First, some definitions.

Omniscience is the attribute of possessing complete and unlimited knowledge. An omniscient being knows everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen. This includes all events, decisions, and actions of all creatures throughout time.

Free will is the ability to choose (will) between different possible courses of action unimpeded (free). It implies that individuals have can make choices that are genuinely their own, not determined by prior causes or divine intervention.

Now, onto why the two are incompatible.

First, omniscience implies predetermined knowledge. In other words, if God is omniscient, then God knows all our future actions.

For God to be omniscience , they must have complete knowledge of future events, encompassing every choice we will ever make.

Second, predetermined knowledge implies necessity. If God knows all our future actions, then those actions must necessarily occur as God knows them.

For God’s knowledge to be omniscient, it must be perfect and cannot be wrong, meaning that your future choices are, in some sense, fixed.

Third, necessity contradicts free will. If our actions are necessary and cannot be otherwise, then we don’t have the ability to choose freely. Thus, we do not possess free will.

Free will, by definition, requires the ability to choose between genuine alternatives. If our actions are predetermined and must occur as God knows them, then it appears we lack the genuine ability to choose otherwise, undermining the concept of free will.

For instance, if God knows that you will choose to eat cereal for breakfast tomorrow, it seems that the choice is already set in stone and you can’t truly choose otherwise without negating God’s omniscience.

The argument works the other way, too. If we do, indeed, have free will—if we actually can choose to eat cereal for breakfast tomorrow—then God can’t be omniscient. At least not in the strictest meaning of the word.

As a result, I believe we must choose whether to believe in an omniscient God or whether to believe in free will.

Peggy Fletcher Stack, senior religion reporter at The Salt Lake Tribune, recently sat down with Kearon to interview him on his new calling.

As a queer member of the church, there were a few of Kearon’s remarks regarding marginalized and queer people that I felt prompted to comment on.

There are lots of margins and we’ve probably all experienced margins of our own by some degree. But the message to anybody on the margin is: You’re not. You might feel it, and there might be reasons for that. But, again, we turn back to Heavenly Father, who sees none of that and to his son, Jesus Christ, who is infinitely loving and compassionate and wants to see all of us healed. I was thinking this morning about the early astronauts who went up into space and even to the moon and looked back and what did they see? They saw the earth but they didn’t see peoples [or] orders and it changed them. And that’s just from that distance. How does it appear from heaven? He doesn’t want anybody to feel on the margin.

Whether its disabled members, queer members, racialized members, or any other members who find themselves on the margins of society (including within the church), we aren’t marginalized because of God’s view of us. We already recognize that God considers our souls to have great worth (D&C 18:10).

No, we’re marginalized because we live in a world, a society, even a church, not designed for us. And that exclusionary design is what pushes us to the margins.

Black people couldn’t hold the priesthood or attend the temple for over 100 years in the church, not because of how God views them, but because of the policies established by church leaders.

Trans men can’t hold the priesthood, not because of how God views them, but because of the policies established by church leaders.

Sitting in the temple endowment ceremony is uncomfortable for disabled people like me, not because of how God views us, but because of how church leaders designed the temple and its ceremonies.

The marginalized people in the church are marginalized because of how the church, as an institution (including its programmes), is designed. Telling us that God doesn’t want anyone to feel on the margin doesn’t change that we are on the margin.

And it’s not something we feel. Marginalization isn’t an emotion. If it were, then we could just feel a different emotion and make the marginalization vanish.

One more thing from that particular quote: “Jesus Christ, who is infinitely loving and compassionate and wants to see all of us healed”.

It’s the church that needs healing, not us.

Racialized people don’t need healing from the racist policies and practices of the church. The church needs to heal.

Queer people don’t need healing from the anti-queer policies and practices of the church. The church needs to heal.

Disabled people don’t need healing from the ableist policies and practices of the church. The church needs to heal.

And so on.

The problem doesn’t lie with us. We aren’t the ones responsible for our marginalization.

We need to treat [LGBTQ people] like everybody else, treat them as the Savior treated those he ran into. … He blessed them. That’s our model. The invitation to all of us is to get better at being like him. When we treat people the way he would have us treat them, we feel more peace, we feel more joy. And that’s what we want for them.

Queer members don’t need blessings. We need change. If you want to treat us the way Jesus would have you treat us, perhaps you should consider that we have no recorded words from Jesus that say queer people should be treated differently in any capacity. There is no canonized declaration from Jesus to oppose marriage equality, to practice conversion therapy, or to prohibit the children of queer parents from being baptized.

The practices and policies of the church hurt us. Jesus did not establish a gospel of harm; he established a gospel of peace, one built on unconditional love. There’s a reason why the prophet Mormon defined charity as the pure love of Christ (Moro. 7:45).

I’m not sure what is meant by “And that’s what we want for them.” Everything prior to that was about what non-queer members and leaders should do, and how they will feel if they do those things. So what you want for us is for you to feel more peace and more joy? I can assure that is not what we want.

We want full membership in the church, in every capacity, governed by established guidelines, so there is consistency from ward to ward and from stake to stake. That’s more important than whether you feel peace and joy in the process.

It’s time for us to feel peace. It’s time for us to feel joy.

People seem pretty excited about Kearon’s appointment. As a queer member of the church, I’m not holding my breath.

It was such a lovely service. It was inspiring and comforting and emotional. Honestly, I can’t remember the last time I attended a church services as emotional as this one.

Southminster has been very open about their new designation. They have signage both inside and outside in their building. It’s quite obvious. No queer person who shows up to this church will ever need to guess whether they will be welcome there.

I long for the day when a queer person can show up to any LDS building to worship and not have to roll the dice on whether they’ll be accepted, let alone welcomed.

When I came out 4 years ago online, I had to calculate the risk that action carried once it got back to my church leadership.

When I decided to come out publicly at church 2.5 years ago, I had to determine whether anyone would try to stop me as I did so or reprimand me afterward.

Last year, we got a new bishop, and I had to spend emotional and mental labour on worrying whether his replacement would be as accepting (or more) about my sexual orientation as he had and what that might mean for my participation level in the church.

And when our new bishop is replaced, I’ll have to do the same thing once again.

There have been situations over the last 4 years at church where ward members have said hurtful, anti-queer things, and I see those who reach out in support and those who stay silent. I see which of my leaders try to offer support and which ones do not.

For a church that, theoretically, has at its core the declaration to love our neighbour as ourselves, this should not be the case. Queer Mormons should feel loved when they attend a Mormon church.

So many times, we don’t.

It’s too bad I had to attend a different church to be shown that I, as a queer person, belong.

I found the citations they used to justify their homophobic restrictions intriguing, and I thought I’d take a look at their statements here.

First, Oaks:

God’s plan, founded on eternal truth, requires that exaltation can be attained only through faithfulness to the covenants of an eternal marriage between a man and a woman in the holy temple

Then Nelson:

The Lord has clearly taught that only men and women who are sealed as husband and wife in the temple, and who keep their covenants, will be together throughout the eternities.

It’s interesting how strong the language is in both quotes. Oaks says that God’s plan requires that exaltation comes only to a man and a woman who are married in the temple (through their faithfulness). Nelson claims that the Lord clearly taught that “together forever” only comes to a husband and a wife sealed in the temple.

Requires.

Clearly taught.

Those are confident choices.

The problem, however, is that there is absolutely no scriptural evidence for these claims. And the scriptural sources they cite don’t support their argument.

Oaks, for example, cites two scriptures: 1 Corinthians 11:11 and Doctrine and Covenants 132:19–20.

Here’s 1 Cor. 11:11:

Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

Paul is not talking about eternal marriage in this passage. Let’s look at the surround verses for context:

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

You see, this passage isn’t talking about eternal marriage or exaltation in the celestial kingdom. Rather, it’s discussing the interdependence of men and woman in a relationship. I mean, technically, he’s not even saying “husband” and ”wife”.

Now, let’s look at D&C 132:19–20

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

20 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.

This passage only says that if a man marries a wife they shall receive exaltation and glory in all things. Granted, it has a few prequisites:

• The marriage has to be done by the Lord’s law
• The marriage has to be done by the new and everlasting covenant
• The marriage has to be sealed the Holy Spirit of promise
• The man can’t commit murder through shedding innocent blood

Regardless, the point being is that it’s speaking about any given man: “if a man marry a wife”. It doesn’t say that a man must marry a wife to “pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things”.

I mean, if I eat take a shower, my body will get wet, but that doesn’t mean I can only get wet by taking a shower. I could go swimming, for example. Or someone could spray me with a hose. Or I could fall into a puddle.

Now let’s look at the scripture that Nelson used to justify is exclusionary claim, which was also found in D&C 132, but this time in verse 7:

And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

This isn’t even talking about marriage specifically. It’s just saying that earthly contracts have no effect in heaven unless they are “made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise”. I guess you could make the argument that it implies that marriages performed outside of the temple won’t last into the eternities.

Here’s the thing though. While Oaks and Nelson are suggesting that same-sex couples (and even opposite sex couples, where one of them is trans, if we’re being honest here) are restricted from exaltation (although they don’t explicitly say tha—it is pretty strongly implied), it’s only because the church won’t let them get sealed.

If exaltation of a couple depends on a sealing by the Holy Spirit of promise and that sealing takes place only in the temple (which D&C 132 doesn’t state, but let’s say that current practice is condoned by God), the only reason these couples can’t be exalted together is that church policy prevents them from being sealed in the temple.

We see similar wording in the previous section of the Doctrine and Covenants:

1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

D&C 131:1–4

Once again, a man must enter in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage to received the highest degree of celestial glory. it doesn’t even say that he needs to marry a woman in this case. Nor does it say anything about women having the same requirements.

Even so, if the so-called “new and everlasting covenant of marriage” refers to temple sealing, then any policy that stops a man from obtaining a temple sealing is also preventing him from attaining the highest degree. of celestial glory.

For decades, the church prohibited Black men from getting sealed in the temple. Had the church not cancelled that racist policy, Black men around the world would continue to be restricted from attaining the highest degree of celestial glory, not because of their own failings, but because of the policies the church itself implemented.

(And, of course, so would all Black people, not just men.)

The current practice to prohibit some queer couples from being sealed is based in policy, not scripture. Just as was the case for the prohibition based on skin colour.

And policies can change.

Oh, and one last thing. Have Oaks and Nelson forgotten that the section they cited—Doctrine and Covenants 132—is outlining the practice of plural marriage? Seems a tad ironic.

Of course, Jesus famously sees past the binary options of their question meant to bait them and encourages them to look at their dichotomy from a different lens: that anyone of them who was sinless could stone her.

I don’t really want to discuss that part of the story, as it’s probably been picked apart a lot. However, there is one element toward the end of the story that I have been thinking about recently.

After the scribes and Pharisees are overcome with guilt at Jesus’s carefully worded invitation and leave the scene, Jesus, who had been focusing his attention to the ground and missed their departure—asks the unnamed woman where her accusers were, whether any of them had condemned her.

When she said that no one had ended up condemning her, he responded with “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.”

The part I want to focus on is “sin no more”.

When I hear this story discussed, when we get to this point, almost always people frame it as Jesus labelling her actions as sinful, despite having just said he didn’t condemn her. Almost as though this were a prime example of the oft-repeated saying, “Love the sinner. Hate the sin.” According to this interpretation, Jesus is being merciful to her, while acknowledging the wrongfulness of her actions.

But I wonder if “sin no more” might mean something else.

Just 3 chapters before another familiar story takes place. Jesus arrives at the Pool of Bethesda, where he finds a man who has been living with an “infirmary” for nearly 40 years. People believed the pool and supernatural healing properties at certain times, so some who travel to the pool hoping to be healed of their afflictions. We learn that each time the man has tried getting to pool, he is pushed aside by others, so he keeps missing the short healing window.

Jesus invites him to rise, take up his bed, and walk. Which he then does, having been healed by Jesus, rather than by the waters of the pool. In the commotion of being healed and being subjected to questioning by some nearby Jews, the man ends up separated from Jesus. However, the two cross paths later in the temple. The text says that Jesus “found” him in the temple, but it isn’t clear whether he was searching for him or just came across him there.

Regardless, having encountered him a second time, Jesus counsels him, “Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.”

Once again, he uses the phrase “sin no more”.

This time, however, the counsel is less cut and dried. When he declared it to the woman mentioned earlier in this post, it was pretty apparent to most readers that he was referring to adultery as sin and telling her to not commit adultery anymore.

However, in this case, despite using the exact same phrasing, it’s not clear what sin Jesus would be referring to that he wanted the man to cease committing.

In this instance, the man was at the pool, sick with an illness, trying to be healed. There was no obvious sin that he was committing. As such, it’s not obvious that there was a specific sin he had to “no more” commit.

Perhaps Jesus saw this opportunity to help the person to start not only a new physical life with his newfound freedom and mobility but also to start a new spiritual life. Not because he had a particular sin to stop doing but because he should commit to living a life dedicated to trying to do what’s right.

And if that’s the case, maybe the first story I referenced earlier in this post wasn’t so much about the woman having to no longer commit adultery, but rather an invitation to begin a new spiritual life, born again as a new follower of Jesus.

So, maybe it’s less a specific warning to avoid adultery and more a general invitation to just do better overall.

Jesus taught of a new fold, a new body, a new kingdom, one founded on egalitarianism. But it will only come to pass through Christian discipleship.
Real discipleship, where we follow the example Jesus has set for us.

Reading scripture doesn’t make us Christian. Praying doesn’t make us Christian. Going to church doesn’t make us Christian. Being like Christ is what makes a Christian. After all, Jesus said, “Follow me”.

That salvation from oppression and inequality will only come about through our labour, through our doing what he has asked: mourn with others, love others, and improve the material conditions of those who society has marginalized.

Jesus’s gospel is a gospel of liberation, but that liberation must come through our actions. Particularly our collective actions.

Easter Sunday isn’t just about resurrection. It’s also about hope—hope in a new society where everyone is treated equally, everyone has their material needs taken care of, and we love one another.

Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.

Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.

Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the field, saith the Lord of hosts.

This scripture is used to teach that if we don’t pay our tithing, we’re robbing God.

But there is some context missing when we isolate these 4 verses and proof text them onto our modern day tenets.

You see, the Lord isn’t speaking to the broader people in these verses. In first verse of the previous chapter, we read: “And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you.”

At no point in the 16 other verses of chapter 2 or the first 7 verses of chapter 3 does Malachi ever change the person he’s addressing.

These verses, then, seem to be indicating that the Lord is rebuking the priests for robbing the Lord. And with this context, it seems that this verse isn’t saying that the priests are robbing God by not paying their tithing. Rather, it seems as though they’re robbing God by using the tithing for something other than filling the storehouse.

A modern-day parallel would be a church that collects a tithe and then using it for purposes other the Lord’s purposes. For example, maybe they pay their leaders high salaries while not running soup kitchens. Or maybe they invest in profit-generating endeavours instead of setting up homeless shelters.

It would do us all well to keep this scripture in mind, not just as motivation for paying our own tithing but to help us keep our leaders accountable.

As most people probably know, the story opens with the Lord telling Jonah to go preach to the residents of Ninevah, and Jonah abdicates this call by running away.

At the start of the lesson, the instructor asked the class why they thought Jonah was running away from the call, and most of the responses centred around the idea that Jonah was afraid of the Assyrians because of what they did to the Israelites.

But I think the answer to this question comes in verse two of the fourth chapter:

And he prayed unto the Lord, and said, I pray thee, O Lord, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil.

The word for is the key to understanding this verse. This word has many meanings, but one of those meanings is that it is synonymous with the word because.

We could rewrite that part as: “I fled before unto Tarshish because I knew that thou art a gracious God, merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness”.

In other words, Jonah knew that the Lord would be able to change the people of Ninevah. You see, Jonah didn’t try to hide because he was afraid of what the Assyrians might do to him if he did as the Lord asked. He tried to hide because he was afraid that the people of Ninevah would repent and, in the process, be spared from destruction.

And because of his own biases and prejudices, he wanted them destroyed.

The first verse of that same chapter tells the reader that Jonah is angry. We sometimes interpret that to mean that Jonah was angry that the people of Ninevah weren’t destroyed.

But check out verse 3:

Wherefore now, O Lord, take, I beseech thee, my life from me; for it is better for me to die than to live.

When we look at this verse in connection to verse 2, it seems to indicate that he wasn’t angry at the people of Ninevah not being destroyed. Rather, he seems angry at himself. He seems to recognize that his initial response to the prophetic call—to ignore preaching repentance so the people of Ninevah wouldn’t change and then not be saved from destruction—was wrong, and that realization now filled him with anguish.

One other lesson I learned was when the people on the ship that Jonah was travelling on and that was stuck in a violent storm cast lots to see who was responsible for the storm.

Up to this point, Jonah remained silent as to being the reason for the storm, assuming he had realized the connection between the storm and his abdication. He seems to have hid it for as long as he could. Even right up to the point where they are casting lots, he still hasn’t said anything. It wasn’t until the lot fell on him that he comes clean.

But how many of us are like that? How many times have you tried to hide responsibility for something you have done, whether denying it was you, blaming someone else, or just playing innocent, yet even when the evidence is pointing toward you being the culprit, you still dig in and deny your involvement?

At least Jonah had the integrity to come clean. Granted, he could’ve come clean much earlier, too.

I think the story of Jonah has more nuance and complexity than we are normally willing to give it.

You can read my coming our story here, but I’ll say this much: my coming out process was super fast, like a whirlwind. I realized it one day and came out to Mary, my parents, and my siblings the next, as well as publish a coming post online and on my social media accounts.

At the time, in-person church had been cancelled, and while I’m sure some of our ward members had seen my coming out blog post and social media posts, I hadn’t really come out in a church setting specifically. And that meant most of the ward probably didn’t know that I’m queer.

In fact, it wouldn’t be until nearly a year and a half later when I’d finally get that chance.

Our stake went back to in-person services last summer. If you wanted to watch the service from home, you had to get special permission. And since we didn’t feel as though we had extraordinary circumstances (even though we wanted to avoid exposure to the Delta and emerging Omicron variants of the coronavirus), we decided to begin attending in person.

The first mandated in-person service for our ward was the fast Sunday in August 2021.

I knew I wanted to come out to the ward and some point, and I realized that fast and testimony would be as good a time as any. And just like I pulled off the bandaid—so to speak—when I came out to my family and online, I did the same thing to my fellow ward members: coming out in person, at the mic, in sacrament meeting, on my first real day back since the start of the pandemic.

I told them all I was bisexual. I’ve come to realize since I first came out that my sexuality is more complex than that, it just seemed easier to say that than to go into a lecture on introductory queer theory.

And I have absolutely no regrets in coming out to the ward.

I had several people come up to me after the meeting in person and over email throughout the next few days, and that felt special. But there were 4 specific experiences that really stuck out to me, confirming that coming out at church was the right thing for me to do.

I came out because I wanted people to know that there are queer people in this ward. I wanted closeted queer people to know that they’re not alone and straight people to know that there was a specific person hearing what you’re saying.

The first experience occurred shortly after I was called to be the ward Sunday School president. This happened in the spring of 2021, roughly a year after coming out.

As one does, I reached out to the previous Sunday School president to coordinate initiatives, see how his teachers are doing, discuss goals he had set, and so on.

His response shocked me.

I’m glad the Bishop found someone to fill the seat of such an important calling. I want you to know where I stand on a few things. I believe that the LGBT as an organization and many of its members are immoral, next I also believe socialism is evil. I’m going to find it hard to support anyone who leads his family down these 2 roads. With saying that the Bishop and the Lord sees something in you that I am ignorant of, so I will put away my pride and I will raise my hand to the square on Sunday.

I never had him or his spouse added on social media, and it’d be 5 more months before I’d come out and church. I don’t think he knew I was queer, but he must have known that we had queer children.

This reply from the previous Sunday School president obviously wasn’t why I was glad I came out at church. For one, I hadn’t even come out at church yet, and this response was hurtful. How could I be grateful for something that hurt me.

No, what I’m grateful for is that just moments after getting this email, I actually received an email from our bishop, who happens to still be out bishop.

You see, the former Sunday School president had, for some reason, decided to CC the bishop on the email he sent in reply to mine. So the bishop saw that response. He must’ve known that I’m queer. I don’t have him added on social media, but I do have his spouse added on Facebook, and it’s possible his wife told him when I came out the previous spring. I also have one of his counsellors added on Facebook, so he also might have said something.

Regardless, he phoned me almost immediately after the email went out, and he wanted to make sure I was okay. He recognized the pain that email could cause, and he wanted to mitigate that damage. After I assured him that I was fine (and honestly, I was hurt, but not too hurt), he told me he’d reach out to the former Sunday School president and discuss what he had done.

So the first reason I’m glad I came out (even though I hadn’t technically come out at church yet) was because it helped me to know that at least one person in our ward leadership recognized that his ward contained queer members who wanted to participate, and he wanted to facilitate that participation.

The second reason I’m glad I came out at church was because of an experience I had at church that same day.

After the adult Sunday School let out and people were shuffling around to go home, someone who had been sitting behind me reached out to introduce himself.

It turns out that he and his spouse weren’t together anymore. They had a child together, but he hadn’t been active for a while. He promised her at one point that once provincial health protections had been lifted and he could attend church in person, he would take their child to church. And his first day back happened to be my first day back, when I bore my testimony and came out at church.

It turns out that he’s queer, and he had been concerned about coming back to church as a queer person, so hearing me coming out so publicly helped him know that he wasn’t alone.

The third reason was a few months ago, roughly a year after I came out at church, one of the older women in our ward came up to me prior to sacrament service beginning. She came out to me as queer. It’s all so new to her, and she stumbled through trying to communicate clearly her queerness. But it was unmistakable. More importantly, she felt comfortable coming out to me. In fact, it was the first time she had come out to anyone.

And the final reason why I’m glad I came out at church is that the stake presidency recently had me attend the bishops training meeting, where they were providing counsel to the stake’s bishops (and their counsellors, for those who attended) on the importance of creating welcoming space for the queer members who were living in their wards, even if they had no idea they were there.

It was an opportunity for me to share my experiences, to answer questions from these bishops, and to dispel some myths. I’m not sure how that meeting would’ve gone if I hadn’t been there, and I was there because I had come out and the stake presidency knew that I’m queer.

The stake presidency also asked for advice and guidance on things the stake can do to create a more affirming and inclusive space for queer members, which I gave him. It remains to be seen how much of those recommendations will end up being implemented.

Either way, as I said, I have no regrets coming out at church. Good things have happened because of it.

I know not everyone is in a position to do that. But I’m glad I am, and I hope people like that can know that they’re not alone.

No creature is so lowly,
No sinner so depraved,
But feels thy presence holy
And thru thy love is saved.
Tho craven friends betray thee,
They feel thy love’s embrace;
The very foes who slay thee
Have access to thy grace

This verse reminded me of Luke 23:34, when Jesus, hanging on the cross, said, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” And those two things—the second verse of the hymn and this verse from the Gospels—prompted me to ponder this idea of universal grace.

I was left wondering how if anyone can access Jesus’s grace, even his enemies—those particularly who violently persecuted him—and I am someone who wants to be like Jesus, then perhaps showing grace is something I can do better at.

Perhaps I can show grace for those who are unkind toward me. Perhaps I can be more empathetic and compassionate toward those who try to harm me. Perhaps I can love my enemies, do good to them who hate me, bless them who curse me, and pray for them who despitefully use me.

Which can be tough to do, given that our first instinct is often to lash out, to take offense, to feel hurt, or to seek revenge. And then our heart becomes hardened and our mind preoccupied with harm toward others. The kindness shown to us propagates the unkindness we now show to others.

Grace, I think, can offer us freedom—freedom from anger and retribution. And in the process of extending grace to others, including those who harm us, we can find ourselves on the path to developing the love of Christ.