1:26–27; see also 1 Cor. 6:9–11; 1 Tim. 1:10

3. God will not hold guiltless a nation or society that purports to sanctify, through the God-given covenant of marriage, sexual relationships that God has declared to be an abomination: “Be not deceived; God is not mocked” (Gal. 6:7). Thus, the biblical case against same-sex marriage is straightforward; and since the relevant texts come from both testaments, can be used by both Christians and Jews.[13]

Nonetheless, some have argued that the biblical texts referenced above should not be interpreted as prohibiting homosexual relations. Some have argued, for example, that Leviticus 18:22 should be taken as a ritual prohibition, like the prohibition of eating pork, binding only on the Jews.[14] Regarding this argument, Louis Crompton points out that, unlike rules relating to ritual, this law was deemed to apply to non-Jews as well as Jews: “Leviticus 18:26 specifically extends the prohibition to ‘any stranger that sojourneth among you.’ Such a law was one of the so-called Noachid precepts, binding on all the descendants of Noah—that is, on all humanity.”[15]

Others have argued that the biblical prohibitions do not apply to individuals who live together in a committed, same-sex marriage relationship. However, I can find no “same-sex marriage” exception in the Bible to the prohibition of homosexual relations. Moreover, interpreting the Bible in this way would go against two thousand years of Christian tradition.[16]

Thus, the scriptural arguments against same-sex marriage are strong and will likely resonate with Christian and Jewish Americans who hold a conservative, literalist view of the Bible, and others who do not wish to offend the conservative Christians and Jews in our midst. The scriptural arguments may also resonate to some extent with those Americans who, although not religious conservatives, are concerned about the perceived erosion of America’s traditional Judeo-Christian ethical values and would, all else being equal, prefer not to extend governmental sponsorship to practices that run contrary to those values.

However, many American Christians and Jews, while retaining much of the Judeo-Christian tradition, disregard or deemphasize those portions of the Bible (such as the prohibition of homosexual relations) that they find primitive or inconsistent with modern scientific or ethical thinking. These Christians and Jews, along with many Americans of other faiths and those who profess no faith, are unlikely to be convinced by the scriptural arguments against same-sex marriage. It is therefore incumbent upon those who oppose same-sex marriage to develop convincing secular, or sociological, arguments.

The Sociological Arguments

In my view, the main sociological arguments against same-sex marriage are that its adoption would likely (1) damage the institution of traditional marriage, and (2) increase the numbers of people who adopt a homosexual lifestyle.

Of course, not everyone would agree that these results would be bad. Some academics and activists hold that traditional marriage is a relic of an oppressive patriarchal past that should be dismantled as quickly as possible and would applaud an increase in the numbers of individuals who adopt a homosexual lifestyle as another victory in the war for sexual liberation. Individuals who hold these views are unlikely to be swayed by any of my arguments against same-sex marriage.

But I believe that people who hold these views are still in the minority in America. I suspect, for example, that most Americans are concerned about the perceived decline in traditional marriage. Also, I suspect that while most Americans are in favor of treating homosexuals with dignity and respect and protecting them from hate crimes and employment discrimination, they would prefer, all else being equal, that their children not adopt a homosexual lifestyle and that there not be a dramatic increase in the numbers of homosexuals generally. I believe that there is good sense in these common attitudes.

Although causality is difficult to prove in the social sciences, there is a strong correlation between traditional marriage and a number of societal goods. On average, married people drink and smoke less, do better at avoiding risky behaviors, live longer and healthier lives, have more satisfying sex lives, have larger incomes, and accumulate more wealth than single people or divorced people. Further, on average, children who are raised by their biological parents in intact, two-parent families are more likely to finish high school, stay out of jail, avoid becoming teenage parents, live a healthy life, have a good relationship with their parents, and become gainfully employed than children who are raised by single parents.[17]

Also, it is becoming increasingly clear that, in a majority of cases, the breakup of a traditional marriage is a bad thing, not just for any children involved, but also for the divorcing parties. Most people divorce today not because of physical or emotional abuse, alcoholism, or infidelity, but because they are lonely, bored, depressed, or dissatisfied. And although some people seem to do better after a divorce, probably a majority of divorced people would have been better off in the long run had they stayed married.[18] If, then, traditional marriage is good for society, and the breakup of traditional marriage is bad for society, damaging the institution of traditional marriage is likely to be bad for society.

Increasing the numbers of individuals who adopt a homosexual lifestyle would also likely be bad for society. For each individual who adopts a homosexual lifestyle, the pool of individuals eligible to enter into or maintain a traditional marriage is reduced by one. Even though the percentage of individuals in the United States today who have a same-gender sexual orientation is relatively low—perhaps on the order of 5 percent for males and half that for females[19]—the current impact is not negligible, particularly at a time when the birth rate has fallen below the replacement level[20] and the demographic possibilities of traditional marriage for certain groups of people (e.g., black women, and college-educated women age thirty and older) are limited.[21] Were significantly larger numbers of individuals to adopt a homosexual lifestyle, the negative consequences to society could be dramatic.

And, of course, the male homosexual lifestyle has had serious negative health consequences to society. Although AIDS can be spread through a variety of mechanisms, the most common mechanism for the spread of AIDS in the United States continues to be men having sex with men.[22] If the adoption of same-sex marriage increased the number of males who adopt a homosexual lifestyle, it could potentially increase the spread of AIDS.[23]

I will now discuss why I believe that the adoption of same-sex marriage would probably have the dual effects of damaging the institution of traditional marriage and increasing the numbers of individuals who adopt a homosexual lifestyle.

Damage to Traditional Marriage

With a single minor exception, every known society has practiced heterosexual marriage in either a monogamous or polygamous form.[24] Although marriage practices differ from society to society, marriage between a man and a woman has traditionally been considered the foundation of society, vital for the procreation and rearing of children, vital to the physical and emotional welfare of the spouses, and (at least for women) the only legitimate context for sexual expression. Moreover, for much of recorded Western history, marriage was the way the ruling classes cemented political alliances, the rich transmitted property, and the poor found their main working partners. Marriage facilitated a division of labor that was beneficial to both spouses and enabled couples to produce legitimate children who could work on the farm or in the home or workshop, take care of their parents when they got old, and inherit their parents’ property when they died.[25] Until perhaps fifty years ago, one could have argued that traditional marriage is the natural human condition and will grow and flourish by itself, irrespective of other societal influences.

We have since learned that, while traditional marriage may have been ordained of God and may bring many benefits to society, it is not inevitable; and the fact that every major society we know about has practiced traditional marriage may be more an indication that traditional marriage is vital to the survival of society than that traditional marriage is somehow “natural.”

The decline of traditional marriage in the United States is well documented. The first-time marriage rate is presently at an all-time low, and the divorce rate has increased nearly sixfold since the 1960s. The percentage of children living with married biological parents declined from 73 percent in 1972 to 52 percent in 1998. By 1980, the divorce rate stood at 50 percent. After 1981, the divorce rate leveled off and began to decline slightly, but the percentage of divorced individuals who remarried declined sharply. In the 1950s, two-thirds of divorced women remarried within five years; by 2000, only half of divorced women were married or even living with partners five years after divorce. People are now waiting longer to get married. In 1960, only 10 percent of American women between ages twenty-five and twenty-nine were unmarried; in 1998, the percentage was almost 40 percent. Between 1970 and 1999 the number of unmarried couples living together increased sevenfold. Now, more than 50 percent of marriages are preceded by a period of cohabitation. In the 1950s, more than 80 percent of households included married couples; by 2000, the number was less than 51 percent, and married couples with children constituted just 25 percent of households. In 1950, only one child in twenty was born to an unwed mother; by 2000, it was one in three.[26]

Satisfaction within marriage is also declining. In 2001, just 38 percent of married Americans considered themselves happy with their marriages, as opposed to 53 percent twenty-five years earlier.[27] Only one third of the couples in a recent study who were in their first seven years of marriage were very happily married, compared to more than half of their parents at the same stage of their lives; and 38 percent reported facing a serious marital problem, compared to 20 percent of their parents at that stage. Apparently something about modern culture makes it more difficult than in the past to achieve a successful marriage.[28]

Undoubtedly a number of factors have contributed to the decline of traditional marriage. One factor, which developed over several centuries, was the increasing tendency of individuals to choose their marriage partners themselves, with little or no consideration of the wishes of their parents or other authority figures, and to base their choices on love, rather than on money, social class, business connections, compatibility of skills, or other more practical considerations. Love and personal emotional fulfillment came to be viewed as the primary purposes of marriage, rather than as hoped-for, but nonessential, benefits. Once it became the societal norm to marry for love, it was probably inevitable that the societal norm would eventually permit divorce when either or both of the marriage partners should cease to love.[29]

Modernization and economic development have also affected traditional marriage. As the United States became more urban and less rural, as the economy became more industrialized and less dependent on the family farm or workshop, as private insurance and retirement plans and social welfare programs for the aged and infirm expanded, as public primary and secondary education became universal, and as American society became more mobile, children became more liabilities than assets, the roles of marriage and the family as insurance for old age and hard times became less important, the need for husbands and wives to work together as an economic team lessened, and the role of parents in educating their children and providing their economic start in life declined. No doubt these developments contributed to decreases in marriage and fertility rates, increases in divorce rates, and the weakening of ties between parents and children.

With the coming of the women’s movement, greater educational and employment opportunities opened up for women, and wives became less dependent on their husbands and more able to leave abusive marriages or husbands they no longer loved. The expansion of the welfare state had similar consequences for women. Conversely, the societal opprobrium that attached to a man’s abandonment of his wife and children decreased, since they were now better able to shift for themselves or became eligible for government assistance.

The sexual revolution of the 1960s undoubtedly had a negative impact on traditional marriage. No longer was it necessary to marry to have sex, and no longer did infidelity result in social ostracism. So people married later, strayed more after marriage, and/or divorced.

Changes in the law also weakened traditional marriage, including the adoption of laws giving illegitimate children all of the rights of legitimate children and the enactment of no-fault divorce laws in most states, beginning with California in 1969.[30] Since illegitimate children had the same rights as legitimate children, fewer unmarried prospective parents bothered to get married; and since divorce was easy and unfaithful spouses were not penalized in divorce property settlements, more spouses strayed and/or sought divorces.

The increase in the divorce rate itself has probably had a vicious-circle effect, in that it has made married couples less willing to make the sacrifices, compromises, and emotional commitments that are essential for a long-term, happy marriage because they know that there is a 50 percent chance the marriage will break up. Consequently, they are less satisfied with their marriages and more likely to divorce.[31] Also, as more people have divorced or remained single and as more children have been born out of wedlock, the societal pressures to marry and avoid divorce and to avoid bearing children out of wedlock have lessened, exacerbating the vicious-circle effect.

Although marriage in the United States is a civil institution controlled and administered by the government, for many Americans it is also a religious covenant. Also, for most of our history, American laws relating to marriage and divorce supported biblical principles, in that marriage was favored and divorce was difficult. Even today, the religious nature of marriage is recognized in the United States, in that marriages performed by religious authorities are recognized by the state. However, with the adoption of no-fault divorce laws, the nexus between the civil and religious concepts of marriage was weakened, and marriage became less an unbreakable covenant with conditions ordained by God and more a civil contract with negotiable conditions that can be terminated at will. No doubt the movement from God-ordained to human-made, and from covenant to contract, weakened the institution of traditional marriage.

Although I have a hard time finding anything good to say about the sexual revolution, I don’t wish to condemn romantic love, modernization, economic development, the women’s movement, or equal treatment under the law for illegitimate children. And while it now appears that the legislators who approved no-fault divorce laws may have acted hastily, they probably acted from the best of intentions: They didn’t want to undermine traditional marriage; they only wanted to avoid clogging the courts with fault-based divorce cases and to improve the lot of those who really needed a divorce. But their actions (along with other factors) had the unintended consequence of damaging the institution of traditional marriage.

They didn’t know then what we know now: that of every hundred potential traditional marriages, some (say, twenty) are “made in heaven”; and no matter what society says, the spouses will marry and never part. Others (say, ten) are “made in hell,” and the spouses, and society, will be best served if these marriages never happen, or are ended as quickly and as easily as possible and with as little social stigma as possible (at least for any innocent spouse). As for the rest (say, seventy), it will benefit society if the marriages are entered into and survive, but whether that happens will depend on the strength of the societal props that support traditional marriage.

In sum, traditional marriage is in trouble because over the past several hundred years, and especially during the last fifty years, we, as a society, have been kicking out the props that support the institution. Most of these actions have been unintentional, of course, but the effects have been devastating.

So how would the adoption of same-sex marriage affect the already seriously weakened institution of traditional marriage? Some supporters of same-sex marriage argue that extending the benefits of marriage to the homosexual community would not only benefit those homosexuals who choose to marry but would also strengthen the institution of marriage by making it available to all members of society.[32] However, the disastrous effects of past tinkering with the institution of marriage should teach us to be cautious. At a minimum, the adoption of same-sex marriage would further two trends that have contributed to the weakening of traditional marriage in the past: First, it would further disassociate marriage from one of its traditional vital roles, in this case, procreation and child-rearing, thereby making the institution less important and more dispensable. And second, since same-sex marriage is anathema to biblical tradition and to America’s conservative churches, it would move marriage further from the irrevocable, God-ordained covenant model and closer to the human-made, revocable-at-will, contract model.

How dramatic an effect would the adoption of same-sex marriage have on the institution of traditional marriage? Nobody knows. Probably those heterosexuals who argue today that approving same-sex marriage would not threaten their individual marriages are right. Perhaps the effect would be felt only by their children and grandchildren, and perhaps future investigators studying the final demise of traditional marriage would have difficulty disentangling this particular effect from the effects of the many other challenges that confront traditional marriage today. But there would undoubtedly be an effect, and it seems naive to expect that the effect would be small or salutary.[33]

Promoting a Homosexual Lifestyle

The received wisdom today is that, with few exceptions, people are born either heterosexual or homosexual, and nothing society or an individual can do can change his or her basic orientation.[34] This view is based on what is sometimes called an “essentialist” approach to sex, which Jeffrey Weeks describes as:

a method which attempts to explain the properties of a complex whole by reference to a supposed inner truth or essence, the assumption “that in all sexological matters there must be a single, basic, uniform pattern ordained by nature itself.” . . . That is, in the language of modern critical science, a reductionist method in that it reduces the complexity of the world to the imagined simplicities of its contingent units; and it is deterministic in that it seeks to explain individuals as automatic products of inner compulsions, whether of genes, the instinct, the hormones, or the mysterious workings of the dynamic unconscious.[35]

The essentialist approach has often been favored by geneticists, psychologists, and medical doctors, probably because it lends itself to the types of investigations these professions are skilled at conducting. There is also a nonessentialist approach, which, in Weeks’s words, holds: “The meanings we give to ‘sexuality’ are socially organized, sustained by a variety of languages, which seek to tell us what sex is, what it ought to be—and what it could be. Existing languages of sex, embedded in moral treatises, laws, educational practices, psychological theories, medical definitions, social rituals, pornographic or romantic fictions, popular music, as well as in commonsense assumptions (most of which disagree) set the horizon of the possible.”[36]

In other words, nonessentialists believe that, while what we might broadly call “nature” may have a role in defining the sexuality (including sexual orientation) of an individual, other influences, which we might broadly call “culture,” also have an important role, particularly in determining the options available to the individual. The nonessentialist approach is often favored by anthropologists, sociologists, and historians, again probably because it lends itself to the types of investigations these professions are skilled at conducting.

Michel Foucault, a French philosopher and probably the most influential sex theorist of the 1970s and 1980s, was a strong exponent of the nonessentialist view. According to Foucault:

Sexuality must not be described as a stubborn drive, by nature alien and of necessity disobedient to a power which exhausts itself trying to subdue it and often fails to control it entirely. It appears rather as an especially dense transfer point for relations of power: between men and women, young people and old people, parents and offspring, teachers and students, priests and laity, an administration and a population. Sexuality is not the most intractable element in power relations, but rather one of those endowed with the greatest instrumentality: useful for the greatest number of maneuvers and capable of serving as a point of support, as a linchpin, for the most varied strategies.[37]

Foucault then discusses four “strategies” that he considers to have dominated the discussion of sexuality beginning in the eighteenth century, including a “hysterization of women’s bodies,” a “pedagogization of children’s sex,” a “socialization of procreative behavior,” and a “psychiatrization of perverse pleasure”:[38]

What was at issue in these strategies? A struggle against sexuality? Or were they part of an effort to gain control of it? An attempt to regulate it more effectively and mask its more indiscreet, conspicuous, and intractable aspects? A way of formulating only that measure of knowledge about it that was acceptable or useful? In actual fact, what was involved, rather, was the very production of sexuality. Sexuality must not be thought of as a kind of natural given which power tries to hold in check, or as an obscure domain which knowledge tries gradually to uncover. It is the name that can be given to a historical construct.[39]

Foucault is a bit heavy going for someone who is neither French nor a philosopher, and I am not certain that I understand completely what he means when he says that sexuality is a historical construct. Presumably he would concede that humans have been engaging in sexual acts from the beginning of the race but would argue that the types of acts they engage in, the frequency of those acts, and the psychological, moral, and societal meanings that are given to those acts are cultural and societal products. He also takes the position that “homosexual” is a societal construct and that, in an important sense, there were no “homosexuals” until homosexuality was scientifically characterized in the late nineteenth century.[40]

The essentialist/nonessentialist argument is important for the discussion of same-sex marriage because, if the essentialists are right, there is little danger that the adoption of same-sex marriage will have a material impact on the numbers of individuals who adopt a homosexual lifestyle, except that it might have the salutary effect of encouraging some homosexuals to emerge from the closet to enjoy the fuller lives that nature intended for them. But if the nonessentialists are right, the adoption of same-sex marriage would signal that the homosexual lifestyle has truly become mainstream and acceptable—even admirable—and would therefore likely lead more individuals to adopt the lifestyle.[41]

Evidence for Essentialism/Nonessentialism

Subjective Evidence. The subjective evidence for the essentialist approach to homosexuality is that it seems right to many homosexuals (particularly male homosexuals) because it conforms with their life experiences. According to Eric Marcus, a popular writer on homosexual issues:

No one becomes a homosexual any more than a man or woman becomes a heterosexual. Feelings of attraction for one gender or the other are something we become aware of as we grow up....

Gay and lesbian people don’t choose their feelings of sexual attraction, just as heterosexual people don’t choose theirs. All of us become aware of our feelings of attraction as we grow, whether those feelings are for someone of the same gender, the opposite gender, or both genders. For gay and lesbian people, the only real choice is between suppressing those feelings of same-gender attraction—and pretending to be asexual or heterosexual—and living the full emotional and physical life of a gay man or woman.[42]

According to geneticist Dean Hamer:

Men on average stay pretty much the same, whether gay or straight, during their entire lives. Although men usually don’t acknowledge to others, or even to themselves, that they have a homosexual orientation until late adolescence or early adulthood, once that has occurred they are unlikely to change. Moreover, both gay and straight men can usually trace back their attractions to early childhood, even as early as four or five years of age. Early crushes or puppy love for gay boys are often with other boys or men.[43]

In other words, particularly to a man, being homosexual often seems like being blue-eyed, bald, or middle-aged—it’s not something he does or can change; it’s something he is. Thus, what I will call the subjective, or anecdotal, evidence for the essentialist approach to sexual orientation is strong, particularly for men.

Scientific Evidence. However, the objective, or scientific, evidence for the essentialist approach to homosexuality is surprisingly weak. Despite more than a hundred years of effort, scientists and theorists have been unable to devise a satisfactory scientific or medical theory that explains homosexuality as wholly a result of genes, germs, accidents, or other factors that are independent of culture. Indeed, the scientific theory of homosexuality that is currently most popular allows a major role for culture and environment.

The first major theorist who proposed a scientific explanation for homosexuality was Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, who authored a series of writings in the 1860s and 1870s positing the existence of a third sex whose nature is inborn. This third sex had the body of a man, but the feelings of a woman. This female essence manifested itself early in childhood through partiality for girlish activities such as playing with dolls. When confronted with men who loved both men and women, he expanded his theory to accommodate them, eventually coming up with sixteen different in-born sexual natures.[44]

Later in the nineteenth century, a number of medical investigators, both in the United States and in Europe, theorized that homosexuals had hermaphroditic characteristics and reported physical differences (particularly in the sizes and shapes of sex organs) between homosexuals and heterosexuals.[45]

In the early twentieth century, Magnus Hirshield, a German physician, elaborated on the theory of sexual intermediacy, claiming that intermediacy was possible along four different lines: (1) the sex organs (i.e., hermaphroditism), (2) other body qualities (i.e., androgeny), (3) the sexual drive (i.e., homosexuality or bisexuality), and (4) other psychological qualities (i.e., transvestism). In Hirshield’s view, there is no such thing as a pure heterosexual: All people are only more or less strongly developed intermediates.[46]

During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the German psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing compiled hundreds of case histories of what were termed sexual perversions, including fetishism, sadism, masochism, and homosexuality. In general, he believed that these various perversions should be treated as diseases rather than as sins or crimes and hypothesized that they were generally caused by degeneration and heredity.[47] Similarly, Havelock Ellis, a sexologist who flourished during the early twentieth century, viewed modern marriage (as practiced by middle-class Anglo Saxons) as the evolutionary pinnacle of sexual development and sexual perversions such as homosexuality, fetishism, sadism, and masochism, as evolutionary throw-backs.[48]

Beginning in the late 1930s, Clifford A. Wright, an American physician, published a series of articles in which he attributed homosexuality to hormonal imbalances.[49]

For perhaps the thirty years between Freud’s death in 1939 and the Stonewall riots in 1969, psychoanalysis provided the most popular explanations for homosexuality. In general, homosexuality was thought to be “psychogenic,” or caused by unfortunate experiences earlier in life, such as a detached and hostile father or a seductive, overwhelming mother.[50] All of these theories—the “third sex” theory, the “sexual intermediacy” theory, the “throw-back” or “atavistic” theory, the “hormonal imbalance” theory, and the “psychogenesis” theory—have now generally fallen out of favor. It appears that homosexuals are not consistently different from heterosexuals in physical appearance, masculinity or femininity, hormones, or life experiences.[51] These theories have largely been supplanted by the theory of a genetic link to sexual orientation. This theory, like all theories that link human behavior to genes, is highly controversial.[52] (You may recall the controversy that surrounded the publication of The Bell Curve.[53]) Also, the theory is unattractive to many feminist theorists, who for a generation have argued that essentially all gender-linked behavioral differences are cultural, and not genetic, in origin.[54] However, for the purposes of this article, I will assume that the theory, as advanced by its most prominent current champion, Dean Hamer, is correct in its essentials.

The theory received a significant boost in 1993 with the discovery of the so-called “gay gene” on the X chromosome by Hamer and his research team at the National Institutes of Health. (Men have one X chromosome and one Y chromosome, and women have two X chromosomes. Accordingly, a man always inherits his X chromosome from his mother.) Hamer describes his findings as follows: “Looking at 40 pairs of gay brothers with 22 different markers, we found linkage in a region called Xq28, located at the very tip of the long arm of the X chromosome. In that region, 33 out of the 40 pairs were concordant, or the same, for a series of five closely spaced markers. That showed 83 percent sharing, which was significantly higher than the 50 percent level that would have been expected if there were no connection to sexual orientation.”[55]

Hamer’s group repeated its experiment with thirty-two different pairs of gay brothers; and this time, twenty-two of the thirty-two pairs, or 67 percent, shared markers. In the second study, the group also included the heterosexual brothers of gay men and estimated that the degree of DNA sharing of the straight brothers with their gay brothers was 22 percent, significantly less than the 50 percent that would be predicted by chance.[56] Based on these studies, Hamer concluded that “the evidence is compelling that there is some gene or genes at Xq28 related to male sexual orientation."[57]

Although Hamer’s specific conclusion (i.e., that there is a gene or genes in the Xq28 region of the X chromosome that relates to male sexual orientation) was not immediately corroborated by other laboratories, many other studies suggest that there is a genetic link of one kind or another for male sexual orientation. Hamer summarizes the research as follows:

The research showed that male sexual orientation had many of the characteristics of a genetically influenced trait: It was consistent, stable, and dichotomous, meaning men were either gay or straight. By contrast, female sexual orientation looked more soft and fuzzy, less hard-wired: [I]t was variable, changeable, and continuous, meaning lots of women were somewhere between gay and straight. Just because a trait looks genetic, however, doesn’t mean it is. We needed to look at twins, families, and DNA.

During the past 40 years, more than a dozen twin studies of male sexual orientation have been described, and the pattern is the same. The genetically identical twin of a gay man has a greatly increased chance—though not a 100 percent chance—of also being gay, which is higher than the rate for fraternal twins, which is still higher than the rate for unrelated people. This is just the pattern for a trait that is influenced—but not strictly determined by—genes. Averaging all the studies to date, the hereditability of male sexual orientation is 50 percent. That means that being gay is about 50 percent genetic and 50 percent from other influences, a ratio found in many other behavioral traits.

So what about the missing 50 percent? Why can one man be gay even if his identical twin is not? The answer is not yet clear; but it could be biological, such as different hormonal exposure in the womb or because of unique life experiences. One thing that is not terribly important is how the boys are raised, specifically the shared environment provided by parents.[58]

Interestingly, according to Hamer, the evidence suggests that there is not a genetic linkage for female sexual orientation:

For women, the degree of genetic influence is more mysterious, partly because there have been fewer studies but also because sexual orientation is more fluid. The best recent study suggests that female sexual identification is more a matter of environment than of heredity.   The rate of lesbianism was higher in the twins of lesbians than in the twins of heterosexual women, but there was no difference between identical twins and fraternal twins, meaning genes were not a factor. The results showed that for women the main influence on sexual orientation was the shared environment—being raised in the same household by the same parents—while genes seemed hardly to count at all.[59]

Although the evidence for a genetic link for male homosexuality seems strong, there is a serious theoretical difficulty: How can a gene that leads men to have sex with other men, and not with women, avoid being bred out of the human race? It is true, of course, that some male homosexuals have children and at least some heterosexual men may carry the presumptive “gay gene.” However, even if the gene caused only a slight decrease in average reproductivity, it would eventually die out unless something else acted to keep it in the gene pool. Hamer addresses this difficulty as follows:

This paradox has led to many theories of how a “gay gene” might actually be adaptive. One theory, although not a good one, is that it might be useful to the species because it prevents overpopulation. This is a poor theory because genes act at the level of individuals not groups. Others have suggested the gene might be passed along indirectly because homosexuals help their heterosexual relatives to raise children.

The simplest explanation comes directly from one of the most interesting results of the research itself: the gene only works in men, not women. We wondered whether the gene might have a different role in women, so we compared the mothers and sisters of our research subjects who were either linked or unlinked for Xq28. There was no difference in the number of children or in how often they had sex, but the women with the gay version of Xq28 did have one intriguing difference: [T]hey had begun puberty on average of six months earlier than the other mothers. Although the result is highly preliminary, it will be interesting to see if the gene somehow lengthens the reproductive span in women, allowing them time to have more children.[60]

Hamer is grasping at straws—needlessly, I think, because a better explanation is suggested by his own work. In Living with Our Genes, he considers the influence of genes on eight different human behavioral characteristics: novelty seeking (e.g., risk taking, experience seeking, disinhibition, and impulsiveness), harm avoidance (e.g., anxiety, fear, inhibition, shyness, depression, tiredness, and hostility), anger, addiction, intelligence, obesity, longevity, and sexual behavior (including sexual orientation). In each case, he contends that genes are more or less predictive of human behavior. For example, he (or studies he cites) estimates that novelty-seeking is 58 percent inherited, shyness is 50–60 percent inherited, the tendency towards anti-social behavior among adult males is 43 percent inherited, smoking is 53 percent hereditable, IQ is at least 48 percent hereditable, and body weight is 70 percent inherited.

He notes, however, that in each case, environmental factors also have a role. For example, although body weight is 70 percent hereditable, Americans are becoming increasingly more obese. While our genes on average are the same as our grandparents’ genes, we are fatter because our food supply is richer in calories and more abundant and our lifestyles are more sedentary. In other words, while our grandparents carried the same “fat genes” we have, those genes did not manifest themselves in obesity until the environmental and cultural factors were right for such manifestation. Likewise, although smoking is 53 percent hereditable, there were no smokers in Europe before tobacco was brought there from the New World, and smoking rates in America have declined in recent years, due, presumably, to anti-smoking laws, high taxes on tobacco, health warnings on tobacco products, and other societal influences.

Similarly, it seems likely that the “gay gene” has been able to survive over the generations because in the past, cultural and environmental factors did not permit it to manifest itself in ways that affect reproduction. Perhaps it manifested itself in bisexual behavior or in a greater ability to form nonsexual friendships with other men. Perhaps it manifested itself in a greater tendency to join minority religious, social, or political movements. Or perhaps it did not manifest itself at all.

In sum, the scientific evidence suggests that the essentialist view of sexual orientation is wrong because sexual orientation, unlike race, disability, or age, is not wholly determined by genes, germs, the passage of time, or other uncontrollable factors. Rather, male sexual orientation, like obesity, smoking, intelligence, longevity, and many other behavior-related human characteristics, is determined by a combination of genetic and cultural factors, plus, unless you are a strict determinist (you have to go to college a long time to be a strict determinist), some element of human choice. Presumably female sexual orientation is determined by the same types of factors, although it would appear that genetic factors have a lesser role.

The Historical Evidence. It is clear from the historical record that sexual attitudes, preferences, and practices among heterosexuals have varied widely over time and from place to place. Virtually every imaginable variety of personal appearance or style of clothing has been considered “sexy” at one time and place or another. Tattoos, body piercings, decorative scarring, skull flattening, foot binding, thin, fat, curvy, flat, long hair, short hair, nudity, clothing, long skirts, short skirts, wide ties, narrow ties, bell-bottoms, peg-legs, high waists, hip-huggers, and, yes, even polyester leisure suits with top stitching have all had their day and will probably have their day again. Also, types of sexual practices that heterosexuals engage in vary widely over time and among social and economic classes.[61]

In particular, sexual attitudes and behavior among heterosexuals have undergone a revolution in the United States over the last century. To take a simple example: in 1900, the percentage of nineteen-year-old unmarried white women with sexual experience was around 6 percent. By 1991, the percentage had risen to around 74 percent.[62] Hence, although premarital sex has always been with us, it seems fair to conclude that the likelihood that any particular woman will engage in premarital sex is determined more by cultural influences than by genetics or any other form of predisposition.

Since the recognition of gay and lesbian studies as a legitimate scholarly pursuit, a mountain of studies has been produced considering the history of homosexuality.[63] These studies suggest that sexual attitudes, preferences, and practices among homosexuals have, if anything, varied even more widely over time and place than have sexual attitudes, preferences, and practices among heterosexuals. In Homosexuality and Civilization, from which I have drawn most of the historical information regarding homosexuality in this part of the article, Louis Crompton summarizes most of what historians have discovered (or speculated) about human homosexuality through 1810. Although Crompton rejects Foucault’s view that the homosexual did not exist “as a person” before the term was coined in 1864 and asserts that modern gays and lesbians may claim brotherhood and sisterhood with the homosexuals of the past,[64] his book shows that, for the most part, the homosexuality of earlier times was very different from the homosexuality of today.[65]

In the first place, it appears that there were very few lesbians in earlier times:

Anyone who attempts to tell the story of homosexuality faces a frustrating reality, however. Apart from Sappho and some brief references in Lucian and Martial, lesbians hardly appear in the literature of the classical world. Though they become objects of theological opprobrium in the Middle Ages, only in the seventeenth century are full-length portraits possible, as in the case of Queen Christina, and not until the end of the eighteenth century do social groups come into view. Indeed, only in the last three decades have lesbians occupied the stage in numbers approximating their male counterparts.[66]

Second, male homosexuality was apparently rare in many ancient societies; and in the societies in which it was common, most of the male homosexuals we read about (particularly during ancient times or in non-European cultures) would, using modern terminology, be classified as bisexuals, pedophiles, and/or transvestites, or partners of the same—not groups that most modern gays would identify with.

Crompton comments:

The ancient Greeks had no word that corresponded to our word “homosexual.” Paiderastia, the closest they came to it, meant literally “boy love,” that is, a relation between an older male and someone younger, usually a youth between the ages of fourteen and twenty. The older man was called the erastes or lover. Ideally, it was his duty to be the boy’s teacher and protector and serve as a model of courage, virtue, and wisdom to his beloved, or eromenos, whose attraction lay in his beauty, his youth, and his promise of future moral, intellectual, and physical excellence.[67]

Among the Spartans, pedophilia was apparently almost universal. A boy was taken from his family at age seven and lived in a military barracks until he was thirty. During this time, he was expected to accept an older male lover and mentor; and when he got older, to choose a boy himself to love and mentor.[68] Pedophilia was also widespread in Athens. According to John Boswell, a late professor of history at Yale: “The vast amount of homoerotic cultural paraphernalia at Athens—sculpture, painting, vase inscriptions, graffiti, terminology, law, literature, etc.—makes it seem that a majority (if not almost the whole) of the adult male population was involved in homosexual relationships and feelings.”[69]

Man-boy love among the Greeks was associated with military valor, and one of the most famous military units in Greek history, the sacred band of Thebes, was made up of experienced soldiers and their younger lovers. While sex between adult males was not unknown, it was considered a shame for an adult man to take the “passive” role in sexual relations with another man, and effeminacy was despised. Moreover, although exclusive homosexuality among the Greeks was not unknown, probably most Greeks who loved boys also married women and had children.[70]

Since man-boy love is not clearly evident in Homer, scholars have wondered how it was introduced to the Greeks. One popular hypothesis is that pederasty was part of the culture of the Dorian tribes who conquered much of the Peloponnesus and a number of Greek islands in the twelfth and eleventh centuries B.C. The Dorians drove many of the original inhabitants, the Ionians, eastward to Asia Minor, but left intact certain Ionian settlements. This hypothesis is bolstered by the fact that man-boy love played a more central role in the cultures of Dorian communities such as Sparta and Crete than it did in some other Greek communities.[71]

The only kinds of homosexual relationships the Romans accepted without reservation were relationships between masters and slaves, with the masters taking the “dominant” role. It was considered a great dishonor for a free man to take the “passive” role. The Romans, like the Greeks, generally showed a preference for boys, and most Romans who had sex with boys probably also had sex with women.[72]

The ancient Jews were hostile to homosexuality, and there are few references to its practice in the Old Testament. However, the Old Testament refers some half-dozen times to kadesh (plural kedeshim), which literally means “consecrated one” or “holy one,” but which is translated in the King James Version as “sodomite.”[73] Crompton speculates that the kedeshim were transvestite priest/prostitutes similar to those who served in the temples of various Mediterranean and Middle Eastern cults during classical times. If Crompton is right, that would have associated male homosexuality with pagan religious practices, which (according to Crompton) would help to explain the draconian penalty for male homosexual acts set forth in Leviticus 20:13.[74]

Classical Chinese emperors and noblemen often took male (mostly young) lovers, but the idea of a homosexual identity was rare in China, where marriage was considered a sacred duty. In ancient China, male love affairs were generally considered to be elegant diversions, rather than the ennobling experiences associated with Greek pederasty.[75]

A culture of boy love developed in pre-twentieth-century Japan that mirrors Greek pedophilia in some respects. Boy love was apparently common among monks (who were forbidden sexual relations with women) and also among the samurai. In some cases, an adult samurai would take a young male lover and assume responsibility for his education and training. Boy prostitution was apparently widespread, particularly in connection with certain types of theater; and some men became so attached to boy prostitutes that they shunned sexual contact with women.[76]

Among some Native American tribes, it was common for some men to dress as females, take on female roles, and, in some cases, “marry” other men, who took the male role. The men who took the female role are called berdaches. However, many Native American tribes were hostile to homosexuality and did not have a berdache tradition.[77]

In pre-Islamic times, homosexuality was apparently little in evidence among the Bedouins of Arabia. However, once the Arabs settled down in Spain, a substantial literature of man-boy love developed. Authors wrote romantic poetry openly expressing their love for boys, while at the same time (since the Qur’an prohibits sexual relations between persons of the same gender) loudly protesting their chastity.[78]

David Halperin, a gay activist, classics scholar, and professor of English at the University of Michigan, describes four distinct “discursive traditions” in the history of premodern male sexual classification: (1) effeminacy (which involved gender deviance but not necessarily same-sex contact; many effeminates preferred sexual relations with women); (2) pedophilia, or active sodomy (which was sometimes a sexual preference but was not considered a sexual orientation and was often considered normal and manly); (3) inversion, or a desire for passive sexual contact with other men (which, in an adult, was generally considered shameful); and (4) male friendship and love (which, though often expressed in very romantic terms, did not ordinarily involve sexual contact). None of these traditions corresponds very closely with the modern “discursive tradition” of homosexuality (which is considered to be a sexual orientation, can involve both active and passive sexual contact, and does not necessarily involve effeminacy).[79]

Once Christianity came to power in the fourth century A.D., Christian rulers began enacting laws to suppress homosexuality, and detailed descriptions of the attitudes and practices of homosexuals in Western societies became less common. In 342, the Roman co-emperors Constantius and Constans adopted a law that punished passive male homosexuals. In the sixth century, the Byzantine emperor Justinian adopted legislation that punished both active and passive male homosexuals and carried out the first verified executions of homosexuals in the Christian Greek world.[80]

In medieval Europe, draconian laws were enacted in many countries punishing male homosexuality, bestiality, and, later, lesbianism. Eventually some executions were carried out under these laws. Since torture was routinely used to elicit confessions and since the properties of convicted “sodomites” were often forfeited to the state, no doubt innocent victims were executed. For example, in the fourteenth century, Philip IV of France used the sodomy laws to bring down the Knights Templar and to appropriate their vast holdings.[81]

Many executions for sodomy were carried out in Italy during the Renaissance. However, man-boy love was rediscovered in Florence, where enforcement of anti-sodomy laws was sporadic. Many of the most important Italian Renaissance artists, including Donatello, Botticelli, Leonardo, Michelangelo, Cellini, and Caravaggio, are rumored to have loved boys.[82]

During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, several hundred men, many of them priests, were executed in Spain for sodomy. Many of the victims were tried by the Spanish Inquisition. The Spanish carried their attitudes about homosexuality with them to the New World, where they exterminated many Native Americans who were suspected of sodomy.[83]

Crompton estimates that about 150 people were executed for sodomy in France during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. However, during that period, a significant bisexual/homosexual subculture developed in France among the noble classes.[84]

In the meantime, homosexuality was much less evident in England than in France. A law against “buggery” was passed by Henry VIII in 1533, but very few charges were brought under the law until the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. England did, however, have at least two apparently bisexual kings during the seventeenth century (James I and William II), one great poet-dramatist who was rumored to be homosexual (Christopher Marlowe), and another great poet-dramatist who wrote love poetry addressed to both sexes (Shakespeare).[85]

By the beginning of the eighteenth century, a significant homosexual subculture had developed in Paris, which was not limited to the aristocratic classes. Although many arrests were made for sodomy, there were few executions; and, in 1791, sodomy was decriminalized in France.[86] In Prussia, Frederick the Great, himself probably a homosexual, encouraged the moderation of laws against sodomy.[87] In England, however, the discovery of a significant homosexual subculture in London led to a number of executions.[88] The Dutch also executed at least seventy-five convicted sodomites during the eighteenth century. However, sodomy was decriminalized in the Netherlands when it was annexed by France in 1810.[89]

As previously discussed, the modern essentialist concept of homosexuality was developed during the second half of the nineteenth century through the work of Richard von Krafft-Ebing and others. Homosexuals, it was decided, were not simply people who, for whatever reason, engaged in sexual acts with others of the same gender; they were different, in essence, from heterosexuals.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, many homosexuals in the United States were presumably “in the closet.” With the sexual revolution and the gay rights movement, homosexuals became more open in their behavior, established gay neighborhoods, and invented a gay culture. Initially, that culture involved considerable flamboyant gender inversion; later, gender inversion was deemphasized, and many homosexuals today consider themselves identical to heterosexuals in every way except for sexual orientation. During the 1970s and early 1980s, the culture included, for many male homosexuals, a promiscuous lifestyle. After the coming of the AIDS epidemic, safer sex practices were adopted by many, promiscuity probably declined, and homosexuals began talking about same-sex marriage.

My mother, who was born in 1928, first heard the word “homosexual” when she was about twenty and feels certain that nobody she knew in high school ever adopted a homosexual lifestyle. I never knew any homosexuals in high school but later found out that at least three of the people I knew in high school had subsequently adopted a homosexual lifestyle. My younger children, who are now in high school, can name several classmates who openly identify themselves as homosexual. According to a number of studies reviewed by Ritch Savin-Williams, chair of Cornell University’s Human Development Department, in the 1960s gay men first remembered desiring other males at an average age of fourteen; it was seventeen for lesbians. But by the 1990s, the average had dropped to ten for gays and twelve for lesbians.[90]

The vast diversity of homosexual expression in the historical record poses certain conceptual difficulties for the essentialists. The first is a definitional problem: What counts as homosexuality, and what doesn’t? Then once that question is answered, why does homosexuality seem to appear in some cultures and time periods, and not in others, or more frequently in some cultures and time periods than in others?

Some essentialists deal with the definitional difficulty by claiming that everybody (particularly everybody famous) who ever had (or wanted) a sexual relationship with another individual of the same gender was homosexual. Others, more sensitive to the modern legal and cultural distaste for pedophilia, claim that the Greek and Roman pedophiles were not “true homosexuals”; the “true homosexuals,” presumably, were largely omitted from the historical record. At least one essentialist (Boswell) claims that the ancient records have been misunderstood—that when the text says “boy,” it really means “beautiful man.”[91]

As to the frequency difficulty, an essentialist could argue that the historical record is incomplete—that true homosexuals have existed in all societies at all times but that, due to prejudice and persecution, their identities have been repressed and/or their stories unrecorded. Or one could argue that the gene (or other natural cause for homosexuality) is more prevalent in some societies than in others. I can only respond that these arguments are based on faith or politics, not on evidence.

The nonessentialist position, on the other hand, provides a simple explanation for the vast diversity of sexual expression, both heterosexual and homosexual, that we find in the historical record: Although a desire for sexual expression may develop naturally in most people (particularly males), what we find sexually attractive and how we channel our desires for sexual expression are largely determined by culture; and the categories of heterosexuality and homosexuality themselves are cultural constructs.[92]

In sum, both the scientific and the historical evidence for the nonessentialist view of sex in general, and sexual orientation in particular, are convincing. While there have probably always been some males who have had sex with other males, the percentages of the male population who engaged in such activities, the ages at which they engaged in such activities, the cultural and psychological meanings they attached to such activities, and also, possibly, the types of males who were attracted to such activities, have varied widely over time and from culture to culture. Lesbianism, on the other hand, appears to be mostly a cultural product of the last century.

The Subjective Evidence Reconsidered

How, then, do we account for the subjective evidence for the essentialist view—for the fact that most homosexuals, both male and female, feel that their sexual orientation is more part of their essence than, say, their weight, their tendency to take risks, or their tendency to smoke? I by no means question their sincerity, nor do I wish to suggest that a homosexual orientation is always (or often) consciously chosen, or, once it is established, that it can easily be changed.[93] Also, I don’t intend to question the validity of all self-knowledge that is derived from experience or reflection. We all, at one time or another, accept a certain view of truth, ourselves, and our relationships with God and each other on the basis of experience and reflection.

I must point out, however, that even our deepest insights are influenced by culture and the environment. Even our memories are subject to manipulation—sometimes with tragic results, as in the case of individuals who, by the power of suggestion, have “recovered” vivid memories of being abducted by aliens or molested for years in Satanic rituals.[94] Very few among us are true prophets or revolutionaries; in fashioning our political and religious views and in deciding who we are, we generally end up following one or more of the patterns available to us in the culture of our times. Thus, every time a new medical or psychological condition is named, a certain number of individuals suddenly “discover” that they have the condition.

Carl Elliott, in an Atlantic Monthly cover story,[95] discussed two relatively new psychological conditions, “apotemnophilia,” or an attraction to the idea of being an amputee, and “acrotomophilia,” or a sexual attraction to amputees. According to Elliott, these conditions have spread in recent years, fueled by the internet. Individuals who have apotemnophilia often claim that they have always wanted to be amputees, that inside, they are amputees, and that they need to have one or more limbs amputated to achieve emotional or sexual fulfillment. Elliott compares these phenomena with fugue state (a psychological condition involving a loss of identity and a need to travel that was much written about in the early 1900s but which is now less discussed) and multiple personality disorder (a condition that was popular during the 1970s but which has since fallen out of favor). Regarding the spread of psychological phenomena, Elliott postulates:

I am simplifying a very complex and subtle argument, but the basic idea should be clear. By regarding a phenomenon as a psychiatric diagnosis—treating it, reifying it in psychiatric diagnostic manuals, developing instruments to measure it, inventing scales to rate its severity, establishing ways to reimburse the costs of its treatment, encouraging pharmaceutical companies to search for effective drugs, directing patients to support groups, writing about possible causes in journals—psychiatrists may be unwittingly colluding with broader cultural forces to contribute to the spread of a mental disorder.

Suppose doctors started amputating the limbs of apotemnophiles. Would that contribute to the spread of the desire? Could we be faced with an epidemic of people wanting their limbs cut off? Most people would say, Clearly not. Most people do not want their limbs cut off. It is a horrible thought. The fact that others are getting their limbs cut off is no more likely to make these people want to lose their own than state executions are to make people want to be executed. And if by some strange chance more people did ask to have their limbs amputated, that would be simply because more people with the desire were encouraged to “come out” rather than suffer in silence.

I’m not so sure. Clinicians and patients alike often suggest that apotemnophilia is like gender-identity disorder, and that amputation is like sex-reassignment surgery. Let us suppose they are right. Fifty years ago the suggestion that tens of thousands of people would someday want their genitals surgically altered so that they could change their sex would have been ludicrous. But it has happened. The question is why. One answer would have it that this is an ancient condition, that there have always been people who fall outside the traditional sex classifications, but that only during the past forty years or so have we developed the surgical and endocrinological tools to fix the problem.

But it is possible to imagine another story: that our cultural and historical conditions have not just revealed transsexuals but created them. That is, once “transsexual” and “gender-identity disorder” and “sex-reassignment surgery” became common linguistic currency, more people began conceptualizing and interpreting their experience in these terms. They began to make sense of their lives in a way that hadn’t been available to them before, and to some degree they actually became the kinds of people described by these terms.[96]

Although Elliott does not do so (he is, after all, writing for the Atlantic Monthly), it would seem logical to extend his postulate to homosexuality, as well as to transsexuality. People at all times and in all cultures develop feelings of attraction for other people, some of whom may be of the same gender. Whether those feelings are interpreted as sexual and how people act on those feelings may depend largely on the cultural environment in which they live.

But I digress. My point is that the scientific and historical evidence for the nonessentialist view of sexual orientation is strong, and the subjective evidence for the essentialist view is not conclusive. And the fact that it may be difficult to change homosexual orientation once it has been established is not dispositive either; many patterns of human thought and behavior are difficult to change once they have been established. (I can personally attest to the difficulty of changing my patterns of eating and exercise sufficiently to bring my level of body fat within the range that was normal for my grandparents.)

If the nonessentialist view is correct, then it seems likely that the adoption of same-sex marriage would tend to increase the numbers of individuals who adopt a homosexual lifestyle. How dramatic would this effect be? Nobody knows. Perhaps we have already reached the point of saturation in the United States. But it is also possible that the effect would be significant, if only because the adoption of same-sex marriage would signal that, once and for all, society has accepted homosexuality as legally and morally the equivalent of heterosexuality.

Conclusion

To sum up:

1. While existing constitutional principles might logically be extended to mandate same-sex marriage, the courts should refrain from doing so because such an extension would do violence to the intentions of the constitutional framers and outrage a significant portion of the population, thereby tending to bring the judiciary into disrepute, overly politicize the judicial selection process, and make the nation less one ruled by laws and majorities and more one ruled by judges.

2. The Bible clearly sanctifies traditional marriage and condemns sexual relations between individuals of the same gender, so the adoption of same-sex marriage would be a sacrilege to many conservative Christians and Jews.

3. Adopting same-sex marriage would likely further weaken the institution of traditional marriage and increase the numbers of individuals who adopt a homosexual lifestyle, both of which would be bad for society.

Fortunately, American society has, for the most part, moved beyond hating, fearing, and persecuting homosexuals. Must we now move beyond sympathy, tolerance, and understanding, and take the final step of embracing homosexuality by approving same-sex marriage? I hope that we will have the wisdom not to do so.

Also, I hope that our discussions of same-sex marriage can be characterized on both sides by greater honesty and willingness to confront uncomfortable facts, and less of a tendency to demonize persons with an opposing view. Just as I would hope that we who oppose same-sex marriage will follow the admonition of the First Presidency to “reach out with understanding and respect for individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender,”[97] I would hope that those who support same-sex marriage will recognize that there are many intelligent, honest people of good will who have a differing view.

And finally, in the process of researching and writing this article, I have been struck by the influence that culture has on our lives. Although I believe that traditional marriage and sexual attraction between a man and a woman are ordained by God, they are not inevitable or “natural”[98] but are subject to impairment or destruction by cultural forces—including, I believe, highly symbolic cultural decisions like the adoption of same-sex marriage. And although I believe that, in an ultimate sense, we are all free agents, it is clear that our choices and our children’s choices are very much influenced by the culture around us. Therefore, the culture wars are not just a political sideshow, but the main show, and we should all be fighting the good fight.

---

Note: The Dialogue Foundation provides the web format of this article as a courtesy. There may be unintentional differences from the printed version. For citational and bibliographical purposes, please use the printed version or the PDFs provided online and on JSTOR.

[1] “First Presidency Statement on Same-Gender Marriage,” October 20, 2004, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Newsroom (accessed March 18, 2007).

[2] Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).

[3] The Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain and South Africa have all enacted legislation permitting same-sex marriage. Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, France, Germany, Finland, Luxembourg, Britain, and various other countries (or parts of other countries) all allow same-sex civil unions or registered partnerships.

[4] Vermont, California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, and Washington, D.C., Oregon, and Washington all have some kind of domestic partnership or civil union legislation.

[5] In 2005, the California legislature enacted a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, which was vetoed by the governor.

[6] 852 P.2d 44 (Haw. 1993).

[7] Brause & Dugan v. Bureau of Vital Statistics, Alaska Superior Court, Third Judicial District at Anchorage, Case No. 3AN-95-6562 CI (1998).

[8] Goodrich v. Dept. of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 798 N.E.2d 1941 (2003). See also In re Opinions of the Justices to the Senate, 803 N.E. 2d 565 (Mass. 2004), in which the Court advised the Massachusetts State Senate that adopting a civil union alternative to same-sex marriage would not pass constitutional muster.

[9] Baker v. Vermont, 170 Vt. 194, 744 A.2d 864 (1999).

[10] The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), which in my view violated this rule of thumb, has had the effect of overpoliticizing the judicial selection process (witness the Senate confirmation proceedings for Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito), and has brought the judiciary into disrepute among large segments of American society. The Court=s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1953), on the other hand, did not violate this rule of thumb because, although controversial at the time it was decided, it was consistent with the views of at least some of the framers of the constitutional provision it applied—specifically, the Fourteenth Amendment, which was adopted in 1868 as part of the Reconstruction effort to abolish slavery and afford equal rights to former slaves.

[11] See results collected at Polling Report, Inc., “Law and Civil Rights” (2007) (accessed March 18, 2007).

[12] I believe that Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878), which upheld the constitutionality of federal legislation outlawing the Mormon practice of polygamy, was wrongly decided. However, it is important to note that the case turned on freedom of religion, not on equal protection or privacy issues.

[13] Muslims can make a similar argument against same-sex marriage using passages from the Qur’an. For example, Sura [Chapter] 4:15-16 states: “If any of your women is guilty of unnatural offence, bring four of your witnesses to give evidence; if they testify against them, retain them in the houses until death, or until God provide some other way for them. If two men among you are guilty of such acts then punish both of them. But if they repent and reform, let them be, for God accepts repentance and is merciful.” Also, Sura 7:80–81 states: “And we sent Lot, who said to his people: ‘Why do you commit this lecherous act which none in the world has committed before? In preference to women you satisfy your lust with men. Indeed you are a people who are guilty of excess.’” Islam: The Qur’an: A Contemporary Translation, Vol. 3 of Sacred Writings, trans. by Ahmed Ali (New York: Book-of-the-Month Club, 1992).

[14] John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 100–106; Eric Marcus, Is It a Choice? Answers to 300 of the Most Frequently Asked Questions about Gay and Lesbian People (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1999), 133–35.

[15] Louis Crompton, Homosexuality and Civilization (Cambridge, Mass.: Belnap Press of Harvard University Press, 2003), 33. Crompton is professor of English emeritus at the University of Nebraska and co-founder of the Gay and Lesbian Caucus of the Modern Language Association. Homosexuality and Civilization was a 2004 Independent Publisher Book Awards Finalist in the Gay/Lesbian Category and a 2005 Choice Magazine Outstanding Academic Title.

[16] Ibid., chaps. 2, 5–7, 9–10, 12, 14.

[17] James Q. Wilson, The Marriage Problem: How Culture Has Weakened Families (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2002), 1–21; also see Linda J. Waite, “The Importance of Marriage Is Being Overlooked,” USA Today, January 1999, 46-47.

[18] Maggie Gallagher, “Third Thoughts on Divorce,” National Review, March 25, 2002, 50.

[19] Marcus, Is It a Choice?, 10.

[20] Phillip Longman, The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity (New York: Basic Books, 2004), 15–27.

[21] Wilson, The Marriage Problem, 43–63.

[22] Centers for Disease Control, HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, 2004, Vol. 16 (Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, 2005), 1–46.

[23] Some commentators have argued that the adoption of same-sex marriage might convince more male homosexuals to live in monogamous, or semi-monogamous, relationships, and therefore be less likely to spread the AIDS virus. Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America (New York: Henry Holt, 2004), chap. 8. This sounds like wishful thinking. Homosexuals who wish to live a monogamous lifestyle can do so, with or without same-sex marriage, and those who do not wish to live a monogamous lifestyle are unlikely to change unless and until society imposes heavier legal or societal penalties on nonmonogamous homosexual activity, and I don=t see a groundswell of support for that development among the advocates of same-sex marriage. Also, the Massachusetts experience suggests that U.S. lesbians are far more likely than gays to marry. Even though gays presumably outnumber lesbians by a considerable margin, of the total number of same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts during 2004 and 2005, 64% involved women. Dan Ring, “8,100 Gay, Lesbian Couples Marry after 2004 Decision,” Springfield Republican, May 17, 2006, 222. masslive.com/metrowest/republican/index.ssf/base/news-0/11478708 5559880.xml&coll=1 (accessed March 18, 2007).

[24] Stephanie Coontz, Marriage: A History (New York: Viking Penguin, 2005), 33–34. The exception is the Na people, a society of approximately 30,000 people living in the Yunan province of southwestern China. Among the Na, the basic family unit is comprised of brothers and sisters, and the children of the sisters.

[25] Ibid., chaps. 1–8.

[26] Ibid., 263–64; also see Auriana Ojeda, ed., Preface, The Family (Farmington Hills, Mo.: Greenhaven Press, 2003), 17.

[27] Barbara LeBey, “American Families Are Drifting Apart,” USA Today, September 2001, 20–22, quoted in Ojeda, The Family, 20.

[28] Gallagher, “Third Thoughts on Divorce,” quoted in Ojeda, The Family, 37–38.

[29] Coontz, Marriage: A History, chaps. 9–14.

[30] Wilson, The Marriage Problem, 175–77.

[31] Ibid., 173–74.

[32] Rauch, Gay Marriage, 86–103.

[33] In 1989, Denmark adopted the first legislation in the world granting same-sex registered partners rights similar to those of married couples. Norway followed with similar legislation in 1993, and Sweden in 1994. Between 1989 and 2004, the percentage of births outside marriage in Denmark stayed about the same—between 44.6% and 46.9%. Between 1993 and 2004, the percent of births outside marriage in Norway grew from 44.4% to 51.3%, and between 1994 and 2002, the percent of births outside marriage in Sweden grew from 52% to 56%. Opponents of same-sex marriage point to the Scandinavian example as evidence of the possible negative impact same-sex marriage could have on traditional marriage in the United States, while advocates of same-sex marriage argue that, since the adoption of registered partner laws in Scandinavia, the decline of traditional marriage has slowed, or, by some measures, been slightly reversed there. See William Eskridge Jr. and Darren Spedale, Gay Marriage: For Better or Worse? What We’ve Learned from the Evidence (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), especially the demographic information in Appendices 4–6. While traditional marriage is in decline in the United States, it is in greater decline in Scandinavia and has been since before these laws were adopted. By way of comparison, the percentage of total births in the United States to unwed mothers rose to 37 percent in 2005, an all-time high. Associated Press, “Nearly 4 in 10 U.S. Babies Born Out of Wedlock,” posted November 21, 2006 (accessed March 18, 2007). It may be appropriate to view the adoption of the registered partner laws in Scandinavia more as a symptom than as a cause of traditional marriage’s decline there. The extent to which the Scandinavian experience is useful in predicting the possible effects of the adoption of same-sex marriage in the United States is not clear.

[34] Marcus, Is It a Choice?, 11–19. I take Marcus, whose book features an endorsement from “Dear Abby” on the front cover, to be an accurate purveyor of the received wisdom.

[35] Jeffrey Weeks, Sexuality, 2d ed. (London: Routledge, 2003), 7. Weeks is a gay activist and executive dean of the Faculty of Arts and Human Sciences at London South Bank University. The embedded quotation is Irving Singer, The Goals of Human Sexuality (London: Wildwood House, 1973), 15.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality. Volume 1: An Introduction, translated by Robert Hurley (New York: Vintage Books, 1990), 103. Foucault died of AIDS in 1984.

[38] Ibid., 103–5.

[39] Ibid., 103.

[40] Ibid., 43. The term “homosexuality” first appeared in print in 1864. David Halperin, How to Do the History of Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), 106.

[41] The essentialist/nonessentialist argument is also important to the constitutional arguments surrounding homosexuality and same-sex marriage. If the essentialists are right and homosexuality is an immutable trait like race or gender that individuals are locked into by accident of birth or other uncontrollable factors, then legal classifications based on sexual orientation should arguably be submitted to heightened judicial scrutiny, just as classifications based on race or gender are.

[42] Marcus, Is It a Choice?, 11.

[43] Dean Hamer and Peter Copeland, Living with Our Genes (New York: Anchor Books, 1998), 186. Hamer is the discoverer of the “gay gene.” I discuss his scientific work below.

[44] Hubert Kennedy, “Karl Heinrich Ulrich: First Theorist of Homosexuality” in Science and Homosexualities, edited by Vernon A. Rosario (New York: Routledge, 1997), 26–45.

[45] Alice Dreger, “Hermaphrodites in Love: The Truth of the Gonads,” in Science and Homosexualities, 46–66; Margaret Gibson, “Clitoral Corruption: Body Metaphors and American Doctors, Constructions of Female Homosexuality, 1870-1900,” in ibid., 108–32.

[46] James D. Steakley, “Per scientiam adjustitiam: Magnus Hirshfeld and the Sexual Politics of Innate Homosexuality,” in Science and Homosexualities, 133–54.

[47] Harry Oosterhuis, “Richard von Krafft-Ebing’s ‘Step-Children of Nature’: Psychiatry and the Making of Homosexual Identity,” in Science and Homosexualities, 67–88.

[48] Julian Carter, “Normality, Whiteness, Authorship: Evolutionary Sexology and the Primitive Pervert,” in Science and Homosexualities, 155–76.

[49] Stephanie H. Kenan, “Who Counts When You’re Counting Homosexuals? Hormones and Homosexuality in Mid-Twentieth-Century America,” in Science and Homosexualities, 197–218.

[50] Richard C. Pillard, “The Search for a Genetic Influence on Sexual Orientation,” in Science and Homosexualities, 226–29.

[51] Marcus, Is It a Choice?, 16–21.

[52] Garland E. Allen, “The Double-Edged Sword of Genetic Determinism: Social and Political Agendas in Genetic Studies of Homosexuality, 1940–1994,” in Science and Homosexualities, 242–70.

[53] Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (New York: Free Press, 1994).

[54] Jennifer Terry, “The Seductive Power of Science,” in Science and Homosexualities, 271–95.

[55] Hamer and Copeland, Living with Our Genes, 194–95.

[56] Ibid., 196–97.

[57] Ibid., 197.

[58] Ibid., 187–88.

[59] Ibid., 188–89.

[60] Ibid., 198–99.

[61] For an exhaustive survey of the varieties of sexual attitudes and practices among mid-twentieth-century Americans of different ages and social classes, see Alfred Kinsey, Wardell Pomeroy, and Clyde Martin, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 1948); and Alfred Kinsey, Wardell Pomeroy, Clyde Martin, and Paul Gebhard, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (Philadelphia; W. B. Saunders Company, 1953).

[62] Ben Wattenberg et al., “The Family,” Online Book, Sec. 4.2, “The First Measured Century: An Illustrated Guide to Trends in America, 1900–2000,” PBS Programs, www.pbs.org/fmc/book/4family2.htm (accessed January 16, 2006).

[63] See Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, David Halperin, One Hundred Years of Homosexuality and Other Essays on Greek Love (New York: Routledge, 1990), his How to Do the History of Homosexuality, Crompton, Homosexuality and Civilization, and the multiple sources cited in these books.

[64] Crompton, Homosexuality and Civilization, xiv.

[65] In this article, I generally use homosexual, gay, and lesbian to describe both modern and ancient forms of sexual expression between individuals of the same gender, even though, from a nonessentialist point of view, it is technically improper to use modern terms to describe ancient practices or classifications.

[66] Crompton, Homosexuality and Civilization, xiii. Also, the few ancient writers who discuss women who are sexually attracted to other women generally refer not to “lesbians” as that term is commonly used today, but instead to “tribades,” or women who assume a masculine identity, appearance, and sexual style in their relations with other women. See Halperin, How to Do the History of Homosexuality, 51–53.

[67] Crompton, Homosexuality and Civilization, 3–4.

[68] Will Durant, The Story of Civilization: Vol. 2, The Life of Greece (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1939), 81–85.

[69] Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, 54.

[70] Crompton, Homosexuality and Civilization, 1–31, 49–78.

[71] Ibid., 6–7.

[72] Ibid., 79–110. See also Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, 61–87.

[73] Crompton, Homosexuality and Civilization, 39.

[74] Ibid., 32–48.

[75] Ibid., 213–44.

[76] Ibid., 411–43.

[77] Ibid., 41, 314–20.

[78] Ibid., 161–72.

[79] Halperin, How to Do the History of Homosexuality, 104–37.

[80] Crompton, Homosexuality and Civilization, 131–49.

[81] Ibid., 178–212.

[82] Ibid., 245–90.

[83] Ibid., 291–320.

[84] Ibid., 321–60.

[85] Ibid., 361–410.

[86] Ibid., 444–51, 501.

[87] Ibid., 504–12.

[88] Ibid., 451–62.

[89] Ibid., 462–71.

[90] John Cloud, “The Battle over Gay Teens,” Time, October 10, 2005, 44.

[91] Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, 28–30.

[92] The fact that Halperin, Foucault, and certain other historians of homosexuality support the nonessentialist position should not be taken as an indication that they would oppose same-sex marriage. On the contrary, I suspect that they would support it. The essentialist-nonessentialist debate is mostly carried on within the gay and lesbian intellectual communities; and from a political perspective, it is probably more a debate about means than ends. I suspect that essentialists generally want gays and lesbians to be viewed as vulnerable minorities in need of special legal protections, while nonessentialists generally believe that, in the long run, gays and lesbians will be better served by trying to deconstruct the categories of homosexuality and heterosexuality, leaving us all free to pursue love and pleasure as we see fit.

[93] Nor do I wish to suggest that it is impossible to change. The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) website (accessed March 19, 2007) summarizes scientific research suggesting that, in many cases, it is possible for highly motivated homosexuals to change sexual orientation. Of particular note is Robert Spitzer, “Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? 200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 32, no. 5 (October 2003): 403–17. Spitzer is a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University. However, I have not read the research and advance no policy recommendations regarding attempts to change established homosexual orientation; my article focuses only on same-sex marriage.

[94] Elizabeth Loftus, “Make-Believe Memories,” American Psychologist, November 2003, 867–73. Loftus is a professor at the University of California, Irvine, in the departments of Psychology and Social Behavior, Criminology, Law and Society, and Cognitive Sciences.

[95] Carl Elliott, “A New Way to Be Mad,” Atlantic Monthly, December 2000, 72–84. Elliott is a professor at the Center for Bioethics, Department of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota Medical School, and a professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota.

[96] Ibid.

[97] “First Presidency Statement on Same-Gender Marriage.”

[98] As King Benjamin teaches in the Book of Mormon, “the natural man is an enemy to God” (Mosiah 3:19).

[post_title] => The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 40.3 (Fall 2007): 11–41
These articles were about legal arguments. The case against argued that marriage was already tenuous and allowing same-sex marriage would doom it, suggesting that people would become homosexuals if same-sex marriage were an option. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => the-case-against-same-sex-marriage [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-08-05 23:20:30 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-08-05 23:20:30 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=10164 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 10167 [post_author] => 2203 [post_date] => 2018-03-21 03:05:45 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-03-21 03:05:45 [post_content] =>

I come at this topic primarily from an existential rather than from an ideological position. I had a son who was gay. Brad came out to his mother and me when he was twenty. At that time, I could hardly have been more viscerally antipathetic to homosexuals, and so accepting his assertion was simply unthinkable. Since he was an upstanding young man—good student, good citizen, good Latter-day Saint—since I perceived our family relationships as healthy, and since I loved him, I was determined to help him understand that he was just temporarily mixed up and that he could overcome his delusions. He, on the other hand, was fiercely determined to help me understand his reality; and however difficult I might find that, he wanted desperately to believe that ultimately I could be open-minded and fair.

In the educational struggle that ensued over the next eight years before his death from AIDS, he proved to be the prevailing teacher. I read the best literature on the subject I could find; I studied the views of professionals; I allowed myself to get to know and observe many homosexuals and their family members, and to hear their stories; above all, I listened to and watched Brad and tried to view the matter as clearly as I could from his point of view. In the long run, he moved me nearly 180 degrees.

My long-standing bias against homosexual persons was a result of my having absorbed from my religious and social culture a number of closed premises—without bothering to examine them. As I did the work of fact-finding, observation, and analysis—and as I looked hard at my religious principles to determine which of them were really relevant to this matter—little by little the problematic aspects of homosexuality mostly melted away. Now I find it hard to believe that I once found this natural phenomenon so threatening, so intolerable.

Brad had gone to live in West Hollywood because he felt like an outcast in Idaho and Utah. (This was in 1979.) He wanted to explore his sexual identity in an accepting environment, where he and others like him could live openly. Unfortunately, he arrived in California just as the AIDS epidemic was beginning and before it had been identified. He contracted the virus. After several years, he returned to Utah to study. But by then it was too late. And so he came home finally, living with us for his last nineteen months as AIDS, now ascendant, completed its deadly work.

As a young adult, what he had desperately wanted was to find a committed male companion with whom he could fashion a stable, settled life. But nothing in the social or religious structures around him in Pocatello, Salt Lake City, and Logan encouraged or supported that. Quite the contrary.

I so wish fair treatment of homosexual persons, including the possibility of gay marriage, had been available to Brad here in Mormon country a quarter century ago. Had it been, had we all not put stumbling blocks in his path, I think he would not have gone to Los Angeles when he did, might well as a result have avoided contracting AIDS, and been still with us today, he and a partner together, working in their professions, contributing to society, experiencing the fulfilling life that would have been possible. I am haunted still by what might have been. I regret that, at that crucial time, I lacked the vision and the courage to stand up for him.

I state this personal history in fairness to the reader, who can decide for him- or herself if my objectivity has been compromised or strengthened by what I have lived and learned.

I

The casual reader who is already predisposed to disapprove of gay marriage will find much appealing in Randolph Muhlestein’s argument. On the surface, the latter seems judicious and fair-minded. He takes some pains to avoid the appearance of naive or mean-spirited bias. He makes his case in a civil and restrained fashion. He has done background reading and credited his sources.[1] Like any reasonable man, he acknowledges opposing arguments, frequently admits the limits of his evidence, and mostly avoids claiming more than it will support.

And yet, for all its academic polish, this argument (given my own persuasions) seems based on narrow readings of secondary sources, on readings and interpretations primarily driven by a priori assumptions. At the same time, it ignores significant issues such as fairness and compassion. And ultimately, it is not sufficiently based on primary evidence—in this case direct, careful, extended observation of the real lives of homosexuals. As I appraise it, this article is substantially speculative, its heavily qualified conclusions influenced by fearful assumptions.

If I were asked to describe the principal difference between Muhlestein’s approach to this subject and mine, I would say that he is most concerned with how to protect society from homosexuals, while I am most focused on our moral obligation to treat gays and lesbians justly and compassionately.

Muhlestein lays out his argument in terms of (1) constitutional considerations, (2) scriptural authority, and (3) sociological and scientific issues. In the brief section devoted to the first topic, he summarizes the current status of same-sex marriage in the courts, where proponents seem to be making slow but steady progress toward general legalization. Acknowledging that there is no simple way to refute “eloquent” and even “poetic” legal opinions that would justify same-sex marriage in the light of constitutional decisions, he falls back on his own rule of thumb for judicial interpretation: first, would the framers of the constitution(s) “roll over in their graves” if same-sex marriage were found constitutional? And second, would a “significant portion of the population” be “outrage[d]” by such an interpretation? (4)

As Muhlestein explains clearly, constitutions are not fixed in stone. They must be living documents, interpreted and reinterpreted by the judiciary as time passes, as conditions and contexts evolve. If, for example, we wish to speculate about what the framers of the Constitution of the United States would think concerning gay marriage, we should imagine them living not at the end of the eighteenth but rather at the beginning of the twenty-first century, informed by intervening history and contemporary perspectives. I am no lawyer, but my conjecture is that they’d see the matter governed by such inalienable rights as personal “liberty” and the “pursuit of happiness.”

As to whether a decision to allow gay marriage might offend a significant majority of today’s population, Muhlestein knows well that the framers of our national constitution were much concerned to defuse the potential for a tyrannous majority to impose, unnecessarily and unjustly, on the interests of minorities. That’s why they instituted checks and balances, so that the judiciary could restrain when appropriate not only a zealous, self-interested majority but also their self-interested legislative representatives. And when is such restraint appropriate? When rights or freedoms of minorities are restricted without there being a compelling governmental interest to do so. In my view, no such compelling interest has been convincingly demonstrated by the opponents of gay marriage, including Muhlestein.

Moreover, he should remember that public majority opinion is not a constant. The poll results relative to gay unions that he points to have been changing steadily in recent years, with increasing numbers of respondents shifting to acceptance of gay unions. Frankly, I’m not much impressed by poll results; polls typically oversimplify complex issues, and they invite knee-jerk responses devoid of informed reflection. But if we must have polls, let’s revisit the numbers a year or two or five from now and see where we are. Almost certainly, the anti-gay marriage faction will have lost more support.

Ultimately, Muhlestein acknowledges that his legal argument against gay marriage comes down mostly to his belief that the will of the voting majority (currently dominated by the politically energized religious right) should prevail.

The second element of the Muhlestein argument is based on a literal interpretation of several scriptural verses. The most important of them are Jesus’s pronouncement that a man and his wife should cleave unto each other and several biblical texts that condemn homosexual intercourse. He therefore concludes that to sanctify sexual relations of any other sort outside heterosexual marriage is (in essence) to “mock God.”[2]

To interpret scripture literally and simplistically—making no allowance for cultural contexts, regarding every scriptural pronouncement as binding for all time—is, generally speaking, to stand on shaky ground. None but an extreme fundamentalist can seriously adopt such a posture. Read the Pentateuch in its entirety and see how unacceptable, according to current values, are many of its prohibitions and draconian punishments. Note that some of the most respected historical figures in the Old Testament had multiple wives and concubines. Note the omnipresent bias against women; note the acceptance of slavery; consider Paul’s unfavorable view of marriage. Examples are legion. There is no need to belabor the obvious here.

Thus, a couple of proof-texts from the Bible (read without consideration of situational and cultural contexts) alluding to improper homosexual expression provide no authoritative foundation for denying gay marriage in our time and place. This is particularly true given that, in that earlier culture, homosexual orientation was not generally understood as a given in some persons’ nature, as expert opinion now widely regards it. Furthermore, biblical culture apparently never considered the possibility of a committed, monogamous, lifetime partnership between two homosexuals.

Muhlestein can hardly do other than acknowledge (as he does) that the literal scriptural references to homosexuality are insufficient of themselves to convince educated religionists, let alone those outside the Judeo-Christian persuasion, and that if the case against same-sex marriage is to prevail, it must find other, persuasive legs to stand on. (A broader appeal to scripture for guidance in this matter is, however, not irrelevant, as I will attempt to show.)

Thus, we come to the main thrust of Muhlestein’s argument—based on sociological/scientific assessment—with its two propositions: (1) that same-sex marriage would damage the institution of traditional marriage; and (2) that it would encourage more people to “adopt a homosexual lifestyle” (7). Muhlestein goes to great lengths to establish that the institution of marriage is good for society. He is carrying coals to Newcastle. Who’s contesting that? Certainly not the proponents of gay marriage. While the purposes, forms, and expectations associated with marriage have varied not a little over time and in various cultures,[3] it has adapted and persisted because in general it promotes social stability and at the same time promotes good outcomes in individual lives.

But viewed from near perspective, this venerable institution seems to be in troubled straits, with relatively fewer people marrying and more marriages failing. Documenting the diminished appeal and health of marriage in the United States, Muhlestein rightly acknowledges that this decline derives from numerous causes. These include the shift from a rural to an increasingly urban economy; the women’s movement, with greater educational and employment opportunities for women, enabling them to reject undesired marriages or escape abusive marriages; changing social attitudes regarding unmarried cohabitation and divorce (including the rise of romantic love as a principal basis for marrying, and its lack as sufficient reason, for many, for dissolving marriages); changes in the law allowing no-fault divorce and equal legal recognition of illegitimate children; development of more reliable methods of birth control and the sexual revolution that in part resulted from it; upward spiraling materialism and the stresses induced by it (two incomes often needed for families to survive or to achieve a higher standard of consumerism); and a gradual decline of perceived theological authority.

If the props that supported traditional marriage have been steadily weakened or removed, gays deserve very little of the blame—and Muhlestein indirectly acknowledges as much. Nevertheless, by denying them access to marriage, he would make them pay a price for the woes of marriage as practiced by heterosexuals. Would gay marriage really have a negative effect on traditional marriage? “Nobody knows,” he concedes (13). Nevertheless, he reasons, since past changes (however unrelated to homosexuality) have created some problems for marriage (he does not mention that they have fixed some as well), let’s not allow any other change. It just might also have a negative effect, neither “small [n]or salutary” (13). Don’t bother to consider the particular merits of a proposed change. Let’s not, in other words, attack the real causes for this dip in the popularity of marriage or acknowledge we can’t reverse the historical clock. Instead, let’s pick on the bystanding homosexuals who would very much like a place at the marriage table, the bounties of which they respect. Let’s make a show of pointedly excluding them and forget about real cause and effect.

Well, says Muhlestein, at a minimum, gay marriage would further dissociate marriage from procreation and child-rearing, it might adversely affect the birthrate, and it would give offense to conservative religionists by moving marriage further from the “irrevocable, God-ordained covenant model” (13). Applying some epistemological analysis to that claim of an “irrevocable, God-ordained covenant model” would be useful, and a fruitful place to begin might be the scripturally sanctioned ancient and modern practice of polygamy.

The first of Muhlestein’s objections is indeed a slippery slope. Think of all the heterosexual marriages that, from the outset, are justified on grounds other than procreation—couples who consciously enter marriage choosing not to have children, or couples known to be infertile, or older persons beyond child-bearing years—yet they marry with the unambiguous blessing of Church and society because marriage has other undeniable benefits—emotional, practical, legal—that justify their unions and improve their lives.

As for child-rearing, the typical male/female pattern of parenting does not guarantee good parenting, as many a messed-up adult, looking back, will readily testify. On the other hand, in the challenging real (as opposed to “ideal”) world, children are often reared successfully in “irregular” situations and always have been. The significant variable is not the gender of the nurturing adults so much as the cohesiveness of the family environment and the quality of care, love, commitment, responsible instruction, and good examples the child experiences while growing up. Most reputable academic studies of outcomes for children in gay-parented households conclude that statistically such children do as well as those in families with male/female parents.[4] Moreover, many of those who would enter gay marriages either already are parents or wish to be, so there would be no necessary dissociation of marriage and child-rearing.

What about Muhlestein’s argument that gay marriage would negatively impact the birthrate? If gay marriage were optional and gay families were officially recognized as families, how many heterosexual couples would decide, for that reason, not to have children? The answer is obvious.[5] Would the birthrate drop measurably because a few gays, with society’s acceptance, decided to forego heterosexual unions, many of which would be doomed to dissolve or be otherwise unsatisfactory, and enter into same-sex unions? Any decline so occasioned would surely be insignificant.

Furthermore, Muhlestein’s fears that the availability of marriage to gays would make the “gay lifestyle” so attractive that considerable numbers of straight people “might” gravitate to it are unfounded. Only those who genuinely are strongly homosexual will so identify themselves and choose gay marriage. Concern, then, about depressing the birthrate is simply a red herring.[6]

As for gay marriage giving offense to some members of America’s conservative churches, I suggest that those so offended would do well to reexamine the basic tenets of the faith they profess, to which subject I will return.

If we stand back and look carefully at Muhlestein’s polemic, it is possible to see what he is most concerned about: that legalizing gay marriage would likely encourage more people “to adopt a homosexual lifestyle”[7]—and he is just not comfortable with that prospect. He continues: “I suspect that . . . most Americans . . . would prefer . . . that their children not adopt a homosexual lifestyle, and that there not be a dramatic increase in the numbers of homosexuals generally.” And then he adds, significantly, “I believe that there is good sense in these common attitudes” (7). Why does he add that judgment? As I read his argument, he feels the need to insist that, however much gays must be tolerated, what they are is undesirable, bad for society—and it would be best not to encourage them in any significant way.

I must call out that statement for what I think it reveals: sheer prejudice. To say that our country would be better off without increased numbers of homosexuals betrays a bias that exists prior to any concern about marriage per se. It shows a failure to recognize that homosexuals support society in the same valuable ways, and in similar degrees, that heterosexuals do. It fails to see that their special sensibilities enable them to make strong contributions particularly—but by no means exclusively—in the helping professions (including teaching, medicine, health, counseling) and the occupational fields of design and the arts. It fails to acknowledge typical, ordinary homosexual persons as hard-working, law-abiding, decent citizens.

I am pained to make this charge of prejudice, but I cannot think that, in the final analysis, it is unwarranted. I believe that for many who oppose gay marriage the issue is not primarily about the institution of marriage per se. Defense of traditional marriage is just a symbolic flashpoint fueled by what really drives this initiative—a visceral rejection of homosexuality in toto, a denial of its right to be, a disgust at an expression of sexuality and sensibility that is different from the majority.

Short of declaring straight out that homosexual persons are fundamentally flawed and anti-socially oriented, what basis can Muhlestein propose for walling them out, excluding them from rights and opportunities (including marriage) that are commonly available to Americans? His somewhat strained argument is, in effect, to disclaim the importance of biology as a causal factor, to challenge homosexual identity as inborn essence, to assert rather (or at least imply continually) that it is predominantly historically, socially, culturally constructed and thus theoretically susceptible to alteration. And since homosexuality is “adopted” (his word [26])—i.e., deliberately acquired rather than innate—homosexuals neither need nor deserve any recognition of their claims to be different. So why should they be allowed to enter into marriage with one of their own gender? The centrality of this claim as the cornerstone of his argument against gay marriage is evident in that he employs well over half of his essay attempting to substantiate it. His sustained effort does not persuade me because it is not pursued consistently or evenhandedly.

Muhlestein reviews various attempts over the past century and a half to formulate the etiology of homosexuality. These attempted explanations have been inadequate because, without exception, they failed to account for relevant phenomena related to this complex matter. These outmoded theories are straw men, easily and justifiably knocked over. He then focuses his attention exclusively on what he takes to be the current prevailing theory: genetic linkage to sexual orientation. In particular, he cites the research efforts directed by Dean Hamer, whose line of investigation is still a painstaking work in progress, highly suggestive at this juncture but with questions still to be answered. Muhlestein seems willing to acknowledge a growing consensus among investigators about the relevance of gene theory. As he puts it, “Many other studies [also] suggest that there is a genetic link of one kind or another for male sexual orientation” (18). Notwithstanding, Muhlestein ultimately dismisses genetic implications[8] and declares the essentialist theory of homosexuality “surprisingly weak” because “scientists and theorists have been unable to devise a satisfactory scientific or medical theory that explains homosexuality as wholly the result of genes, germs, accidents, or other factors that are independent of culture” (16; emphasis mine). He subsequently restates this conclusion even more strongly: “The scientific evidence suggests that the essentialist view of sexual orientation is wrong because sexual orientation, unlike race, disability, or age, is not wholly determined by genes, germs, the passage of time, or other uncontrollable factors” (21; emphasis mine).

At this point, Muhlestein’s argument falls into either inadvertent contradiction or obfuscation. He equates biological causes with essentialism, then dismisses essentialism unless biology is the exclusive cause. In spite of his attempt to avoid it, in considering causes of homosexuality he seems at times to fall into the trap of either/or thinking. Either the essentialist etiology is “wholly” the explanation, or it must yield to environmental/cultural causes—which he assumes (perhaps wrongly) are less compelling.

“Indeed,” he says, “the scientific theory of homosexuality that is currently most popular allows for a major role for culture and environment” (16). This position actually implies the existence of biological determinants, even given varying definitions about “major.” Muhlestein’s statement frames the matter misleadingly. While it is true that some leading experts now describe the etiology of homosexuality as complex, possibly involving multiple causes, I know of no one at the forefront of such investigation who dismisses the importance of biology as a significant influence or determinant in a majority of cases.

The reality is that even if several causes contribute, those which may be called essentialist can still have an unavoidable, and very often the dominant, impact. That is, if one is born with sensibilities or proclivities that incline one powerfully toward a particular orientation, environmental/cultural influences may well reinforce such inborn tendencies. Thus, the multiple-cause theory that Muhlestein espouses (which includes essentialist elements) by no means invalidates the claim that biology is highly significant.

Muhlestein can’t have it both ways. Either he must acknowledge candidly that biological determinants are real and present in at least some degree, or he must deny them outright. If he acknowledges them in any significant degree (as at times, in spite of himself, he seems to do), he undermines his own case.

In limiting his discussion of current etiological research to gene theory, Muhlestein omits important evidence. In fact, studies of the relationship of homosexuality and biology are ongoing in a number of other areas. These include hormones, anatomy, brain studies (focusing on both anatomy and function), cognitive studies, and birth order. In researching such complex questions, science moves with deliberate caution; nevertheless, some of the considerable work that has been done is very promising. Readers looking for larger perspective may wish to consult a website, “The Biology of Sexual Orientation,” maintained by Simon LeVay, a noted biologist best known for his research on the brain and sexuality. This site provides an overview of theories and research, primarily but not exclusively biological, together with evaluative commentary. LeVay’s summary statement reads: “Although quite a few of the findings reported here are inconsistent between studies or await independent replication, my general conclusion is that biological processes, especially the prenatal, hormonally controlled sexual differentiation of the brain, are likely to influence a person’s ultimate sexual orientation.”[9]

Will anyone who has looked carefully at a wide cross-section of gays and lesbians not admit that, in the case of the former, certain “feminized” physical and behavioral traits are more frequently found than in straight males, and similarly that among lesbians, certain “masculinized” traits are more prevalent than among straight females?[10] Even while acknowledging that such traits are stereotypical and admit of numerous exceptions, let it also be remembered that stereotypes generally have some real basis. Moreover, it will be observed that these traits generally are natural to their possessors, frequently observed from very early childhood, rather than deliberately cultivated or otherwise gradually acquired; it will be observed that one among several siblings, reared in the same family environment, exposed to the same educational and communal cultural values, will exhibit such gender-atypical behaviors and predilections while the others do not. My point is this: To deny that the statistically wide distribution of such gender-atypical physical and behavioral traits among homosexuals is natural to them and essential in their identity is naive.

What about the evidence of history? “It is clear from the historical record,” says Muhlestein, “that sexual attitudes, preferences, and practices among heterosexuals have varied widely over time and from place to place” (21). Furthermore, “studies suggest that sexual attitudes, preferences, and practices among homosexuals have, if anything, varied even more widely” (21–22). He then labors mightily to survey this sexual variety, concluding that the lack of consistency disproves any essentialist basis for homosexuality.

But this argument is a sword that cuts both ways. Let’s test his hypothesis by applying it to heterosexuals. Since their sexual attitudes and practices have been varied and inconsistent, influenced by culture, does he really mean seriously to suggest that heterosexuality is simply a social, historical, and/or cultural construct? that there is not something biologically innate—essential—in male/female sexual attraction where it widely exists? If indeed there is not, why should heterosexuality enjoy any special status? How, then, can anyone argue that heterosexuality is “natural”—as do most opponents of gay sexuality—and that it should be therefore the favored and exclusive basis for marriage? Muhlestein’s claims for the cultural construction of sexuality notwithstanding, I suspect he would acknowledge, if pressed, that a basic, inborn opposite-sex attraction (with all of its accompanying impulses for pair bonding) exists innately in most of the human population but that its private expression and the conditions under which that expression may be socially permissible will vary considerably based on cultural conditions and attitudes, as history has shown. It is reasonable, then, to conclude that the same is true of homosexuality.

Muhlestein’s oversimplified interpretation of the historical record can be seen in his lengthy reference to the research of Louis Crompton, which documents the widely varying degrees of tolerance and intolerance shown over the centuries toward homosexual behavior. Obviously Muhlestein’s intent is to argue that, since cultures such as the ancient Spartans, the classical Chinese aristocracy, and the samurai and monastic cultures of pre-twentieth century Japan had well-established, accepted patterns of man/boy love (in the context of pedagogical training), and since certain homophobic periods of “Christian” culture brutally suppressed overt or suspected homosexuality to the point of its virtual apparent disappearance, these variations demonstrate that relative percentages of homosexuality in the population were not consistent. Thus (Muhlestein concludes), homosexuality could hardly derive from essentialist causes assumed to be consistent.

Two factors that Muhlestein does not acknowledge sufficiently help clarify these matters. First, there is an important distinction between sexual orientation (desires, fantasies, and yearnings which are largely innate and, especially in men, generally prove little subject to alteration of gender direction) and sexual behavior (which is susceptible to environmental influence and personal discipline). A person can be strongly homosexually oriented without necessarily expressing it in overt sexual behavior. Social or religious disapprobation may well motivate such suppression. Conversely, a person may, under certain circumstances, engage in homosexual behaviors without being predominantly homosexual in orientation. Social or religious acceptance of such behavior may encourage this. A corollary is that sexual orientation in general is more complex than simply either/or.

One of the most helpful aspects of the groundbreaking research of Alfred Kinsey and his associates was the development of the H-H scale, a seven-point continuum that recognized varying degrees of bisexuality in addition to straight heterosexual and straight homosexual orientation.[11] Thus, when cultures accept homosexual behaviors, such as those in which man/boy love was practiced with approval, it does not indicate a percent-age increase in the numbers of strongly oriented homosexuals (5’s and 6’s on Kinsey’s H-H Scale) as much as it demonstrates that many men are capable of relative degrees of bisexual behavior if that is culturally allowed.

Second, we need to recognize—far more than Muhlestein’s parenthetical nod—the enormous suppressive effects of marginalization, ostracization, and even more violent forms of persecution and punishment on historical manifestations of homosexual behavior. Same-sex attraction may be present in individuals, but how it is expressed, suppressed, or repressed will vary widely based on cultural attitudes, including social/religious tolerance or intolerance. Although the matter is virtually impossible to investigate, many biologists and psychologists assume that the percentage distribution of pronounced homosexual orientation (Kinsey Scale 5’s and 6’s) has been relatively consistent over time and across cultures. Their explanation for apparent declines in the manifestations of homosexuality is that, when punished—or otherwise severely sanctioned—homosexuals have tended to closet themselves to survive. Muhlestein claims that “there were very few lesbians in earlier times” (22) compared to the present, but how are we supposed to know that? Because there is little evidence in the written record? Any feminist will patiently explain to him the reasons why there were very few known women philosophers, clerics, poets, painters, scientists, or historians in earlier times—and how those reasons and small numbers might relate to lack of written evidence for the occurrence of lesbian desire.

In short, like his superficial look at early theoretical scientific explanations, Muhlestein’s odd foray into Crompton’s historical survey does not at all support his conclusion, namely, that “historical evidence for the nonessentialist view of sex in general, and sexual orientation in particular, is convincing” (27–28). Without heavy qualification, this conclusion is not at all convincing.

Muhlestein then considers what he calls subjective evidence, that is, the reporting by homosexuals, particularly males, about their personal perception of their erotic longing and their desire for physical and emotional intimacy. With a high level of consistency, they declare that the orientation of their desire is inherent, that it is not consciously chosen, that it often manifests itself at an early age and becomes clearer as they mature, and that their only real choice is between denying and/or suppressing those feelings or acknowledging and/or expressing them. Their coming to sexual awareness in these ways parallels that of heterosexuals. Muhlestein admits that “the subjective, or anecdotal, evidence for the essentialist approach to [homo]sexual orientation is strong, particularly for men” (16).

Indeed, to discount the weight of such self-perception by homosexuals—primary evidence, as it were—would demonstrate dubious judgment, as Muhlestein admits. But he then asserts that self-“knowledge” can be influenced by culture and environment and is therefore not “conclusively” reliable. To illustrate his point, he cites an Atlantic Monthly story on “apotemnophila” and “acrotomophilia,” respectively attraction to the condition of being an amputee and feeling sexual attraction toward amputees (28–30). Once these states of mind are named, publicized, and legitimized by experts, they become fashionable and attractive to increasing numbers of individuals. Muhlestein’s author apparently did not report on the numbers of apotemnophiliacs and acrotomophiliacs or provide documentation of the increasing trend over time. Muhlestein tentatively extends this analogy to homosexuality: i.e., the more widely homosexuality is recognized and legitimized, the more (he fears) that heterosexual individuals will find gayness emotionally appealing and declare themselves homosexual as a result.

I am amused by this analogy. I cannot read it as other than grasping at straws. If Muhlestein means seriously to suggest that vast numbers of genuinely, innately, heterosexual men and women would suddenly self-identify as homosexuals if gay marriage were allowed, then he ignores the general tendency of humans to choose the easier, more approved path when it is possible to do so. He must be positing a cascade of unspecified but powerful corollary changes in society. It is difficult to imagine that homosexuality would become a majority position; and if it remains a sharply defined minority, then the possible, almost predictable, social costs include prejudice, scorn, discrimination, rejection, and even violence. Doubtless, Muhlestein will counter that legitimating gay marriage will help to overcome that stigma and eliminate persecution, thereby making personal claims of homosexual identity much easier. Let us hope so, say I. But let us at the same time remain grounded in reality and acknowledge that legalizing gay marriage will not, in itself, overcome centuries of biased misunderstanding and rejection.

II

Born “that way”—or not? At one time, that question seemed the most crucial to me as I tried to sort out the theological implications of homosexuality. If this sexual orientation is substantially biologically imprinted and not a condition freely chosen, then assuming that God would impose a one-size-fits-all heterosexual set of expectations on gays would be patently wrong. And for the heterosexual majority to employ social and religious pressures in an attempt to “correct” this naturally occurring minority and force them into conformity with the mainstream would be unrighteous dominion. Thus, it seemed to me of paramount importance to prove that biology was somehow the etiological explanation.

Now, although I still believe that biology has in most instances a pronounced—though perhaps not total—influence on homosexual orientation and that the still incomplete scientific evidence for this position will gradually be more firmly established, I am less concerned about pinpointing the exact cause(s). From my observation over some years of many homosexual persons, I have concluded that whether gay identity is a result of nature, nurture, or some combination doesn’t really matter. What matters is that, for the great majority of homosexuals, the orientation of their desire for intimacy and erotic fulfillment is established, real, and strongly resistant to alteration.[12] Shouldn’t they then be allowed to follow the life path that seems good to them and that brings them happiness if others are not adversely affected?

And so the crucial question then becomes: How can we, without prejudice but with justice and humane concern, create supportive conditions that give these brothers and sisters of ours their best opportunity to live happy, productive, fulfilled lives in this mortal span?

III

In his extended attempt to justify denying marriage to homosexual persons, Muhlestein ignores or minimizes some of the most powerful practical and moral arguments supporting it. Let’s consider practical outcomes.

First, marriage, as experts agree, does promote stability in people’s lives: better health, fewer risky behaviors, more satisfying sex lives, larger incomes, greater longevity, and in general greater happiness than single or divorced people (7). Stable lives mean fewer problems that society must deal with. Why, then, is it not in society’s interest to make the stabilizing influence of marriage available to a significant minority that, not surprisingly, has suffered for want of it? If gays are statistically more subject to health risks and have higher rates of depression, addiction, and suicide, surely the lack of social acceptance and of equal opportunity for socially approved unions is partly responsible. Leveling the playing field would undoubtedly improve these conditions. Consider, for example, how the introduction of gay marriage has the potential of reducing sexual promiscuity among gays (as marriage reduces promiscuity among heterosexuals) and thereby reducing the spread of AIDS.

Second, with marriage in America declining in appeal and statistical success, it can use help from whatever quarter. Homosexuals constitute a minority that wishes to affirm this institution and its ideals. Contrary to the hue and cry raised by the extreme right, gays are not trying to dismantle marriage but rather to extend its stabilizing influence on society. By entering into it, they are attempting as individuals and as couples to be socially responsible. Religious conservatives should recognize this motivation and embrace proponents of gay marriage as allies. Why is that so hard to grasp?

Third, as Muhlestein observes in his lament for the current state of marriage: “In a majority of cases, the breakup of a traditional marriage is a bad thing, not just for any children involved, but also for the divorcing parties” (7). I agree. So why continue to encourage “mixed” traditional marriages between a gay and a heterosexual partner as our religious culture has done and continues to do implicitly. Such marriages, flawed from the outset, are typically a result of the Church’s largely unqualified insistence on the importance of traditional marriage for everyone and its refusal to legitimize alternative sexual orientations and life patterns.

This problem is more widespread among Mormons than we care to acknowledge. These “mixed” marriages seem much more likely to end in divorce or, if they remain intact, are much less likely to provide marital satisfactions to both partners. Indeed, their negative outcomes typically cause pain and suffering for all involved, not least to the children of such unions. Nor is it in society’s best interest to perpetuate such suffering. Would it not be fairer and more humane to legitimize a form of marriage that is more realistically attuned to the uniqueness of the individuals involved?

IV

In my mind, the moral reasons for supporting gay marriage loom even larger than the practical ones. There are several interwoven strands to the moral justification argument. I begin with the “self-evident” truths spelled out in our Declaration of Independence: the inalienable human rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Homosexuals driven to suicide deprive themselves of life. Gays and lesbians in the closet or discriminated against in employment, housing, and education lack significant components of liberty. And spending one’s entire life dealing with the social message that one is “wrong” and with the religious message that one is “bad” excludes happiness in decisive ways.

Aside from the specific benefits offered by marriage, access to marriage exemplifies for gays and lesbians the more general goals to which they aspire: respect, legitimacy, and recognition that this very important aspect of their being—the condition that for whatever reason is deeply imprinted in their sense of themselves—does not diminish them or make them second class. As a naturally occurring minority, they claim to be entitled equally to whatever rights and opportunities society can extend. In short, they are looking for their justified place at the table. And since they have no intent to disrupt the feast for the rest of us, nor do we have reasonable and realistic grounds to say that they would compromise our gustatory satisfaction, how can we then deny their request without compromising our own ideals of equity and fairness?[13]

If some say that, as they see it, the claim of homosexual orientation is questionable, that homosexual behavior is unacceptable, and that gays must not have the opportunity to marry, then surely their personal discomfort must be trumped by the right of homosexual persons to define themselves freely and to pursue happiness according to their own light, providing they do not impinge on the rights of their critics. This quintessentially American position cannot be denied without assaulting bedrock national values.

Moreover, since marriage is seen as a desirable state, granting homosexual persons access to its benefits is centrally consistent with the ethical teachings of all major religions. At the simplest level, that means being our brother’s and sister’s keeper; it means doing unto others as we would have others do unto us.

To understand why we are morally obliged to grant homosexuals the right to marry, we must look at the larger, central, complex role of sexuality in human lives.[14] Whether or not we like to admit it, we are sexual beings. For most of us, sex is one of the most fascinating, mysterious, and challenging aspects of life. Like the Grand Canyon, it’s awesome, dazzlingly beautiful at times, powerfully inviting, and also potentially dangerous to negotiate. On the one hand, we are like lesser animals in the inescapability of our sexuality; on the other, we sense in it a godlike power. Mythology and folklore from earliest times and disparate cultures perceived this power and framed the creative acts of the gods in sexual metaphors. On some primordial level we know that sexuality is an energy that underlies and drives creation. It is a basic human need, a basic human privilege. And so a life without sexual fulfillment is not a complete life, however good it otherwise may be.

Like any great force, sexuality—if rightly channeled—can bless our lives, but if uncontrolled it has as much potential for damage as for benefit. And thus, to minimize its destructive potential, codes of sexual morality come into being.

Some assume that sexual moral rules originate at some universal level of abstraction, that they were decreed in the beginning by God, more or less arbitrarily, as a test of obedience—“thou shalt not.” But if we look at historical evidence, we see the stages by which such moral codes have evolved based on human experience. The prohibitions they contain, including those laid down in scripture, are directly related to perceived negative effects of particular behaviors as they affect individuals, interpersonal relationships, and especially the welfare of the larger society. For example, adultery is forbidden in order to secure faithfulness and stability in the marriage relationship and thus reduce the disruptive social and psychological effects of sexual promiscuity. Fornication is forbidden because society needs to discourage relationships in which the participants are immature or otherwise unable to assume responsibility for the complex outcomes of sexual intimacy. Society doesn’t want to deal with the attendant problems. In short, sexual moral codes rest on the very practical relationship between acts and outcomes. To be moral, sex must be psychologically and socially responsible.

But sexual morality is not just a matter of “thou shalt not.” “Thou shalt not” is a blunt instrument, a negative, easy, and sometimes heavy-handed marker. If we believe that our sexuality is something more than inherent evil, if we see our sexual nature as a vital part of our humanness and as having the potential to raise us to a higher level of being, and if we would pursue the opportunity for growth inherent in this nature, we must surpass the Pharisaical letter of the law to find the more fulfilling and sublime positive aspects of sexual relationship with another.

God’s complex gift of sexuality, with its accompanying responsibilities, thus provides both opportunity and challenge. If its expression is selfish, if sensual gratification is its sole raison d’être, or if it reduces the partner simply to an object, it will likely lead to ennui, diminishment, and disillusionment. These are the results of immoral relationships. On the other hand, sex can be the ultimate expression of vulnerability, trust, and generosity. Ideally, it focuses the desire to be fully present to another. As the primary ritual of interpersonal intimacy, it has the power to integrate the mysterious, soulful facets of human life. Through it, the reductive division of body and spirit can be transcended.[15]

It is natural, therefore, that sex should be fundamental in human bonding, a means that can solidify a joint search for fulfillment. Humans normally need acceptance and security, and these qualities are most powerfully fostered in intimate partnership. In a world that continually batters the self, each of us needs to know that another who cares deeply is there for us, to defend, counsel, encourage, and console us, and to share with us the dark as well as the light places on the mortal journey. For this reason, pairing is a normal desire, a normal need.

Heterosexual couples may not experience such companionship perfectly, but who in choosing to marry is not grateful for the chance to grow within this nurturing condition with society’s unambiguous ritual blessing and continuing encouragement? How many married couples would falter were it not for that social support?

Why, then, should any of us who are not by inclination celibate, including homosexual persons, be asked to forego unnecessarily the opportunity to realize joy and growth through responsible shared sexuality if we are fortunate enough to find a loving, committed partner?

Can we find in scripture reliable guideposts to assist us as we consider our moral obligations in relation to these matters? While reductionist proof-texting without attention to historical and situational contexts provides no real help, the teachings of Jesus as we have them in the Gospels contain the bedrock on which legitimizing gay marriage can be justified. In what has been preserved, he said nothing about homosexuality directly, but indirectly and holistically, his teachings are filled with highly relevant tenets. Consider the following:

• The Kingdom of God is at least as much about the self-fulfillment of persons as it is about institutions.
• The well-being of every individual is important.
• It is not good to be alone.
• In our efforts to help others, we should accept their uniqueness and care for them in the context of their individual—not generalized—circumstances.
• Love and generosity are the first principles that should govern our relationships with others.

Jesus’s pronouncements and his behavior repeatedly underscored these premises. They are central to his gospel and the beginning point of discussions in questions of morality. They challenge us to reach out to others generously, flexibly, and inclusively rather than seeking to justify exclusion. Why and how these Christian principles relate to the question of committed homosexual marriages should be obvious.

Biology, life experience, divine intent—identify the causes as you will—have made some members of the human family seek their deepest intimacy with another in ways that differ from the majority. The gender direction of love’s longing is mysterious and not, finally, a matter of conscious volition. And for homosexual persons just as for the rest of us, this longing is more than superficially sexual. It also involves affection, sharing, caring, and personal vulnerability. Whatever its cause or causes, the main outlines of Jesus’s teaching suggest that we should encourage these persons to find personal growth responsibly within the parameters of their God-given unique nature. We should not deny them sexual self-realization nor insist that they conform to some other one-size-fits-all pattern of longing. Jesus wasn’t about inflexible rules. He believed in keeping priorities straight. “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath,” he said (Mark 2:27). He would probably say something in the same vein about sexual expression.

Do we care enough about the well-being of our homosexual brothers and sisters to allow them a socially approved, supportive structure of love, acceptance, and security like that enjoyed by married heterosexuals, and the opportunity to grow together with a loved one in sustained, committed intimacy? Jesus did say that we should judge human behaviors by their fruits, that is, by their practical outcomes, not by some ideology (Matt. 7:16). Scripture teaches us by implication that it is not good for a man (or a woman) to be alone (Gen. 2:18). If two people of whatever gender commit to each other that they will love, cherish, and support each other without reservation through life’s vicissitudes, will not such commitment likely bear good fruit—and should we not support that? I say yes!

Does it trouble me that my view of this matter directly challenges the present stance of the LDS Church, which opposes gay marriage and forbids as sinful any sexual activity outside of traditional marriage? Yes, it does sadden me to be at variance with the Church, but that does not absolve me of the moral responsibility to analyze such matters as thoughtfully as I can and to share with others what my relevant experience has been. I do not see my questioning of the present Church position as inappropriate, disloyal, or without ample precedent. After all, in the Judeo-Christian tradition and in recent LDS Church history, there are numerous examples of significant doctrinal reinterpretations and course corrections. Major examples include the revised view that God is the God of all human beings, not of Israel alone; the reinterpretation of the gathering of Israel, the institution and subsequently the cessation of the practice of polygamy; and the extension of priesthood ordination to black men. It is even evident that the Church’s view of homosexuality has undergone some significant adjustment in recent decades; therefore, it, too, may be susceptible to further revision.[16]

Is God inconstant, changing his mind suddenly as he goes along? Or do we change in our perception of his will as we experience evolutionary growth? I subscribe to the second position. Since the Church proclaims the importance of ongoing revelation and since our leaders, however wise, do not claim to be infallible, the Latter-day Saints above all religious groups should accept that internal, as well as external, dialogue can contribute to advancing our understanding of the divine will. Latter-day Saints should not merely concede that God’s revelation regarding moral development is unfinished but should optimistically expect it to be continually refined. All of us have a responsibility to help prepare the seedbed of understanding for moral progress.

Gay marriage need not be seen as incompatible with LDS doctrine. The Church opposes sexual activity outside marriage; but by recognizing gay married relationships, it would allow the ennobling expression of natural sexuality in a morally responsible way, within the context of commitment. Gays could then be expected to observe the same standards of fidelity to their spouse that the Church requires of heterosexual persons. Channeling gay sexual expression in this way would discourage the promiscuity that gays as outsiders are, not surprisingly, vulnerable to. Surely that would be a good thing.

But what about the assertions in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” those that concern “the eternal role of gender” and declare an “ideal” familial structure for parent/child relationship?[17] Neither need those beliefs be an impediment to supporting gay marriage. The Church need not accept gay marriages as “eternal”; it would not need to offer temple gay marriages. They could be regarded like civil marriages—for this life only. As the Church views the matter, adjustments are going to have to be made in an afterlife anyway for many people, because many situations involving marriage, singleness, or parent/child/nurturer relationships are not ideally finalized. For those who do their best to live uprightly given their varying mortal circumstances, the afterlife will doubtless satisfactorily resolve itself.

In the meantime, let us be focused on how we can arrange the conditions of this messy present life so as to bring about the best chance of growth and happiness for all individuals. Moral concern for others, it seems to me, makes such efforts incumbent on us. Let’s get serious about removing stones from the paths of our gay brothers and sisters. If God wants to change the orientation of their sexual feelings in an afterlife, that matter is in his hands, but we can make their lives better here and now. Let’s acknowledge honestly what is really happening to gays and lesbians as matters now stand. Not a few enter heterosexual marriages because of social/religious pressure, even though they have grave doubts about such a decision and even though the outcomes for all concerned are frequently heartbreaking. Others suffer solitary lives unnecessarily or perhaps are driven by frustration into homosexual promiscuity. Still others find a gay or lesbian partner but are forced to do so without the stabilizing benefit of social and religious support, which imposes added strains on an intimate relationship. In the long run, many of these gay and lesbian persons leave the Church they have loved because they feel marginalized or deprived by its doctrines. Who can blame them? And it’s a shame, because it doesn’t have to be so.

I have observed some parents who, when their children come to make requests, look for reasons to say “no.” A child wants to try something out of the ordinary, something intriguing, something perhaps with a little uncertainty to it. And these parents almost automatically respond by saying, “No! We don’t do that. You might get hurt. No!” Instead of looking for ways to make the activity safe or for ways to accommodate it—in short, a way to say “yes”—they work hard at finding reasons for denial. In my experience, those children frequently grow up fearful and timid, or resentful and rebellious. Instead of expanding in confidence and capability, these youths either contract or explode. I have seen the same attitudes in some employers toward their employees and in some leaders toward their followers.

I believe we have an analogous situation in respect to the gay-marriage campaign. Gays and lesbians are looking for responsibility and opportunity; they are looking for fuller self-realization; they are looking for justice. And in response, up step those conservative guardians of the status quo who say “no” automatically, then cast about to justify their negativity. They conjure up bogeymen. They appeal to fear. Instead of opening up possibility, they are in the business of shutting it down. Instead of pursuing the path of inclusivity in the spirit of Christ’s gospel teaching, they employ a strategy of exclusion and rejection. That just does not seem right to me. It does not seem a response consistent with our highest Christian principles or worthy of our better natures.

None of us has all the answers. On interpreting some of these questions, reasonable people can disagree. But if we lack certainty in moving forward on this issue, we should err in the direction of fairness, compassion, and inclusion. Those are the ideals that matter most. Without compromising those ideals, we should and we can find a way to say to our gay brothers and lesbian sisters, “Yes!”

---

Note: The Dialogue Foundation provides the web format of this article as a courtesy. There may be unintentional differences from the printed version. For citational and bibliographical purposes, please use the printed version or the PDFs provided online and on JSTOR.

[1] With ninety-eight endnotes, Muhlestein certainly has not erred on the side of under-documentation. But I learned long ago that no reliable direct correlation exists between the quantity of documentation and the quality of its application. Ultimately, an argument must stand solidly on its own legs.

[2] The biblical passages cited by Muhlestein include no mention of the accepted practice of polygamy among Old Testament peoples, or for that matter, any mention of Mormonism’s polygamist doctrine and history.

[3] For a useful discussion of the historical evolution of marriage as a social institution, see Stephanie Coontz, Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage (New York: Viking, 2005). Through much of its history, marriage was primarily about family alliances, the consolidation and preservation of wealth and power, and/or the practical division of labor for family survival. If love entered into it, that was a bonus. Accordingly, sexual fidelity—particularly for males—was often ignored.

[4] In July 2006 the American Academy of Pediatrics issued the following statement: “There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than twenty-five years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents’ sexual orientation and any measure of a child’s emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with one or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families.” Quoted in Evan Wolfson, “The Freedom to Marry: Keep Dancing,” July 12, 2006, http://www.advocate.com/print_article_ekticl33556.asp (accessed July 25, 2006). In the previous month, the Arkansas Supreme Court unanimously rejected arguments to deny marriage to gays. It received briefs from, among others, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Psychiatric Association, the As-sociation to Benefit Children, and the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers calling for an end to marriage discrimination in the interest of children and families. Ibid.

Muhlestein cites a study stating that children in single-parent households do not do as well as those from traditional two-parent households (note 17). This is true regardless of the gender or sexual orientation of the parents. Two are better than one. And it constitutes yet another argument in favor of allowing gay marriages to give children of a gay parent the benefit of an additional nurturing adult in their home.

Doubtless, the biggest challenge to children reared in gay or lesbian households is the irrational prejudice against their families that they must sometimes contend with. Is the existence of that prejudice a sufficient rationalization for banning gay marriage? Shall we punish the victims rather than eradicate the cause of the injustice?

[5] Chief Judge Judith Kaye wrote a powerful and persuasive dissent from the New York Supreme Court’s 4–2 refusal to strike down the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage: “The defendants primarily assert an interest in encouraging procreation within marriage. But while encouraging oppo-site-sex couples to marry before they have children is certainly a legitimate interest of the State, the exclusion of gay men and lesbians from marriage in no way furthers this interest. There are enough marriage licenses to go around for everyone. ...[After all,] no one rationally decides to have children because gays and lesbians are excluded from marriage.” Wolfson, “The Freedom to Marry.”

[6] Whose obligation is it, after all, to maintain the birthrate? Cannot heterosexual couples have more children if necessary for the common good? But given the steady expansion of our national population, is this really a problem?

[7] The phrase “homosexual lifestyle” paints imprecisely with a very broad brush. Just as with heterosexuals, there are numerous homosexual lifestyles. But if Muhlestein is alluding to “illicit” sexual behavior as central to this “lifestyle,” he should consider that legalizing gay marriage would discourage sexual promiscuity for those who choose to marry (just as it does for heterosexuals), would foster stability and sexual responsibility, and would make their sexual activity “licit.”

[8] Muhlestein makes a stab at explaining—in ways that support his thesis—several unresolved questions in the gene research. These complex questions cannot be adequately treated in so short an article. I think that both he and I are out of our depth in attempting to analyze such technical matters and should yield to expert interpreters.

[9] Simon Levay, “The Biology of Sexual Orientation.” AOL Hometown, 2003, updated February 2006 (accessed July 2006).

[10] For the results of a study of gender-atypical behavior distribution among homosexual and heterosexual persons, see Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978).

[11] The Kinsey H-H Scale placed total heterosexuality (0) at one pole and total homosexuality (6) at the other. Between the extreme points occur varying degrees of bisexuality. In the middle (at 3) Kinsey located evenly bisexual persons. Individuals assigned scale numbers of 1 and 2 would be dominantly heterosexual, with some degree of homosexual attraction; those assigned 4 and 5 would be relatively more homosexual but with some manifestations of heterosexual attraction. Kinsey based scale number assignments on extensive questioning of sample subjects concerning psychic indications (feelings, fantasies, dreams) and actual sexual experiences. See Alfred Kinsey, Wardell Pomeroy, and Clyde Martin, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1948) for statistical distribution along the H-H scale of the numerically large sample in Kinsey’s study.

[12] Those who claim that reparative therapies successfully eliminate dominant homosexual desires and enable satisfactory heterosexual functioning do not as a rule conduct careful follow-up studies to confirm that the ap-parent change of sexual orientation is permanent. I wonder why? Nor do they explore the degree to which a compelling need for religious/social conformity may cause such “changed” persons to persuade themselves against their true feelings. Not least, the proponents of such change therapies rarely differentiate carefully between strongly oriented homosexuals (5-6 on the H-H Kinsey Scale) and bisexuals (2, 3, 4 H-H measurement). The latter may well be able to function heterosexually if so motivated, but to claim for these individuals a change of underlying orientation as a result of therapy is misleading.

[13] Some suggest that homosexuals could be allowed to enter into formalized “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” while the word “marriage” retains its established meaning and restrictions. Several years ago I thought that would be a practical compromise, but I have changed my mind. I now agree with the editors of the conservative New Republic, who in 2000—following a Vermont Supreme Court ruling in favor of supporters of gay unions (Baker v. State)—wrote this: “Post Vermont, we have entered a different world. But it contains pitfalls as well as opportunities. One danger is that supporters of equal marriage rights will accept a semantic compromise that would grant homosexuals every benefit and responsibility of civil marriage but deny them the word. The Vermont legislature is under pressure to construct an elaborate parallel institution, a kind of super-domestic partnership, that would be identical in all legal respects to marriage but not invoke the m-word. There is an old phrase for this kind of arrangement: separate but equal. To grant homosexuals all the substance of marriage while denying them the institution is, in some ways, a purer form of bigotry than denying them any rights at all. It is to devise a pseudo-institution to both erase inequality and at the same time perpetuate it. What if Virginia had struck down interracial-marriage bans [Loving v. Virginia, 1967] only to erect a new distinction between same-race marriages and mixed-race ‘domestic partnerships’?

“There is in fact no argument for a domestic-partnership compromise except that the maintenance of stigma is an important social value—that if homosexuals are finally allowed on the marriage bus, they should still be re-quired to sit in the back. This ‘solution’ smacks of the equally incoherent half-measure of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ another unwieldy contraption that was designed to overcome discrimination but instead has ruthlessly reinforced it. Equality is equality. Marriage is marriage. There is no ultimate moral or political answer to this question but to grant both. And to keep marshaling the moral, religious, civic, and human reasons why it is an eminently important and noble thing to do.” Editors, “Separate but Equal?” New Republic, January 10, 2000, 9.

[14] Some of what follows here is adapted from my essay, “Sexual Morality Revisited,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 37, no. 3 (Fall 2004): 114–36.

[15] Thomas More’s The Soul of Sex (New York: HarperCollins, 1998) is an extended discussion of this rich potentiality.

[16] Until recently, the Church has declared (1) that homosexual feelings are self-chosen, the result of yielding to Satan’s temptations,(2) that through prayer, righteous living, and the atonement of Christ such feelings can be made to go away (the Church unambiguously supported various reparation therapies); (3) that those with homosexual feelings should enter into heterosexual traditional marriage as a means of reparation; (4) that for one to declare openly his identity as homosexual (even without homosexual behavior) was grounds for compromised status in the Church and possible disciplinary action. Now, General Authorities are moving by degrees away from all of these earlier positions. Speaking for the Church, designated General Authorities acknowledge (1) that the causes of homosexuality are not known but are deep-seated and may be impossible to change; (2) that homosexual thoughts are not necessarily the result of unrighteous living, and that prayer, righteous living, and the atonement of Christ will not necessarily make such homoerotic attractions go away; (3) that heterosexual marriage should not be regarded as a cure for homosexual feelings; and (4) that if those with homo-sexual feelings do not engage in homosexual behaviors, they can participate fully in the Church and—in President Hinckley’s words—“go forward like any other member.” Gordon B. Hinckley, “What Are People Asking about Us?” Ensign, November 1998, 71; Elders Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman, interviewed by LDS Public Relations, “Same Gender Attraction,” August 2006 (accessed February 2007); Dallin H. Oaks, “Same-Gender Attraction,” Ensign, October 1995, 7–14. These gradual changes are significant, and they underscore the fact that further evolution of the Church’s position, even further revelation, in these matters is entirely possible.

[17] First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Ensign, November 1995, 102; also http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.

[post_title] => A Case for Same-Sex Marriage: Reply to Randolph Muhlestein [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 40.3 (Fall 2007): 50–60
These articles were about legal arguments. The case against argued that marriage was already tenuous and allowing same-sex marriage would doom it, suggesting that people would become homosexuals if same-sex marriage were an option. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => a-case-for-same-sex-marriage-reply-to-randolph-muhlestein [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-08-05 20:26:20 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-08-05 20:26:20 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=10167 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1