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.

If you were asked, “What is the greatest challenge facing our nation today?” how would you respond? The economy, national security, immigration, gun control, poverty, racism, crime, pandemics, climate change? While each of these is a valid concern and deserves attention, I do not believe that any of them strikes at the heart of our greatest challenge — a return to family and moral values.

Anytime an essay starts off talking about the lack of family values, you know that as a queer, leftist, active Mormon, there are going to be some statements you’re going to have an issue with.

So, here we go.

Callister used to be a general authority, but was released in 2014. However, he immediately went on to serve as general Sunday school president, which he finished in 2019.

So, the first big thing that sticks out is a quote from William Barr, who served as US attorney general under the older George Bush, as well as under Donald Trump. At one point, he called for higher incarceration rates.

Here’s the quote from Barr’s 2019 address to the Law School and the de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture at the University of Notre Dame:

“Instead of addressing the underlying cause, we have the state in the role of alleviator of bad consequences. So the reaction to growing illegitimacy is not sexual responsibility, but abortion. The reaction to drug addiction is safe injection sites. The solution to the breakdown of the family is for the state to set itself up as the ersatz husband for single mothers and the ersatz father to their children. The call comes for more and more social programs to deal with the wreckage. While we think we are solving problems, we are underwriting them.”

Barr goes on in his remarks to opine about personal responsibility and what he calls an “attack” on religious freedom.

The thing is that Barr doesn’t provide solutions for the problems he lists in that quote.

To be fair, he complains that abortion is the reaction to illegitimacy, but suggests that sexual responsibility should be instead. That being said, as long as contraceptives remain financially inaccessible to people and the right continues to fight against comprehensive sex education, it’s going to be difficult for people to be fully responsible for the sex they have.

If someone has sex but doesn’t realize that they can get pregnant from it—or at least believes that they can’t get pregnant right away—can they truly be held responsible if they end up pregnant?

If someone wants to have sex but can’t afford birth control, can they truly be held responsible if they end up pregnant? Only the well off are allowed to have sex?

If a woman is pressured into having unprotected sex—whether emotionally, physically, or through deception—and ends up pregnant, can she truly be held responsible for the pregnancy?

Outlawing abortions won’t prevent abortions. People will still terminate pregnancies they never wanted. They’d just do it illegally.

Barr’s framing of sexual choice—and Callister’s quoting of it—is simplistic and completely ignores the complex set of factors behind every choice to have sex and ability to prevent pregnancy.

On the second point of addiction, supervised consumption sites don’t “alleviate bad consequences”. Well, unless Barr is suggesting that the bad consequence to addiction is death or disease and that the state shouldn’t be mitigating risk of death and disease among those who use drugs. Is that what he’s suggesting? People who are addicted to drugs deserve death or disease connected to that drug usage? Because if so, then yes, the state does alleviate death and disease among those who use drugs.

Outlawing supervising consumption won’t prevent addiction. People will still use, and they’ll continue to die. The fact that a general authority who claims to be a follower of Christ is literally advocating for the reduction of practices that prevent death and disease is mind boggling.

Regarding his third point—the one on the breakdown of the family—Barr suggests the state attempts to be a surrogate husband and father to single mothers and fatherless children. He never suggests an alternative.

I find this wording interesting. Why does he seem concerned with only single mothers and fatherless children? Why does he not mention single fathers and motherless children?

And even so, it’s odd that he complains about the reaction to broken families being the state providing support for those parents and children. Yet he never talks about the causes of breakdown of these families. He never mentions the overpolicing (and subsequent overincarceration) of poor people, particularly young men. He never mentions the role toxic masculinity and the patriarchy in convincing men they can abandon their families. He never mentions the influence capitalism has in creating broken families by forcing parents to spend more time making money (because 1 9–to-5 minimum wage job isn’t enough) than with their children. He never mentions how police violence literally creates widows.

George Floyd’s five children aren’t fatherless because their family was broken; they’re fatherless because cops murdered him. Eric Garner’s two children aren’t fatherless because their family was broken; they’re fatherless because cops murdered him.

Again, Barr’s framing of these three issues is deeply problematic, trying to reduce every societal issue to a matter of personal choice and completely ignoring societal forces—such as racism, classism, sexism, and greed—that help perpetuate, if not create, the very problems he complains about.

And Callister is being irresponsible in advancing this rhetoric when he once claimed to be a follower of Christ, whose 3-year ministry was spent advocating for and ministering to those who society rejected for lacking personal responsibility.

But Barr’s quote wasn’t the only issue with Callister’s op-ed.

How right he is. How often we choose worldly solutions that nurture rather than nullify existing issues of immorality. How often we adopt a new sin in an effort to cover or hide an existing one and in the process compound rather than resolve the problem at hand.

You want to know what “compounds the problem at hand”? Ignoring the problem.

You don’t want to unwanted pregnancies? Then advocate for free birth control and comprehensive sex education instead of saying, “Y’all just need to be virgins”. You don’t want to drug addiction? Then advocate for better education programmes and healthcare options instead of pretending you’re Barbara Bush. You don’t want broken families? Then abolish capitalism, defund the police, and topple the patriarchy.

[Satan’s] plan is in direct opposition to the family proclamation. It is an insidious attempt to destroy the nuclear family and God’s moral values. He disguises his plan of attack with alluring labels such as “pro-choice” for abortion, “love and compassion” for endorsement of same-sex marriage, and “environmental emergency” for promotion of a zero-growth population agenda. Each of these proposals, however, constitutes a frontal attack on the family unit and its survival.

Okay. I’ll give him the zero-growth population agenda one. I mean, that won’t destroy my own family or any other existing families, but it’ll result in fewer families in general over time.

Except Callister’s problem isn’t with families in general being destroyed, but one type of family in particular: the nuclear family—one mum, one dad, and some kids, all living in the same house.

“Pro-choice” isn’t a disguise for abortion; it’s not a synonym of it. “Pro-choice” means that it’s up to a woman when she gets pregnant, if at all. She gets to choose when she gets pregnant. It’s not up to her partner. It’s not up to her parents. It’s not up to her church. And it’s not up to the state. People who are pro-choice are in favour of women being able to make that choice, not have others make it for them, whether that’s allowing them to embrace, prevent, or terminate pregnancy. It’s unethical to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn’t want to take.

Creating an environment that promotes and encourages full autonomy of women over their reproductive health would mean fewer unwanted children, not more.

The fact that he thinks “love and compassion” are alluring labels of disguise for “endorsing” marriage equality just blows my mind. How does he think we should refer to the endorsement of marriage equality? We shouldn’t love people who want to marry someone of the same sex? We shouldn’t have compassion for their desire to marry that person?

However, “love and compassion” aren’t the only reason to support marriage equality. A desire for equality of civil rights purely on grounds of embracing liberty is another reason. All people should enjoy the same freedoms. Allowing more people to marry doesn’t mean that people currently allowed to marry no longer can marry. More rights for the oppressed doesn’t result fewer rights for the already privileged.

Also, marriage equality is neither a frontal attack on the family unit nor on its survival. Allowing more people to marry creates more potential family units within which children can be born and nurtured, being raised in stable, loving homes. Marriage equality strengthens the family unit and prolongs its survival.

Even so, you want to know something that is actually destroying families? Homophobic rhetoric within the church. Language over the pulpit and in common discourse encourages members to reject their queer children, through being emotionally distant as parents or even literally throwing them out of the house.

The church’s rhetoric around queer issues harms more families than allowing gay people to get married does. I mean, the church literally said in November 2015 that people children of gay parents couldn’t get baptized unless they disavowed their parents’ marriage.

One cannot circumvent God’s commands and expect to escape the divine consequences, regardless of how decorated the package may be or how cosmetically appealing the language may sound.

Here’s the thing though. Gays marrying doesn’t circumvent God’s commands, because there is literally zero scriptural support for the idea that gay people can’t marry. Same goes for abortion, supervised consumption sites, and state welfare for the husbandless and fatherless.

In fact, there is literally a scripture that states taking care of the widows and fatherless is actually pure religion.

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

James 1:27

If you want to talk about who’s trying to circumvent God’s commands, maybe look at those saying we shouldn’t be taking care of the widows and fatherless, that we should just leave them to the natural consequences of personal responsibility.

If our prime focus is to promote family and moral values, then we will experience the consequences that flow from such efforts — less crime and drug abuse, less fraud and abuse, fewer divorces and lawsuits, fewer babies born out of wedlock, more ethical employees and employers, a reduction in welfare cases, less contention and hate, and a resurgence of faith in God. 

Dude, if you eat the rich, you’d get rid of nearly every one of those “consequences”.

Inequality is at the root of our social ills—capitalism, racism, sexism, colonialism. Telling people to pray and read their scriptures more won’t change any of that.

If you want to change society, we need to follow the example of Jesus.

Jesus never protested a gay marriage or an abortion clinic. He never threw widows onto the street. He never dismissed people with vices.

Instead, Jesus fed the poor, healed the sick, and whipped a few bankers.

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.

Why were libertarians not calling for the government to stay out of marriage prior to gay people demanding the right to marry?

Because couching homophobia in blanket declarations of freedom from state control is a way to appear open minded while remaining homophobic. It’s coded homophobia.

Just like when the Lethbridge right showed up to the school board meeting in 2016 in response to a school board policy respecting trans students’ right to use the washroom that best matches their gender. The right was asking that all students be treated equally, that no student should receive special treatment. They tried to hide their transphobia in blanket declarations of equality. But it’s coded transphobia. They try to appear open minded and progressive, but everyone else on the right knows what they’re talking about.

Coded bigotry is the foundation of dog whistle politics.

But this post isn’t about anal sex. Well, not really.

Last week, I was discussing the article after a Facebook friend posted a popular video of a woman criticizing the article. In this discussion, someone labelled anal sex as unnatural, using phrases like “against how the body is constructed” and “the anal (sic) is not made for that purpose”.

And it’s that idea of nature that I want to discuss.

This is a common tactic of members of the LDS church, specifically when it comes to sexual issues.

For example, a 1974 article published in The Ensign refers to gay and lesbian relationships as being unnatural. President Kimball called homosexuality “unnatural”.  The current administrative handbook of the church counts “homosexual and lesbian relations” as “unnatural”. The current family home evening manual quotes President Kimball in labelling anything outside of heterosexual relationships as “unnatural”. The Marriage and Family Relations manual goes so far as saying even simple affection “toward persons of the same gender” is unnatural.

On the topic of marriage equality, in background material sent to all bishops and branch presidents of the church in 2015, the current First Presidency quoted the handbook when they claimed that “homosexual behavior (sic) . . . is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality”. In original wording in that backgrounder, the First Presidency also stated that “mothers and fathers matter, and they are not interchangeable.” In an Ensign article published earlier this year, Elder Lawrence called “same-sex marriage . . . counterfeit”, adding as justification that they do not “bring . . . posterity”. In an October 1999 general conference talk, President Hinckley, in discussing “so-called gays and lesbians”, implied that a “so-called same-sex marriage situation” makes light of the purpose of marriage: “the rearing of families.”

That’s probably enough for the examples, but the point is that the church likes to use the idea of nature as a way to oppose sexuality that they don’t like. Which is weird when you think of it.

Putting off the natural man

Take a look at this Ensign article about the “natural man”. Or this conference talk on the “natural man”. Or this Sunday School manual. Or this Institute manual. Or this Seminary manual. Or this New Era article.

You get the point.

For a church that so commonly talks about putting off what is human nature, it seems anachronistic to defend what is (according to them) human nature when it comes to sexuality.

What is actually natural?

Christianity (and arguably other religions) has created this narrative that marriage is, by nature, between a man and a woman. This narrative is perpetuated through stories such as Noah’s ark, in which Noah brought male and female animals to mirror human relationships and form couples to produce offspring.

But this isn’t reflected in actual nature, at least not exclusively. For example, in his book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, biologist Bruce Bagemihl identified around 500 species that scientists had documented engaging in same-sex behaviours, including sexual activity, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting.

Seven years later, The Natural History Museum at the University of Oslo opened an exhibition dedicated to homosexuality in the natural world, and they indicated that the number of species had now tripled to 1,500.

Clearly, homosexual activity is not unnatural.

So where does all this lead us? Well, at best, the idea that we should oppose something that is unnatural is hypocritical, at best. How can we defend what is natural while also opposing what is natural?

Here is a quote from that article:

“Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, but same-sex marriage is only a counterfeit. It brings neither posterity nor exaltation. Although [Satan’s] imitations deceive many people, they are not the real thing. They cannot bring lasting happiness.”

See? This is just more proof that even in 2017, the LDS church just doesn’t get it. They can think they’re all clever and progressive by dropping the S from mormonsandgays.com, but stuff like this just reiterates how out of touch leaders are on the topic of its LGBTQ members. They literally don’t get it.

There are a few problems with this statement:

Same-sex marriage isn’t counterfeit.

They can bring posterity. I have friends in so-called same-sex marriages who have genetic, biological children, whose children play with mine. Men can use egg donors, and women can use sperm donors, just like straight couples do all the time.

Are childless, straight marriages counterfeit?

Is Elder Lawrence saying that marriages without children are counterfeit marriages? Even if the marriage involves a heterosexual couple? So straight couples unable to have children are in counterfeit marriages? Straight couples who choose to not have children are in counterfeit marriages?

Was Howard W. Hunter’s (former president of the church) second marriage counterfeit? What about Russell M Neleson’s (current president of the twelve apostles) current marriage? Is it counterfeit? Neither marriage has resulted in posterity.

What about my own marriage? I have biological children, but I had a vasectomy, so I can no longer have children. Has my marriage become counterfeit. My sister has had a tubal litigation; is her marriage counterfeit.

Are marriages with adopted children counterfeit?

What about adoption? Assuming that gay couples couldn’t actually have biological children (which they can and which I established under the first subheading), they could adopt. Or is Elder Lawrence implying that adopted children of gay parents don’t count as posterity? And if so, does that mean adopted children of straight couples don’t count as posterity? Does that mean marriages with adopted children are counterfeit?

Lasting happiness exists with gay couples

Gay couples (and for that matter any non-cis, non-straight couple, which the LDS church just keeps ignoring) can have lasting happiness. There are many gay couples in long-term, committed relationships. Like Jack Evans and George Harris, who have been together for over 50 years. Or Ted Spring and Paul Pollard, who have been together for over 55. Or John Mace and Richard Adrian Dorr, who have been together for over 70 years. Or Vivian Boyack and Alice Dubes, who have been together for 75 years.

And regarding exaltation . . .

And why doesn’t gay marriage lead to exaltation? Because the LDS church won’t allow their gay members to have their marriages sealed in the temple. There is no scriptural prohibition regarding sealing of gay marriages. It’s a policy decision. It’s easy to say that same-sex marriage doesn’t bring exaltation when you’re the one who won’t exalt those marriages.

And on the topic of being counterfeit, consider these quotes about polygamy, which the LDS church publicly embraced for decades and still practices in their temples:

“This monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers.” —Brigham Young

“[Rome] was a monogamic nation, and the numerous evils attending that system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook her.” —George Q. Cannon

Sometimes, I’m left wondering whether church leaders actually think through things before writing them. There are so many logical holes in Elder Lawrence’s quote at the start of this post, that it makes me wonder. Is he so blinded by his hatred for gay people (or specifically gay marriage), that he can’t see past his own bigotry? That he can’t set aside his own prejudices for a few minutes to objectively think through what he is about to write?

The church is on the wrong side of this, and if they continue to dig in their heels on LGBTQ issues, they will continue to push out their queer members, will undo any outreach they try to make in the queer community, and their 30% activity rate will continue to drop.

That marks yet another consecutive week of someone mentioning the policy change at least once during sacrament meeting, Sunday school, and elders quorum class.

I’ve beaten to death my feelings on the wordings and implications of the policy change, but as I was stewing on pondering the words of the speaker, a thought came to me that I hadn’t considered before, particularly connected with something the following speaker mentioned.

Why are Mormons so quick to stand firm behind the prophet when what he says requires no sacrifice?

In this case, I am definitely in the minority in my ward and stake regarding my feelings regarding this policy change. Most ward and stake members I know (and for that matter, Mormons I know outside of my stake) support the brethren on this change.

But it’s easy to support it. You don’t have to invest anything into supporting them. In fact, all you need to do is agree with them.

Let’s contrast this with home teaching.

Our high council speaker today reported that home teaching in our stake sits at 27%. That means that 3 out of every 4 families in our stake don’t receive visits from their home teachers. While anecdotal, friends of mine have shared similar statistics where they live.

So, back to my question: why are Mormons so quick to stand firm behind the prophet when what he says requires no sacrifice but so slow when what he says requires sacrifice?

Conversely, why am I labelled an apostate or a heretic when I disagree with the brethren on a policy (like the recent decision to prohibit children of gay parents from being baptized) but follow their counsel in other ways (like home teaching every month)?

Why are others not labelled apostate or heretics when they agree with the brethren on a policy (like the recent decision to prohibit children of gay parents from being baptized) but don’t follow their counsel in other ways (like home teaching every month)?

To be abundantly clear, I’m not judging those who don’t visit their home teaching families. I’m simply using that as an example. And it’s certainly not the only example we could use.

Finally, you know what the irony is in all this? Thomas S. Monson sat on the committee that established the current home teaching programme.

As a parent of an LGBT teenager (who had earlier this summer left the church and experienced significant ostracization and judgement as a result), I can tell you that this policy change has been weighing on my mind heavily over the last two days.

Never mind the fact that this has been a trigger for my mental health (which has been fragile over the last several months), and has resulted in non-stop anxiety, leading to depression last night.

Never mind the fact that this new policy means that I, potentially, (if my daughter marries a woman and decides to return to church, which seems entirely unlikely now) will be unable to bless or baptize my grandchildren.

Never mind the fact that this is on the heels of my teenage son being hammered in eight church classes last week regarding gay marriage.

Never mind that I feel lost, confused, sad, angry, depressed, anxious, protective, hopeless, uncomfortable, out-of-place, and doubtful.

Never mind the fact that this flies in the face of so many scriptures.

Never mind all that for a moment, and consider the following questions:

1. Why does this policy prevent children of same-sex marriages from being blessed/baptized but not children of parents in same-sex relationships that are non-cohabiting?
2. Why does this policy prevent children of same-sex marriages from being blessed/baptized but not children of different-sex parents who are cohabiting but not married?
3. Why does this policy prevent children of single, divorced parents who has joint custody with a parent in a same-sex marriage from being baptized/blessed?
4. Why is church discipline mandatory for someone in a same-sex marriage but only a possibility for someone who has raped, tried to kill someone, or committed adultery?
5. Why is church discipline mandatory for someone in a same-sex marriage but only a possibility for someone who is having homosexual sex?
6. Why does the the child of gay parents who are entirely supportive of their child growing up in the church need First Presidency approval prior to getting baptized but the child of vehemently anti-Mormon parents doesn’t?
7. Why is it okay to be a child of heterosexual parents and support marriage equality but not okay to be a child of homosexual parents and support marriage equality?

This new policy just makes no sense. I just cannot see the logic in all these inconsistencies.

Whether it is scripture is a topic for another day. What I want to discuss is a couple of things I find problematic in the proclamation.

My understanding, based on the rhetoric of mainstream Mormons is that this proclamation is a response to efforts to legalize marriage equality. If that premise is true, I don’t think that those who drafted the document completely thought through how the wording would affect Mormon past.

Consider this from the first sentence:

. . . marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God . . .

Does that mean marriage between a man and more than one woman is not ordained of God? What about marriage between more than one man and one woman?

Does that mean plural marriage is unordained of God? Does it mean the current practice of sealing a man to more than wife is unordained of God?

What about this sentence from the seventh paragraph?

Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan.

Does that mean plural marriage is not essential to God’s plan?

If plural marriage is not ordained of God and is not essential to his plan, why did as a church practice it at all?

If plural marriage is ordained of God and is essential to his plan, then how does it fit into the wording of this proclamation?

Now, I get the idea that if I look at a woman to lust after a woman who isn’t my wife, it could potentially lead to thoughts or attraction, which itself could lead to more serious and complex issues.

That being said, both passages do not say “look on another woman to lust after her”. They specifically state “look on a woman to lust after her”.

Assuming this indefinite article is used on purpose, does that mean if I lust after my wife, that I commit adultery in my heart? Is this scripture more about respecting women and relationships than it is about warning against infidelity?