Half of our children now are estranged from the church. Each of them is trans. I don’t consider this a coincidence.

The church’s rhetoric pushes LGBTQ members out. Our 10yo told us that they don’t feel spiritually safe at church, that it’s not a spiritually safe place.

The church opposes same sex marriage. They don’t agree that gender isn’t binary. They see queer identity as abnormal, as a trial or burden one must overcome.

And these perspectives are reflected in the rhetoric we hear over the pulpit, in our classrooms, and from each other.

And when we use homophobic and transphobic rhetoric—even if we think we are supportive and open minded—because we think church is a safe place to say such comments, we forget that there are members in these meetings who hear us, who those comments personally apply to, who are hurt by them.

And over time, those hurt feelings build up, convincing them that they’re not wanted, that there’s no place for them.

Furthermore, because the church teaches and emphasizes the idea that we have all truth; that if Joseph Smith is a false prophet, it’s all wrong; that if the church is wrong, God must not exist, then it shouldn’t be surprising when people estranged from the church abandon religion entirely.

Not only does our rhetoric push LGBTQ people out of the church but it encourages them to burn it all on their way out.

It’s important to remember that in every large gathering of LDS members, there will be members attending who are also part of the LGBTQ community. I think it would be good for each of us, when addressing the saints in large numbers, to reflect on how the language we use around LGBTQ issues is received by LGBTQ members, even if the language is subtle and coded.

When we talk about how much things have changed over the last 23.5 years since the Proclamation was issued, and we frame the Proclamation as inspired in that context but don’t highlight any of the advancements in equal rights, we should wonder how those members who aren’t the gender they were assigned at birth or who couldn’t marry their loved one 20 years ago interpret our words.

Do they agree with us, seeing it as an inspired document? Or do they disagree with us, seeing it as a document opposed to (and perhaps even attacking) their own constitutional rights?

As well, we should wonder how non-LGTBQ members interpret our rhetoric when speaking about the inspiration of the Proclamation.

Do they agree with us that it is inspired? Do they take our comments as justification for their existing prejudices toward the LGBTQ community? Do our words support their erasure of trans members, or their delegitimization of marriage equality, or their unwavering support of recently rescinded mandatory church courts for fellow members who happen to be living in legal, loving, monogamous relationships?

If they don’t support their LGBTQ children when they come out, will they use the Proclamation as the basis for their exclusion of their children? Will the way we talk about the Proclamation give them ammunition to ostracize their loved ones? Or will our words encourage them to be inclusive, to be loving, to be advocates?

Our words influence those who hear them. And I think it is incumbent on those of who speak to be aware of that influence.

If our child is born with a penis, for example, the doctor tells us it’s a boy. We believe that doctor and raise that child as a boy. We assign him gendered pronouns and give him a gendered name. We envision him growing into a man one day. We dream of him falling in love with a woman and providing us with grandchildren one day.

But we never imagine him being gay. Not until he comes out to us or his behaviour makes us think he’s not straight.

Likewise, we never imagine him as a girl. Not until he comes out to us or his behaviour make us think he’s not cis.

And it’s the same with our daughters. We assume they’re straight and cis.

The doctor never says, “You’re child is neither a boy nor a girl. They’re somewhere in between, or both at the same time.” So we don’t either.

We see queerness as the other. No matter how many rainbow pins we wear or pride parades we attend, we will always see queerness as the exception to—even an abomination of—the norm. If we truly see queerness as normal, then why do we assign cisgender and heterosexual identities to our children by default when they’re born?

It’s why we’re shocked when our children come out to us. Why we cry when they reveal their true selves. Why we question everything we’ve said or done that may have ignorantly worsened their mental health.

Anti queerness is not just a problem found only in churches. Our society, and even our own families, are built on a foundation of homophobia and transphobia.

Video

I was reading it for the umpteenth time the other day, and I noticed two things:

• It doesn’t say that mothers should stay at home
• It doesn’t say that women should do all the housework

There are some parts where one could extrapolate the assumptions that women should stay home. For example:

“. . . fathers . . . are responsible to provide the necessities of life . . . for their families.”

One could assume that because fathers are singled out here that mothers must not have that responsibility. It’s just that, however: an assumption. Here’s another example of an extrapolation point:

“Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.”

One could assume here that this implies a mother must stay home, especially when combined with the previous sentence. Again, however, this is only implicit and not explicit. Nowhere in the proclamation does it actually say that women must stay at home. Even the responsibility of nurturing the children doesn’t require the parent to be at home 24 hours a day.

Consider the next sentence in the proclamation:

“In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.”

So, if fathers have an obligation to help mothers as equal partners in nurturing children, and they decide (as cultural tradition dictates) to work out of the home, how can they nurture their children? If fathers can nurture their children without having to be home 24 hours per day, certainly mothers can, too.

On my second point, there is just nothing anywhere that can be reasonably extrapolated to support the idea that women must do all the housework. There isn’t much else to say about that.