I recently posted a status update regarding the rhetoric the church uses that leads to homophobia among its members. In some of the comments on that post and on versions others shared of that post, people were denying that this rhetoric exists. I thought I’d take recent examples of general conference talks and Ensign articles to show how homophobia is taught to Latter-day Saints in official ways, even if they are covert or indirect.
Now, before I do that, I just want to briefly touch on the most obvious way the church teaches homophobia, and that is through it 2015 Exclusionary Policy, which labels members who are married to someone of the same sex as apostate, demands a mandatory disciplinary court, and excludes their children from participating in sacramental rights. No matter how you try to rationalize this policy as right, it discriminates against married couples based on sexual orientation, which by definition is homophobic.
Okay, onto my examples. I chose examples that have been published within the last 5 years.
1. “Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, but same-sex marriage is only a counterfeit.” Larry R. Lawrence. “The War Goes On“. Ensign (April 2017, p. 37).
Here, we see a leading authority state in an official publication that not only are same-sex marriages not the same as straight marriages, but they are counterfeit, that they are fake. This delegitimizes both marriage equality in general and same-sex marriages specifically. It erases the lived experiences of same-sex couples as they devote their lives to each other as partners and (where applicable) as parents to their children. It teaches Latter-day Saints that these couples are not actually in marriages, and if they’re not actually married, they must be sinful.
2. “Of special concern to us should be those who struggle with same-sex attraction. It is a whirlwind of enormous velocity. I want to express my love and admiration for those who courageously confront this trial of faith.” Neil L. Andersen. “Spiritual Whirlwinds“. General Conference (April 2014).
Framing homosexuality as a struggle is problematic, and it’s a phrasing used by other speakers and writers.
First, it presents the struggle as something beyond the control of the individual, and of course of the church. It frames it as a trial, something that can be overcome, that one can just get over if they just persevere and endure long enough. Except homosexuality isn’t something that is overcome, at least not any more so than heterosexuality is.
Second, this framing ignores the role of the church in creating the struggle. Being gay in the church is not a struggle because being gay is a struggle; it’s a struggle because the church teaches that being gay is less than the ideal. And the entire organization (including its programmes and policies) is designed around the ideal. People who are gay struggle not because they are gay but because they’re told they should be straight.
3. Laws legalizing so-called “same-sex marriage” do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it.” Dallin H. Oaks. “No Other Gods“. General Conference (October 2013).
Using “so-called” is problematic because it implies that a more preferred term exists. Although, this seems to be the church’s preferred term; I rarely see them use anything else. Even so, using “so-called” is another way to delegitimize homosexual relationships. The term is made up, just like the relationship is made up.
As well, saying that God’s laws differ from a country’s laws tells gay members that if they want to get married as a sign of love and devotion to someone, they need to leave the church. This rhetoric might solidify your base, but at the same time, it sends the message to your gay members that they should leave if they want to marry the love of their life.
4. “Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. … While opposing homosexual behavior, the Church reaches out with understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender.” Handbook 2: Administering the Church, [2010], 21.4.5; 21.4.6.
This is technically older than 5 years, but it was included in a note for a talk given by Russell M. Nelson in 2013. Plus, this manual is still in circulation and is used by leaders of all sorts as a guide to administration within the church.
I realize that “homosexual behavior” is just a code phrase for “sex”, since the church hates using the word “sex”, but the problem with this phrasing is that it’s too inclusive. Behaviour includes benign things, like kissing, hugging, holding hands, or stroking hair, all normal signs of affection that are never seen as sinful for straight unmarried Mormons.
See, gay Mormons don’t have to be celibate just sexually; the church expects them to be celibate in every way. And not being able to show affection at all to a person you care for is going to cause anguish. It’s one thing to not have sex; it’s quite another to not even be able to hold hands.
Homosexual behaviour (assuming we’re talking only about sex here) is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality only if you believe the purposes of human sexuality is procreation exclusively. If human sexuality exists also as a way to show love, and there are certainly examples in General Conference suggesting that it is, then homosexual sex isn’t contrary to the purposes of human sexuality.
Also, you can’t oppose homosexuality and expect to be understanding. It’s impossible. If you oppose it, you already close your mind to understanding. You close your mind to the complicity you bear in creating the friction and conflict between being gay and being Mormon. And you truly can’t understand if you aren’t willing to see how your words and actions are oppressive.
5. “I am reminded of the news story about young children whose schoolteacher read a story to them about two princes falling in love. The teacher presented this material with no warning or notification. When parents asked to be notified if this story was to be read again in the future, the school refused. Would it really have harmed school administrators to let parents withdraw their children when the material being taught was contrary to their beliefs? The school’s decision seems like a direct assault on the role of parents in raising their children.” M. Russell Ballard. “The Eternal Importance of Family“. Liahona (January 2018).
Here, Ballard frames opposition to two men falling in love as “contrary to . . . beliefs”. The church (and some of its members) like to highlight that it’s making progress on LDS–LGBTQ relations, that the rhetoric it uses today is less damaging than it was in the past. But here we are again, just 6 months ago with a leader of the church implying that it’s okay to believe that two men (and I assume, two women) can’t (or shouldn’t) fall in love. And if you believe that two people of the same sex can’t/shouldn’t fall in love, then how are you going to develop the understanding that the handbook calls for? And if you believe two people of the same sex can’t fall in love, how will that affect your relationship with your gay child? Particularly when they are in a relationship?
6. “We recognize that everyone is a son or daughter of God and deserves to be treated as such. We all struggle with imperfections, some not of our choosing. But we also believe in an infinite Atonement that has the capacity in this life or the life to come to endow us with every power necessary to convert our weaknesses and imperfections into strengths.” Tad R. Callister. “The Lord’s Standard of Morality“. Liahona (March 2014).
This quote was from a section titled “Same-Gender Relationships”.
Here, Callister classifies being gay as an imperfection and a weakness, hearkening back to the statement above from Anderson on “struggle”. Saying something that is an inherent part of someone is flawed and weak is telling them that they are weak, that they lack, that they are less than the ideal. And since they don’t fit the ideal, there’s no place for them in the church.
7. “There are no homosexual members of the church. We are not defined by sexual attraction. We are not defined by sexual behavior. We are sons and daughters of God. . . . Some people have physical limitations: they may be born with a body that is not fully functional, or we may have an inclination to be attracted to those of the same sex.” David A. Bednar. Address to Chilean Latter-day Saints (23 February 2016).
This is a blatant attempt at homogenizing Mormons and erasing gays in the process. If there are no gay Mormons, then why can Mormons not hold hands with others of the same sex? Why are Mormons in a same-sex, legal marriage punished but not those in an opposite-sex, legal marriage? If there are no gay members of the church, then all members of the church would be treated equally, yet they’re not, as evidenced in the several quotes above.
Speaking of which, referring to being gay as a physical limitation just perpetuates the same idea that Callister presented above, that being gay is deficient, insufficient, incomplete, lacking, other. You’re not straight, so you’re defective.
And “inclination to be attracted to those of the same sex”? Really? An inclination? So actually being attracted to someone of the same sex isn’t real? It’s just an urge? But if you can’t bring yourself to say “or we may be attracted to those of the same sex”, then it’s no wonder that you’re going to say that there are no gay Latter-day Saints.
These are just a few examples I could find. My time was limited, and examples span back decades, of course. Plus, these are just for church magazines and presentations by church leaders. The list would be enormous if we included seminary and Sunday school classes, testimony and sacrament meetings, missionary discussions, and the numerous other occasions where members of the church express their unfounded opinion of LGBTQ issues.
And that’s not even touching on trans issues.
As I said elsewhere this week, anyone who can’t see the rhetoric within the church that others LGBTQ members and which subsequently encourages how members treat LGBTQ people (including their own people), they’re either blind or in denial.
