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.

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.

About halfway through his remarks, he said some things that are hurtful to queer Mormons. I want to discuss those remarks, and then talk about the response of Latter-day Saints to them.

I’ve been contemplating his words this week and people’s reactions to them. And I knew I wanted to write down my thoughts, but it’s taken a while to organize them.

So, let’s get into it.

We hope it isn’t a surprise to you that your Trustees are not deaf or blind to the feelings that swirl around marriage and the whole same-sex topic on campus.

That phrasing at the end of this sentence—the whole same-sex topic—is problematic. It makes it seem as though that queerness at BYU is nothing more than an idea that people are punting around. Being queer on campus—let alone in the church—is a real thing, real experiences that people have to live with.

I and many of my Brethren have spent more time and shed more tears on this subject than we could ever adequately convey to you this morning, or any morning.

Maybe the brethren have shed many tears and spent a lot of time on “the whole same-sex topic”, but however many tears and however much time, it hasn’t been enough. The fact that they have shed as many tears as they had and spent more time on it as they have and yet still end up saying hurtful things as found within these remarks clearly illustrates that it hasn’t been enough.

We have spent hours discussing what the doctrine of the Church can and cannot provide the individuals and families struggling over this difficult issue. So, it is with scar tissue of our own that we are trying to avoid — and hope all will try to avoid — language, symbols, and situations that are more divisive than unifying at the very time we want to show love for all of God’s children.

Scar tissue of their own? Really? Shedding a few tears and talking about queerness in the church somehow produces scars? If you have scars from doing so little, what do you think queer people have who have spent years trying to remain queer and Mormon, who have spent years celibate because that’s what they felt was right, who have spent years in conversion therapy to pray away the gay, who have spent years in a straight marriage because they thought it would cure them? What about those scars?

And divisive? Really? You think the rainbow is divisive? Do you not understand how divisive it is to sit in sacrament meeting after sacrament meeting and Sunday school class after Sunday school class hearing fellow ward members talk about the gay agenda? Queer people are the ones trying to bring about more inclusivity and unity in the church; they’re the ones trying to establish Zion, just as we covenant to do in the temple. They aren’t the ones being divisive.

In that spirit, let me go no farther before declaring unequivocally my love and that of my Brethren for those who live with this same-sex challenge and so much complexity that goes with it.

This statement is not a manifestation of love. This statement pathologizes queerness. Being queer isn’t a challenge. The challenge is being queer in the church. Being queer isn’t complex; being queer in the church is what’s complex. And it’s complex and challenging strictly because of the all the policies, practices, and teachings of the church that have othered and excluded queer members for so many years.

The fact that these words—and those that follow—were said make me question how unequivocal their love towards us actually is.

Too often the world has been unkind, in many instances crushingly cruel, to these our brothers and sisters.

The world? Heck, we don’t have to go even that far. The church has been unkind, and even crushingly cruel. This talk itself is hurtful to queer students at BYU and queer members of the church at large.

Like many of you, we have spent hours with them, and wept and prayed and wept again in an effort to offer love and hope while keeping the gospel strong and the obedience to commandments evident in every individual life.

Love is more than just crying. And praying for what exactly? That we’ll no longer be queer? That our queerness “challenge” will be overcome? That the burden the church itself puts on our backs will disappear? The words spoken in this address were not from someone who has true compassion for queer members.

We have to be careful that love and empathy do not get interpreted as condoning and advocacy, or that orthodoxy and loyalty to principle not be interpreted as unkindness or disloyalty to people. As near as I can tell, Christ never once withheld His love from anyone, but He also never once said to anyone, “Because I love you, you are exempt from keeping my commandments.”

Except Christ is the only one who has the authority to say who is and is not exempt from keeping the commandments. It is not our place to judge whether someone is being Mormon enough. And if you want to talk about what Christ did and did not say, maybe we should analyze everything he ever said about queer people.

—

Exactly. Nothing. He never once in his three-year ministry—according to the records we have—spoke about queerness, let alone that it was something to be fixed or endured, or that it was even sinful. No, instead, he showed us that a proper ministry is one that lifts up and empowers the marginalized. And lifting up and empowering queer people is not the current practice of the LDS church.

Why must we be careful that “love and empathy do not get interpreted as condoning and advocacy”? Why would it be wrong for queer people to think that we advocate for their rights to enjoy everything that non-queer people enjoy?

Plus, how much love and empathy is it really if you are expressing love while at the same time perpetuating the othering and marginalization of your queer members?

Yes, we will always need defenders of the faith, but “friendly fire” is a tragedy — and from time to time the Church, its leaders and some of our colleagues within the university community have taken such fire on this campus. And sometimes it isn’t friendly — wounding students and the parents of students who are confused about what so much recent flag-waving and parade-holding on this issue means.

It is bold of Holland to make the church out to be the victims in all this. After decades of excluding queer members, of pathologizing them, of marginalizing them, of even harming them, somehow queer members are now the aggressors and those who had been performing this harm and marginalization are the victims.

Honestly, this is pretty messed up.

Queer members still feel excluded, we still feel marginalized, we still feel the hurt and harm from the policies that still exist in the church, from the words still spoken over the pulpit, and from the political advocacy still embarked on by leaders in Salt Lake.

And yet to say that somehow we’re the oppressors because we want to be treated equally is even more hurtful.

I lived more than 45 years of my life believing I was straight because the society I grew up—and that includes the church—convinced me that I was, that anything else was wrong. When I came out, people removed me as a Facebook friend. When I was called as Sunday School president, a ward member said he couldn’t sustain me because of my stance on queer issues.

But somehow I’m the one shooting friendly fire because I wear a rainbow pin to church.

Holland’s words hurt. A lot. Not as much as the 2015 exclusionary policy, which felt like a gut punch. But it still hurt.

But honestly, it doesn’t surprise me. This is just one more example of the impossibility the church faces in trying “love the sinner” while “hating the sin”. They focus so much on queerness—and their paradigm of it being an inconvenience for their administration of a shrinking church—that they forget there are queer people.

They see the queerness of people as a burden, as a challenge, as something that is temporary, overcome either in this life or in the life to come. And they don’t see how this attitude is literally harming us.

This isn’t just a leadership problem either. Nor is it a problem with people on the right.

Queer people felt very alone on Monday, abandoned even. Some still do. It’s hard to feel welcome in a church whose leaders keep saying things that hurt you. It’s hard to feel like you belong when there is so much that says you don’t.

And that loneliness was amplified by the silence of allies.

Sure. I saw some people criticizing the remarks. I saw some people sharing posts on social media about how the musket fire would have to go through them. They were quick to perform their allyship.

But then what?

Did you reach out to the queer members you know? Did you see how they’re doing? Did you let them speak? Did you feel their feelings?

None of the allies I know reached out to me. I heard from literally no one in the 7 days since that talk. No one asked me how I’m doing. No one asked how I felt about the remarks? No one asked me how hurt I was.

And I know I’m not alone.

My experience may not be representative of all queer members—I know of some who did have people reach out to them in meaningful and helpful ways—but it is representative of some queer members.

And this experience reminds me of our baptismal covenants to bear one another’s burdens, to mourn with those who are mourning, and to comfort those who need comforting and our endowment covenant to establish Zion.

Ask yourself if the anger you felt from Holland’s words was sufficient to lighten the burden queer members bear. Did queer members feel like you were mourning with them, like you were trying to comfort them?

Or are they still struggling a week after you shared your social media meme or wrote your blog post?

And on that note, can the church itself ever truly claim that they bear one another’s burdens when they are the ones putting some of those burdens on the backs of their members?

Anyhow, over the last 20 years or so, my political views have grown more progressive, and that has accelerated over the last 6 or 7 years, where now I refer to myself as radically left in my politics. If you’re familiar with the political compass, here is where I sit.

As my politics have shifted, I’ve started to notice things in the LDS canon I hadn’t noticed before, seen things from new perspectives. At some point over the last few years, I came to the conclusion that LDS theology is well-positioned for leftist Christians.

The problem, however, is that right-wing politics have invaded Mormon theology over the last few decades as to either ignore or even distort its original social justice nature. That invasion is so pervasive that outsiders see Mormonism as only a conservative religion, with little to offer leftists. Even leftists themselves can’t see the social justice nature of LDS theology and eventually leave the church themselves.

What I wanted to do with this post is highlight some of the more radical elements of LDS theology and tenets, which I hope can then show how it has potential to be a home to leftists Christians, if the right-wing faction within the church can be moderated, if not converted.

Environment

This is one area that sets us apart from many (if not most) other Christian traditions. We have canon that specifically tells us to be wise in our use of the Earth’s resources:

Yea, all things which come of the earth, in the season thereof, are made for the benefit and the use of man, both to please the eye and to gladden the heart;

Yea, for food and for raiment, for taste and for smell, to strengthen the body and to enliven the soul.

And it pleaseth God that he hath given all these things unto man; for unto this end were they made to be used, with judgment, not to excess, neither by extortion.

D&C 59:18–20

Used with judgement. Used without excess. Used without extortion.

Right-wing Mormons don’t take this stance, often seeing climate change as undecided, or even a hoax. They do not see our role as stewards of the Earth, rather than owners of it. They may even see it as something to be dominated, rather than something that we must harmonize with.

Consider this video the church released about 7 years ago.

I find it interesting that the above scripture highlights that the resources of the earth aren’t just for use to eat, or wear, or build with, or burn. There are some things on the earth that are simply here as sensory pleasures, things for us to smell and see, things to bring us gladness and enliven our souls. Without conservation, some of the things we enjoy looking at or smelling today may not be there for us in the future.

Racism

The church has a problematic history with race. It banned Black members from holding the priesthood and attending the temple. It took Indigenous children out of their homes and placed them into white homes to be raised by white families. The Book of Mormon is replete with racist messaging. The premise of missionary work has colonial undertones to it.

That being said, there is also an egalitarian component to LDS theology.

As I said, racism permeates the text of the Book of Mormon. However, a careful reading of the text shows that the text isn’t instructing us to be racist, but that it is warning us to not be racist.

Much of the book speaks of racial animosity between two groups of people: one lighter skinned and the other darker skinned. And while there were some periods where portions of the two groups lived in harmony, much of the book has them in opposition to each other.

Except for a period of about 200 years, shortly after Jesus’ visit, when everyone lived in harmony and there was no ethnic or racial delineation.

There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God.

4 Nephi 1:17

Anti-capitalism

I have heard conservatives use the argument that the law of the harvest (see 2 Cor. 9:6 and Gal. 6:7) to justify their support of free and open markets.

The problem with this argument is that it’s just not true. In a capitalist society, no one reaps all of what they sow unless they’re self employed. Either you reap only a portion of what you sow or you reap a portion of what others sow.

I don’t think that the law of the harvest was meant to be applied to economic theory, but if it was, clearly it would be more closely related to something far more egalitarian than capitalism.

Related to this, Jesus taught at least one rich person to sell everything he owned and give it away to the poor. And when that person refused, he commented that it is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to get into heaven. (Mark 10:21–25). And related to that, Jesus taught that we cannot pursue both God and wealth (Matt. 6:24), that we cannot be truly Christian while also exploiting others for our own financial gain.

Plus, King Benjamin gave a profound sermon on caring for the poor, and even chastised those who judge the poor as being morally deficient, something we see even today.

And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.

Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—

But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.

Mosiah 4:16–18

In fact, King Benjamin considers caring for the poor so critical that he ties it directly to our ability to retain any remission of sins we receive:

And now, for the sake of these things which I have spoken unto you—that is, for the sake of retaining a remission of your sins from day to day, that ye may walk guiltless before God—I would that ye should impart of your substance to the poor, every man according to that which he hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants.

Mosiah 4:26

Queer issues

This one is the trickiest one of all. There is very little in LDS canon that explicitly states that there’s nothing wrong with being queer. That being said, however, there is nothing in it that there’s anything wrong with it either. The canon is fairly silent on queer issues. Heck, they’re silent on sexuality in general.

This lack of commentary has made it very easy for right-wing homophobia to embed itself into LDS tenets, despite the canon being silent. But that lack of canonical commentary means that it’s also possible that the LDS church could instead embrace the queerness of any of its members.

While not explicit to queer issues, there are some scriptures that show us we need to do a better job than we are now regarding supporting queer people, if not downright implementing inclusive policies and practices.

Take the words of Alma, when he is about to baptize his followers at the Waters of Mormon

As ye are desirous to come into the fold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light; yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort,

Mosiah 18:8–9

When our queer members are burdened by homophobia and transphobia, we don’t implement an exclusion policy that prevents them from having their children baptized. We bear those burdens; we take their burdens on our shoulders. We alleviate the burden caused by our own homophobia and transphobia. We call out their oppressors, so they don’t have to. We develop empathy for what they’re experiencing. We stand in solidarity with them.

Gender equality

This is another area with a problematic history within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The same church that practiced polygamy (which almost exclusively was a man with multiple wives and rarely a woman with multiple husbands) also marshalled its members to make sure Utah was one of the first places in the United States to allow women the right to vote (well, White women at least).

And certainly, the patriarchal nature of how to priesthood is organized within the church seems to exclude women to some degree. But there is nothing in LDS canon that precludes women from holding the priesthood. At times, they have even practiced it, particularly within the early church, and usually regarding laying on of hands. Even today, women administer certain priesthood ordinances within the temple. So allowing women to hold and exercise the priesthood is not without precedent.

Even Joseph Smith claimed that he was giving the Relief Society keys.

At the foundation of a potentially gender-inclusive priesthood is the belief in a feminine divine, a Heavenly Mother, who theoretically stands in equality with Heavenly Father, and together the two of them comprise what we refer to as “God”.

If Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Father can be equal in power and responsibility, then so can men and women with the LDS church in how the hold and exercise the priesthood and fill leadership positions.

Humility

Throughout LDS canon is the idea of humility, but this is not a principle specific to Mormonism. Jesus himself taught it.

And while it may often be portrayed as a principle that encourages submissiveness to hierarchy and patriarchy, I think humility has another role. I believe that as we develop humility—especially those of us who are in positions of privilege—we will be more open to accepting correction and guidance from those we are allies for.

If we are humble, we will be less likely to think we are more right than those marginalized groups who we advocate for. If we are humble, we will be more likely to follow their lead instead of trying to lead them. If we are humble, we are more likely to accept when we are called out by them and more willing to heed their counsel.

And these are just some of the issues I could think of off the top of my head. There are plenty of others. There are very few social justice issues that could not be embraced by LDS theology and canon.

What the LDS church needs is more leftist members, not fewer. As leftist members leave, it further entrenches right-wing politics in its culture, practices, and policies. And these eventually are elevated as de facto doctrines.

No, what we need is for leftist members to stay, to push back, to restore the original social justice nature of the LDS gospel. What we need is to be able to restore LDS church practices to the point that when people ask for an example of what a Christian church really looks like, “the LDS church” is one of the first responses, rather than one of the last.

As soon as I saw the article, I knew it’d focus on defending heteronormative marriage as the norm and then outline why other marriages are abnormal.

And I was right.

While he certainly highlights the tired clichés used by “traditional marriage“ defenders, such as marriage being ordained of God, he uses a new strategy to justify the homophobic opposition of right-wing Mormons to such initiatives as marriage equality.

Bednar positions heteronormative marriage as innately self-sacrificing, that those within such marriages “los[e] [their] life in service to family or in self-sacrifice for spouse and children.”

In contrast, he frames the “modern secular concept of marriage” as one that is a “a purely private, contractual model”, one that is “easily entered and easily broken, with a focus on the needs of individuals” and “is based on extreme conceptions of personal autonomy and individual rights that elevate one’s own will over God’s will, that opt for personal choice over personal responsibility, and that prioritize the desires of individuals over the needs of spouses and children.”

He then uses this to lead the reader to this conclusion:

Given this trend, many in our culture could not long resist the call to redefine marriage from the union of man and woman to the union of any two people, regardless of gender. After all, if marriage is little more than a vehicle for advancing personal autonomy and individual rights—rather than a sacred and enduring union between man and woman centered on self-sacrifice and raising a family—then it becomes very hard to deny marriage—any type of marriage—to any couple or group of people that seek it.

You see, to him, gay marriages (or any marriage that isn’t between a straight and cis man and woman) are—to use the wording of one his colleagues—counterfeit, because the only reason anyone would enter into them is a selfish one.

To Bednar, two gay people advance in their relationship toward marriage not because their love for each other grows but because their desire for personal autonomy and individual rights intensifies.

But there’s one major flaw in Bednar’s argument: one of his premises is wrong.

Here’s the crux of his argument

• Premise A: Heteronormative marriages are selfless and self-sacrificing.
• Premise B: Non-heteronormative marriages are selfish and self-serving.
• Premise C: Peace and joy come from sacrifice to family.
• Conclusion: Those in non-heteronormative marriages have no peace and joy.

I agree with premise C; however, there is no proof that the other two premises are true. Marriages—straight, gay, or otherwise—are neither inherently selfless nor inherently selfish. Whether a marriage is selfless or selfish depends on the partners in that marriage. Regardless of sexual orientation, if the partners are selfless, they may find peace and joy; if they’re selfish, they may not.

I don’t know whether Bednar has ever met people in non-heteronormative marriages, but there are plenty of such marriages in which the partners are focused on sacrificing themselves for their loved ones. In addition, plenty of these marriages involve the raising of children.

Certainly, there are plenty of gay marriages where there are no children, but there are plenty of straight marriages with no children. Certainly, there are plenty of gay marriages that “lead to divorce as people bounce from one relationship to another”, but there are plenty of straight marriages that experience the same thing.

The main problem with Bednar’s argument is that he never establishes that gay marriages are indeed naturally selfish. He never presents evidence for the assumption: he merely gives the assumption as fact. And without providing meaningful justification for this premise, it threatens the stability of his argument.

Let’s review some examples from his text.

Men and women too often pursue relationships and marriage focused on their own needs and desires rather than on building stable marital and family relationships.

This is true, but it’s independent of sexual orientation. People of all gender identities and sexual orientations pursue relationships focused on their own needs and desires. Conversely, however, people of all gender identities and sexual orientations also pursue relationships focused on building stable marital and family relationships.

If marriage is little more than a vehicle for advancing personal autonomy and individual rights—rather than a sacred and enduring union between man and woman centered on self-sacrifice and raising a family—then it becomes very hard to deny marriage—any type of marriage—to any couple or group of people that seek it.

Well, that’s just my point. Bednar doesn’t provide compelling evidence that gay marriages are nothing more than a vehicle for advancing personal autonomy and individual rights. He also fails to prove that non-heteronormative marriages aren’t enduring unions centred on self-sacrifice and raising a family. Bednar fails to establish the if at the beginning of this statement, the if that his argument hangs on.

The man and the woman contribute differently but equally to a oneness and a unity that can be achieved in no other way. The man completes and perfects the woman and the woman completes and perfects the man as they learn from and mutually strengthen and bless each other.

This is not inherent to just heterosexual couples. Queer couples can easily come into their relationship with complementary qualities, talents, and abilities, creating a more whole relationship. This is not something straight people have a monopoly on.

A home with a loving and loyal husband and wife is the supreme setting in which children can be reared in love and righteousness and in which the spiritual and physical needs of children can be met.

Nothing hinders a gay couple from being loving and loyal or rearing children in love and righteousness any more than it would a straight couple.

Bednar tries to paint a picture for the reader where all the benefits of marriage and parenthood are, for some reason, exclusive to straight couples, but he—like I said—never provides evidence for this assumption. And as someone who knows several queer people in long-term marriages, and even raising children, I can assure you that queer couples can have marriages and raise children.

I’m one of them.

You see, my marriage isn’t really based on my sexual orientation. It’s based on my love for my spouse. Similarly, our family isn’t based on my sexual orientation. It’s based on the love my spouse and I have for our children. I didn’t have children because I’m queer. I had children because my love for my spouse led me to want to create and raise children with her. It never had to do with my oritentation.

And if—for whatever reason, after over 25 years—we end up no longer married to each other and I find myself in another relationship, that relationship would also be based on love, not selfishness.

And on that note, there’s one more thing from Bednar’s article I wanted to address:

This view inevitably leaves in its wake traumatized children who needed the rich and committed soil of selfless and dedicated parents in which to sink their roots, abandoned because a father or mother has determined that he or she just is not being “true to himself or herself” by remaining in a marriage that he or she selfishly perceives is no longer serving his or her own interests or orientation. Ironically—and tragically—the freedom and personal autonomy they seek will, in the end, leave them bound by chains of isolation, loneliness, and deep regret.

This paragraph is the most damaging of all the commentary Bednar provides in his article.

Here, he’s referring to queer people who entered a heteronormative marriage but then later left it. Often, people in these circumstances either deny their queerness and are attempting to be straight (as I did) or they repress their queerness on purpose and think performing as straight can help them overcome the disease labelled “same-sex attraction”.

For the longest time, people who were ecclesiastical leaders when Bednar was bishop and stake president would counsel their congregants who approached them with their struggles trying to be queer and Mormon by telling them to perform as straight: date the “opposite“ sex, go on a mission, marry the “opposite” sex, and have children.

They pathologized queerness, and assumed that since it was a disease, it could be cured. And the best cure was heteronomative performance: the straighter they acted, the less queer they’d be.

People who enter a marriage “as a straight person” do so because they’ve been taught—explicitly or implicitly—that queerness is wrong. They’ve been taught that straightness is the ideal and that they must fit this ideal. It’s exaggerated in the church through things like temple marriage, where it’s required for the highest salvation but only those in heteronormative relationships can access it.

And all that creates pressure.

Queer people who enter straight marriages do so because of pressure: pressure to deny or repress their queerness. That pressure doesn’t diminish over time, and for some people, it actually intensifies, leading to mental and emotional struggle.

The fact that Bednar thinks leaving a marriage you felt forced to enter will end up in “isolation, loneliness, and deep regret” is the epitome of irony. Staying in a relationship with someone you aren’t sexually attracted to will, itself, lead to isolation, loneliness, and regret.

The fact that Bednar thinks that persons who leave such marriages do so out of simply a perception (let along a selfish one) is a testament to his own homophobic bigotry.

You see, the marriage never “served their orientation”. They didn’t marry because it “served their orientation”. They married because of pressure of expectations: expectations forced on them by society, family, and church. They don’t leave because the marriage “no longer” serves their orientation. They leave because it never did; they leave because it damages their orientation.

Would Bednar ever insist that a straight woman stay married to another woman? Or a straight man stay married to another man? All in an effort to provide children with “the rich and committed soil of selfless and dedicated parents in which to sink their roots”?

If the answer is no—that he wouldn’t force straight members to stay in a gay marriage—then he shouldn’t be advocating for gay members to stay in straight marriages.

Instead of telling gay members that they should suck it up and live the rest of their lives in mental and emotional pain, he should be using his energy to changing the rhetoric—both explicit and implicit—within the church that convinces queer members in the first place that they even need to be in a straight marriage at all.

But then again, this is the same person who thinks gay Mormons don’t exist. So, I’m not going to hold my breath.

Well, I’ve been thinking about that.

See, straight people like this don’t actually care if LGBTQ people march in parades. Here in Lethbridge, for example, our annual summer fair kicks off with a parade, and I bet there are a few LGBTQ people in that parade. And these straight people don’t care.

These straight people don’t actually care if LGBTQ folk march. It’s not the marching that’s the big deal.

These straight people don’t like knowing that LGBTQ people aren’t straight when they’re marching.

They want to assume everyone is straight. They want to assume everyone is like them. Because if everyone is the same, then it’s easier to justify their rhetoric of hate.

That’s why they don’t have a problem when other straight people shove their sexuality in their face with handholding, kissing, or hugging.

Because it’s not the public nature of the sexuality that’s the problem. It’s that the public sexuality isn’t the same as their sexuality.

And if everyone isn’t the same—if there are gay people, and bisexual people, and trans people, and intersex people, and asexual people, and all sorts of identities that aren’t straight and cisgender—that challenges their rhetoric of hate.

Actually, for that matter, when you hear people complain that there are too many letters in the LGBTTQQIAAP acronym or that there are too many sexual orientations and gender identities, it’s the same thing.

“There are too many initials” or “I can’t keep track of all these new identities” is just a coded way to say “I’m uncomfortable that you’re not like me and it delegitimizes what I was taught.”

But that’s good. It’s good these straight people are uncomfortable.

Imagine what it must be like to grow up in a society where you think everyone else isn’t like you, where you’re the only one like you. Where society is designed for everyone but you. “Discomfort” seems to be inadequate to describe that experience.

Maybe it’s time straight, cisgender people accept discomfort. Getting rid of prejudice and hate is impossible without discomfort.

I’ve been contemplating that position recently. I’m still doing this, trying to expose myself to different viewpoints and trying to not dismiss viewpoints contrary to my own.

However.

I recognize that my ability to do this is because of the immense privilege I enjoy. I can do this because differing opinions will only ever affect me as opinions. They will never be a threat to my existence.

Because I’m white and live in a predominantly white society, race-based commentary will never be a threat to me.

Because I’m straight and live in a predominantly straight society, commentary regarding sexual orientation will never be a threat to me.

Because I’m cisgender and live in a predominantly cis society, gender-based commentary will never be a threat to me.

Because I’m male and live in a society designed for males, sex-based commentary will never be a threat to me.

Because I’m middle class in a society designed for the middle and upper classes, class-based commentary will never be a threat to me.

Because I’m generally able-bodied in a society designed for able bodied people, commentary about disabilities will never be a threat to me.

Because I’m Christian in a predominantly Christian society, religious commentary will never be a threat to me.

And because none of this will threaten my existence, I can afford to not turn my Facebook feed into a silo.

Not everyone has that privilege. Commentary that affects me only as a disagreement can affect others as a direct threat to their existence. Where I might get frustrated with someone arguing with me, others might get anxious, worried, or scared.

So, while I can still keep my feed unrestricted, I realize not everyone can. And I need to not judge them for it.

That article was shared a lot. Thousands of times, in fact. Even by conservative Mormons. They saw Greg’s retelling of the story and his subsequent pondering as support for their belief that you can be gay and LDS. And they shared the heck out of it. Because there’s nothing quite like slacktivism to bring about change in a church you don’t think should actually change.

Right wing Mormons completely ignore the experiences of LGBTQ Mormons. Until their buddy Greg Trimble comes along and shares a story of an anonymous gay man whose story matches their worldview. Then all of a sudden, they’re quick to share gay Mormon experiences. But no sharing stories of suicide, no stories of rejection, no stories of abandonment and loneliness.

They’re quick to embrace their leaders who say that LGBTQ Mormons don’t exist or that their relationships are counterfeit. But they don’t walk in Pride parades, they don’t serve in outreach organizations, and they don’t do anything but lip service to make LGBTQ Mormons feel like there actually is a place for them.

But let’s share Greg Trimble’s article to appease our consciences.

A friend of mine at the time commented on a Facebook post I wrote on the topic, trying to position himself as a neutral party, explaining his understanding of the viewpoints of “both sides” debating on my post and encouraging each to come together “to share ideas respectfully and calmly”.

In his comment, he used language that was problematic—phrases such as “homosexual behaviour”, “people with same-sex attraction”, “they have an uphill climb”—so I responded with the following.

This is part of the problem. The way you’ve described the “sides” shows a lack of understanding.

Take the phrase “homosexual behaviour”, for example. What does that even mean? How gay people behave in a restaurant? How they perform in their job? How they treat their children?

Or is “homosexual behaviour” a code word for gay sex, as if that’s the only behaviour of LGBTQ people?

And the idea of “people with same-sex attraction”. Phrasing like that pathologizes. It’s saying they have a condition, just like people with diabetes or people with cancer. And if it’s a condition, it can be overcome. Hence we get things like “pray the gay away” and electric shock therapy.

Yes, they have an uphill battle, but it’s not because of this so-called condition; it’s because they have to deal with prejudice from their family, their friends, their society, and their church. Prejudice that overwhelms them, ostracizes them, depresses them, and kills them. Again, it’s not their attraction that creates the uphill battle.

Also, by generalizing with “same-sex attraction”, we silence all the other LGBTQ people who aren’t gay. It ignores trans issues, asexual issues, pansexual issues, intersex issues, and so on. It ignores the diversity within the LGBTQ community.

Liberals (or others on the left) aren’t trying to show compassion simply because of risk. They’re also trying to show compassion because someone needs to and many members aren’t doing it. They’re trying to be inclusive because it’s the right thing to do, and not just because someone might be more likely to kill themselves.

They’re also not just asking for leaders to accommodate LGBTQ members; they’re asking for love. They’re asking for equality. The church is not just not accommodating LGBTQ members; they’re specifically accommodating cishet members.

The idea that we don’t help reach out because we don’t agree with “components of the movement” (whatever that means) is ridiculous. That’s telling our LGBTQ fellow members that our feelings are more important than theirs, that it’s more important that we be comfortable than it is to reach out in the love that our brothers and sisters have lost from their families, ward members, and leaders.