(To download a PDF version, use this link.)

(To listen to a recorded version from the two-part Dialogue podcast series, use this link.)

(Also published in an abridged format in Dialogue, A Journal of Mormon Thought, in the summer 2017 edition.)

Preface

In 1973 Lester Bush published a groundbreaking article in the Mormon Journal, Dialogue, on the history behind the priesthood and temple ban on people of African descent.[1] This article, and the long-forgotten history it brought to light, had an incalculable effect on events leading to President Kimball’s 1978 revelation that overturned the ban. While I feel inadequate comparing my effort to Lester Bush’s work, his article was a guiding light to me as I set out to write a “Lester Bush” article for LGBT members of the church. I have felt strongly impressed that such an article is needed more than ever for LGBT people in the same way Lester Bush’s article was needed for black members of the church in the 1970s.

In the thirteen-plus years since our oldest son came out as gay (followed by a second son five years ago), I have studied, read, prayed and pondered extensively on this subject. More importantly perhaps, I have gotten to know hundreds of LGBT people on a very personal level. I have observed their lives and struggles, and I feel like I have come to know and understand the unique challenges they and their families face as Mormons. Because of this experience and the relationships I have with my LGBT family and friends, I felt compelled to write this article. Recognizing that many of the questions I raise and observations I make in the article may challenge the current thinking of some Church members, I felt that the words of President Dieter F. Uchtdorf at a recent worldwide leadership training conference were particularly appropriate:

Unfortunately, we sometimes don’t seek revelation or answers…because we think we know the answers already.

Brothers and sisters, as good as our previous experience may be, if we stop asking questions, stop thinking, stop pondering, we can thwart the revelations of the Spirit. Remember, it was the questions young Joseph asked that opened the door for the restoration of all things. We can block the growth and knowledge our Heavenly Father intends for us. How often has the Holy Spirit tried to tell us something we needed to know but couldn’t get past the massive iron gate of what we thought we already knew?[2]

I. Introduction

Perhaps no other social issue in recent times has experienced such rapid change in public opinion as that of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. To many, it has been the civil rights struggle of our time, to others – particularly conservative religious people – it is a sign of the moral decay of our time. The LDS church has been greatly affected by this issue, garnering much negative attention in the media due to its public fight against same-sex marriage and the perception that it treats LGBT people unfairly.[3] Its positions and policies, particularly the November 2015 policy that labels members in same-sex marriages apostates and prohibits their children from receiving church ordinances, have caused some members to question the church’s stance and others to actually leave the church.

The purpose of this article is to examine the LDS church’s position on homosexuality and same-sex marriage from a doctrinal, moral and empirical perspective.[4] It is hoped that through such an examination the thoughtful reader may: (1) gain a better understanding of the church’s justifications for this position even as it faces mounting criticism and membership loss; (2) gain a more empathetic understanding of what it means to be LGBT in our church; and (3) sincerely and humbly consider our current state of knowledge about what we as a church believe to be God’s will for our LGBT brothers and sisters.

As an active, believing member of the church, my hope is that this article will cause members of the church to think deeply about the questions raised herein and come to their own opinions based on sound reason and personal inspiration. It is not my intent to criticize the church or undermine faith; far from it, I hope my fellow members will develop greater faith and a greater ability to receive inspiration about matters that affect their lives and the lives of those they love and care about.

Like opinions held by society in general on this issue, the church’s position on homosexuality has evolved quite significantly in recent years, although much of the general membership is likely unaware of the shift. The church’s current official position on homosexuality is perhaps most concisely summarized in its recently updated gospel topic entry on homosexuality (which redirects to “same-sex attraction”) on LDS.org:

The Church distinguishes between same-sex attraction and homosexual behavior. People who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual can make and keep covenants with God and fully and worthily participate in the Church. Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin and does not prohibit one from participating in the Church, holding callings, or attending the temple. … We may not know precisely why some people feel attracted to others of the same sex, but for some it is a complex reality and part of the human experience.[5]

The church’s position on same-sex marriage is succinctly stated in Handbook 2:

As a doctrinal principle, based on the scriptures, the Church affirms that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

Sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same gender, are sinful and undermine the divinely created institution of the family. The Church accordingly affirms defining marriage as the legal and lawful union between a man and a woman.[6]

Before examining why the church believes that being a homosexual who is naturally and instinctively attracted to those of the same sex is not sinful, but expressing homosexual feelings and desires is a sin – even within lawful, monogamous marriage – it is helpful to first understand the origination of the church’s position and how it has changed over time.

Historical Background

For much of recent history, the church’s views on homosexuality have reflected those of society in general. In the 19th and most of the 20th century, homosexuality was generally viewed by society, including the medical profession, as a mental disorder or a sexual deviancy. By the 1900s, most states criminalized homosexual behavior by enacting sodomy laws, which drove homosexuals deeper into the closet.

The Kimball Years

In the 1970s the psychiatric community began to acknowledge that there was no basis for characterizing homosexuality as a disorder and removed it from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Also in this period, LGBT people began to assert their rights to live their lives authentically and without persecution, mainstream media started giving more favorable coverage of homosexuals, and societal views ever so slightly began to shift. The church’s stance in this period, however, remained unchanged, with Spencer W. Kimball, Mark E. Peterson and Boyd K. Packer being the church’s primary voices on this topic through the 1970s and 1980s.

They spoke about homosexuality with disdain and disgust, which reflected the sentiment of their generation. They saw society’s softening towards homosexuality, including decriminalization, as evidence of society’s deterioration.[7] Because it had been hidden and rarely spoken of in the past, but was now becoming more open and accepted, these church leaders saw it as a rapidly spreading contagion that was infecting society and even the church and was thus a dangerous threat to marriage and family.[8] However, in demonizing homosexuality, they also demonized homosexuals, which caused untold despair and self-loathing among young LDS gay people trying to come to terms with their homosexual feelings in that era.

Spencer W. Kimball’s popular book, The Miracle of Forgiveness, first published in 1969, devoted an entire chapter to homosexuality, entitled “Crime Against Nature.” As one LDS historian explained, “[This chapter] is the earliest and most comprehensive treatment on homosexuality by an apostle, and the foundation from which Mormon thought, policy and political action on homosexuality grew for the past 45 years.”[9] Kimball described homosexuality and homosexuals using terms such as, “ugly,” “repugnant,” “ever-deepening degeneracy,” “evil,” “pervert,” deviant,” and “weaklings.” He taught that it was a spiritual disease that could be “cured,” and to those who felt otherwise, he responded: “How can you say the door cannot be opened until your knuckles are bloody, till your head is bruised, till your muscles are sore? It can be done.”[10]

This “curable-disease” mindset – based on obsolete psychological thought from the 1950s and 1960s – was embraced by Kimball and other church leaders because it aligned with their spiritual views of homosexuality.[11] They believed that homosexuality was a psychological or spiritual malady that could be cured through intense repentance, self-mastery and even marriage to the opposite sex. This belief informed the church’s ecclesiastical approach and training of leaders, as well as Mormon mental-health therapists, for years to come – and it was probably the most psychologically and spiritually damaging of all the church’s teachings on homosexuality. Almost all gay Mormons, particularly those over the age of 30, have gone through intense periods of fasting, prayer and hyper-religiosity, pleading with God to change this fundamental aspect of their core nature, only to fall into despair and self-recrimination when the promised change never came. Most of them at one time or another thought of suicide as the ultimate cure, and some carried it out. Many of them married at the counsel of their church leaders, believing in good faith that if they married in the temple, kept their covenants and raised a family in the church, God would finally cure them. Other than the suicides, these are some of the most tragic stories I am aware of, as so many – if not most – of these marriages ended with both parties being spiritually and emotionally scarred.

While the curability mindset has since been mostly abandoned by the church, it still lingers on in the minds and beliefs of many who cannot believe that God would create people as homosexuals – people who seemingly have no place in our theology or God’s eternal plan for families – and not give them a means to be cured. Elder Packer, who was one of the last public holdouts of this mindset among the brethren, famously expressed this sentiment in his October 2010 conference address, wherein he asked, “Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?” only to have it removed from the church’s official transcript days later.[12]

The following table compares key aspects of the church’s past and present position on homosexuality.

Past Position Present Position Is it a Choice? “Many have been misinformed that they are powerless in the matter, not responsible for the tendency, and that ‘God made them that way.’ This is as untrue as any other of the diabolical lies Satan has concocted. It is blasphemy. Man is made in the image of God. Does the pervert think God to be ‘that way’?” (Kimball, TMOF) “There is a falsehood that some are born with an attraction to their own kind, with nothing they can do about it. They are just ‘that way’ and can only yield to those desires. That is a malicious and destructive lie. While it is a convincing idea to some, it is of the devil. No one is locked into that kind of life.” (Packer, Oct 1976 Gen Conf) “Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them.” (Ballard, “The Lord Needs You Now,” Ensign, Sep 2015, also cited in mormonandgay. org, “Church Teachings”) “While same-sex attraction is not a sin, it can be a challenge. While one may not have chosen to have these feelings, he or she can commit to keep God’s commandments.” (mormonandgay.org, “Church Teachings”) “Perhaps such susceptibilities are inborn or acquired without personal choice or fault…” (Oaks, “Same-Gender Attraction,” Ensign, October 1995) What Causes Homosexuality? “Parents need to know that lack of proper affection in the home can result in unnatural behavior in their children such as homosexuality…” (Victor L. Brown Jr., “Two Views of Sexuality”, Ensign, July 1975) “Homosexuality would not occur where there is a normal, loving father-and-son relationship.” (J. Richard Clarke, Apr 1977 Gen Conf) “If children have a happy family experience they will not want to be homosexual, which I am sure is an acquired addiction, just as drugs, alcohol and pornography are. The promoters of homosexuality say they were born that way. But I do not believe this is true.” (Hartman Rector, Jr., Apr 1981Gen Conf, transcribed from audio) “Don’t blame yourself for your child’s same-sex attraction. This is no one’s fault. Blame is neither necessary nor helpful.” (mormonandgay.org “Ten Tips for Parents”) “We surely encourage parents not to blame themselves and we encourage Church members not to blame parents in this circumstance.” (Oaks/Wickman interview, 2006) [The church deleted significant portions of Hartman Rector’s talk in all text versions, including the passage shown here.] “What is more, [masturbation] too often leads to grievous sin, even to that sin against nature, homosexuality.” (Kimball, TMOF) “Sometimes masturbation is the introduction to the more serious sins of exhibitionism and the gross sin of homosexuality. “ (Kimball, “President Kimball Speaks on Morality,” Ensign, Nov 1980) “The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions – whether nature or nurture – those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.” (Oaks/Wickman interview, 2006; also cited in mormonandgay. org, “Church Teachings”) “Every form of homosexuality is sin. Pornography is one of the approaches to that transgression.” (Kimball, “God Will Not Be Mocked”, Ensign, Nov 1974) “’A normal 12- or 13-year-old boy or girl exposed to pornographic literature could develop into a homosexual’” (Victor L. Brown, April 1970 Gen Conf) [Note: none of the recent church resources or talks on homosexuality mentions masturbation or pornography as a cause. As quoted above, the church takes no position on cause, leaving that to the scientific/medical realm.] “Why somebody has a same-gender attraction… who can say?” (Oaks/Wickman interview, 2006) Is it Curable? “Curable and Forgivable – With Effort. After consideration of the evil aspects, the ugliness and prevalence of the evil of homosexuality, the glorious thing to remember is that it is curable and forgivable…Certainly it can be overcome…” (Kimball, TMOF) “…a change in attraction should not be expected or demanded as an outcome by parents or leaders.” (mormonandgay.org FAQ) “I must say, this son’s sexual orientation did not somehow miraculously change–no one assumed it would.” (Holland, Oct 2015 Gen Conf) “And while the number of divorces causes us to fear and admit it partly to be true, the principle of marriage is right. Some have changed their desires and yearnings and have convinced themselves that they are different and have no desire toward the opposite sex. … But let this individual repent of his perversion, force himself to return to normal pursuits and interests and actions and friendships with the opposite sex, and this normal pattern can become natural again.” (Kimball, TMOF) “President Hinckley, faced with the fact that apparently some had believed [marriage] to be a remedy, and perhaps that some Church leaders had even counseled marriage as the remedy for these feelings, made this statement: ‘Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices.’” (Oaks/Wickman interview, 2006) Difference Between Being Homosexual and ‘Acting on It’ “This perversion [homosexuality] is defined as sexual desire for those of the same sex or sexual relations between individuals of the same sex…” (Kimball, TMOF) “…same-gender attraction is not a sin, but acting on those feelings is…” (Holland, “Helping those who Struggle with Same-gender Attraction,” Ensign, Oct 2007)

Positive Steps

With the passing of Kimball, Peterson and Packer, and the continued evolution in our understanding of homosexuality, many fundamental aspects of the church’s position, such as cause and curability, have changed (as shown in the above table). In addition, the harsh, condemning rhetoric used by Kimball, Peterson and Packer gave way to the softer more compassionate tone of Oaks, Holland and Christofferson. Many in the general church membership also began to soften their stance as they observed openly gay co-workers, neighbors, and their own family members living happy, productive lives once they cast off the shame and condemnation they were raised with. A 2015 Pew Research Center survey of Christian groups’ acceptance of homosexuality found that Mormons experienced the largest increase in acceptance rates compared to all other denominations, going from 24% in 2007 (second lowest after Jehovah’s Witnesses) to 36% in 2014 (now tied with Evangelicals at second lowest), a 50% increase.[13]

However, as church leaders saw their members following society’s trend towards greater acceptance of homosexuality, including same-sex marriage, they began to speak out strongly again – focusing their attention and rhetoric on the evils of same-sex marriage. While leadership no longer embraced all the opinions of the Kimball generation, they still held strongly to that generation’s belief that same-sex marriage was a dangerous threat to traditional marriage and society. The church began entering the political arena like never before, fighting same-sex marriage legislation and lobbying for ballot initiatives and legislation that defined marriage as only between one man and one woman. The political action started with Hawaii in 1994 and culminated with a bruising public battle over California’s Proposition 8 in 2008, which sought to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. The church and its members were the largest donors in the Prop 8 fight, which won at the ballot box but was soon overturned in court. Ironically, this political fight may have done more to garner sympathy for gay people and galvanize public support for same-sex marriage – including its ultimate legalization – than any other event.

After Prop 8, the church tended to stay out of the public political arena on these issues, and instead focused on teaching the doctrine of traditional marriage and family with greater emphasis and frequency within the church, although it continued to have its lawyers quietly file amicus briefs in court cases around the country. Rather than getting involved in public lobbying itself, the church has encouraged its members to stand up for traditional marriage as a necessary foundation for religious freedom – its recent rallying cry.

While always quick to reaffirm its stance that same-sex marriage and homosexual behavior are grievous sins, the church in just the last few years has taken a number of steps that demonstrate improved understanding of and greater compassion for its LGBT members:

2012 – The church quietly released its original mormonsandgays.org website. The enlarged head-note on the home page contained the following statement:

Where the Church Stands. The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.

2013 – In response to the Boy Scouts of America’s policy change allowing gay youth to participate (and after some previous mixed messages indicating the church might pull out of the BSA), the church affirmed its support for the policy change.[14]

2015 – In January, the church held a news conference and released video messages from leaders on a “fairness for all” approach, which sought to balance religious freedom with reasonable safeguards for LGBT people. The church said it “publicly favored laws and ordinances that protect LGBT people from discrimination in housing and employment.” Elder Christofferson, Sister Neill Marriott, Elder Oaks and Elder Holland expressed messages of tolerance and compassion for LGBT people, with Sister Marriott stating: “This [LGBT rights] movement arose after centuries of ridicule, persecution and even violence against homosexuals. Ultimately, most of society recognized that such treatment was simply wrong, and that such basic human rights as securing a job or a place to live should not depend on a person’s sexual orientation.”[15]

2015 – In March, the church released a public statement and employed lobbyists in support of a proposed LGBT nondiscrimination and religious rights bill in Utah. The bill had failed to pass in six previous attempts but passed this time; and the church issued a statement applauding its passage.[16]

2015 – In March, Elder Christofferson gave an interview on KUTV in Salt Lake City in which he said that church members could publicly advocate for gay marriage without having their membership threatened, as long as their effort didn’t attack the church.[17]

Major Setback

In the midst of this much-appreciated progress, on June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in the Obergefell matter that made same-sex marriage legal in the U.S. – something no one had expected to happen so soon. The church issued a press release that very day, stating, “The Court’s decision does not alter the Lord’s doctrine that marriage is a union between a man and a woman ordained by God. While showing respect for those who think differently, the Church will continue to teach and promote marriage between a man and a woman as a central part of our doctrine and practice.”[18]

From that point on, the tide seemed to turn in the church. The doctrinal emphasis on traditional marriage and the Proclamation on the Family became a constant theme. Sunday talks and lessons frequently referred to the legalization of same-sex marriage as a sign of the end times and the wickedness of the world. The previous messages of tolerance and empathy were drowned out by the old familiar refrains of the gay agenda and destruction of the family.

To make matters worse, on November 5, 2015, the church issued the policy that labeled members in same-sex marriages apostate and barred their children from receiving church ordinances and serving missions, effectively pushing their families out of the church. The policy was spiritually and psychologically traumatizing to the LGBT Mormon community. As John Gustav-Wrathall, the president of Affirmation, described it, “In the months since the policy I’ve seen widespread signs of trauma and depression within the LGBT Mormon community, including documented suicides. Many feel the church just wants to get rid of LGBT people.”[19] A sharp increase in LDS youth suicides raised significant concerns among parents of LGBT children and garnered much media attention. As if to balance the recent hard-line rhetoric, the church finally responded with a conciliatory statement and an unprecedented series of articles in the church-owned Deseret News on LGBT issues, including references to resources it had previously not endorsed.[20]

In October 2016 the church released an entirely new version of its mormonandgay.org website, which many in the Mormon LGBT community regarded as a significant improvement over the prior version. However, given the existence of the November policy, many felt the new website was more about public relations than the sincere concern of church leadership. Only time will tell how sincere the church is about healing its rocky relationship with its gay members and their families and supporters.

With this backdrop we might acknowledge how, perhaps more than ever, we as a church need to confront our position and beliefs about homosexuality head on. We need to ask some hard questions of ourselves as to why depression, suicide and loss of faith seem to be the outcomes of a position that is believed to be of God. While the official position has improved vastly from President Kimball’s generation, have we gone as far as the Lord wants us? Is there still more He would tell us if we had the humility and courage to ask? It is these questions that prompted me to make this in-depth examination of the church’s position on homosexuality and share my observations in this article.

Tradition or God’s Will

As noted above, church leaders have drawn a very clear line in how far their position on homosexuality can evolve, stating that the church’s current position on marriage is God’s will and therefore cannot and will not change.[21] To address this belief and the questions raised above, it is necessary for a short digression on our perception of God’s will in various ages and how it changes over long periods of time.[22]

Throughout religious and human history there have been moral and cultural standards that have come and gone with the passage of time. Standards that have stood the test of time, remained constant across cultures, and consistently resulted in positive outcomes (i.e., “bear good fruit”[23]) are those we may rightfully consider to be “eternal truths” and therefore God’s revealed will to man. Standards that were once considered God’s will by those who believed them but that have since been abandoned by religion and society are generally considered to be cultural relics, “folk doctrines” or incorrect traditions of men.

Consider for instance the following religious moral standards from ages past:

If a man rapes a married or betrothed woman, he is subject to the death penalty; but if he rapes an un-betrothed virgin he can make reparations simply by paying her father 50 shekels of silver and marrying her (Deut 22:23-29).

Women are to keep silent in the churches for it is not permitted unto them to speak; if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home for it is a shame for women to speak in the church (1 Cor 14:34-35).

It is a sin to charge interest on a loan (Lev 25:36-37; also prohibited by the Christian church in medieval Europe; still prohibited in some Islamic societies today).

Suicide is equivalent to murder.

These standards were believed to be God’s law in their times and cultures but are generally not regarded as such by most religions today. Women have been badly mistreated throughout history and thought to be weak and inferior in many cultures. Even today there is still much debate in the church about their proper role in family, society and the church. However, aside from certain religious fundamentalists, almost no one today would disagree that many of the biblical teachings relating to women, such as the two examples above, are cultural relics that were harmful to women, and were therefore of men and not of God.

The charging of interest was considered immoral and strictly forbidden among Christians through much of the medieval period.[24] But as capitalistic market economies emerged, the charging of interest on capital loaned to someone for a profit-making venture came to be seen as an important financial tool that benefitted society and not necessarily a means of taking advantage of someone who needed to borrow money because they had fallen on hard times.

Suicide has long been held as a grievous sin equivalent to murder in Christian religious traditions (as well as in Mormon doctrine[25]). But the modern science of psychology has given us the tools to better understand and empathize with the victims of suicide, such that we no longer view it as a sin comparable to murder but more as a tragic result of mental illness or extreme despair that only God can judge. Here are three more examples of changing standards discussed in greater depth.

Slavery

Slavery has been a fact of life for most of human existence until relatively recently. It is treated as normal and approved of in both the Old and New Testaments. Jesus taught parables involving slaves but never condemned slavery. Paul counseled slaves on many occasions to obey their masters and Peter even told slaves to patiently submit to unjust beatings by their masters because it was acceptable to God.[26] The general feeling was that if you were a conquering nation, you had the god-given right to enslave the conquered as a reward for your god-ordained victory. Or if you were considered a weak and inferior race, not much above the animals, you were naturally and divinely suited to slavery. Or if you were born a peasant and couldn’t pay your debts, being sold into slavery was a just remedy.

It wasn’t until the 1700s that certain people, starting mostly with the Quakers, really began to question whether ownership of another human was moral and in accordance with God’s will. The Quakers were joined by Evangelicals and other religious groups, and this effort eventually evolved into the abolitionist movement. Many in society saw abolitionists as religious extremists (particularly those who went so far as to believe the black race were equal to whites and should be able to freely mix within white society). Those in favor of upholding the age-old tradition of slavery, including conservative religious groups who were fearful of the impact on society that freeing the slaves might have, quoted extensively from the Bible to support their position. In the end, despite the Bible’s acceptance of slavery, and human tradition going back millennia, society and religion came to adopt the former “extremist” view that slavery was immoral and should be abolished. Unfortunately, the LDS church did not support the abolitionist movement in the U.S. and actually allowed slavery in the Territory of Utah.[27]

Birth Control

Modern, effective birth control was hailed by many in society as a hugely important development for women and families that, among other things, would protect a mother’s health and allow couples to better manage their family size in accordance with their financial and emotional resources. However, many past LDS prophets have soundly condemned birth control, as shown in the following examples.

Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1954, Vol. 2, p. 273:

BIRTH CONTROL IS WICKEDNESS. The abuse of this holy covenant has been the primary cause for the downfall of nations. When the sacred vows of marriage are broken and the real purpose of marriage abused, as we find it so prevalent in the world today, then destruction is inevitable.

When a man and a woman are married and they agree, or covenant, to limit their offspring to two or three, and practice devices to accomplish this purpose, they are guilty of iniquity which eventually must be punished. Unfortunately this evil doctrine is being taught as a virtue by many people who consider themselves cultured and highly educated. It has even crept in among members of the Church and has been advocated in some of the classes within the Church.

Letter from the First Presidency (David O. McKay, Hugh B. Brown, N. Eldon Tanner) to all Church units, April 14, 1969:

The First Presidency is being asked from time to time as to what the attitude of the Church is regarding birth control. In order that you may be informed on this subject and that you may be prepared to convey the proper information to the members of the Church under your jurisdiction, we have decided to give you the following statement:

We seriously should regret that there should exist a sentiment or feeling among any members of the Church to curtail the birth of their children. We have been commanded to multiply and replenish the earth that we may have joy and rejoicing in our posterity.

Where husband and wife enjoy health and vigor and are free from impurities that would be entailed upon their posterity, it is contrary to the teachings of the Church artificially to curtail or prevent the birth of children. We believe that those who practice birth control will reap disappointment by and by.

Harold B. Lee, Conference Report, October 1972, p. 63:

[W]e declare it is a grievous sin before God to adopt restrictive measures in disobedience to God’s divine command from the beginning of time to ‘multiply and replenish the earth.’ Surely those who project such measures to prevent life or to destroy life before or after birth will reap the whirlwind of God’s retribution, for God will not be mocked.

Despite these strong statements, which continued through much of the 1970s, the church’s official stance began to change over time. The current Church Handbook of Instructions (21.4.4) doesn’t even include the words “birth control” other than in the heading of a section that states:

It is the privilege of married couples who are able to bear children to provide mortal bodies for the spirit children of God, whom they are then responsible to nurture and rear. The decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter.

Married couples should also understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a way of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife.

Thus, what was once condemned by LDS prophets as an evil and grievous sin is now morally acceptable. Rather than a blanket standard or mandate applied to all, the decision to use birth control and choose family size is left to the personal inspiration of the wife and husband.

The Priesthood and Temple Ban

The priesthood and temple ban on people of African descent that originated with Brigham Young in 1852 was consistent with societal racial attitudes of the time, including the belief that blacks were the descendants of Cain and carried his biblical curse.[28] However, in the 1960s as black people in the U.S. began to protest unfair and abusive treatment, wider society started to listen to and empathize with their condition. Many in the U.S. began to reject long-held racist beliefs and attitudes and began supporting civil rights legislation that attempted to put blacks on equal standing with the rest of society. Sadly, the church and many of its senior leaders resisted this movement, believing that civil rights laws were a threat to traditional societal structures and morals and that the priesthood ban was God’s will and could not be changed.[29] However, because Spencer W. Kimball was willing to question the church’s position and acknowledge that it could be in error, he had the capacity to pray for and receive divine confirmation that the priesthood ban should be removed. Had he simply accepted the views and traditions of most of his fellow general authorities, he never would have even sought to know God’s will on the issue.

Applications for Today

From the above examples, as well as many others, we see that certain doctrines and moral standards that were once considered God’s revealed will (e.g., slavery, inferiority of blacks, treatment of women) have proved to be false doctrines and extremely harmful to those affected by them. Conversely, beliefs and standards once considered against God’s will (e.g., abolition of slavery, civil rights for blacks, interracial marriage, removal of the priesthood ban, birth control) are now held to be moral and acceptable by the church.

How do we know if a doctrine or standard taught today is an unchangeable eternal truth or just a socio-cultural tradition that will change one day? Given the above precedents, we must be willing to ask some sincere and probing questions with respect to the church’s current stance on homosexuality. Is the church justified in resisting societal acceptance of homosexuality, or is it simply holding to past traditions and views that are causing harm to those affected, as it previously did on civil rights and the priesthood ban? Is it really God’s will that His children born with a homosexual orientation be required to live their entire lives in celibacy without the emotional, physical and spiritual attachment of someone they are naturally attracted to? Do we have the courage of a President Kimball to even ask these questions and consider whether the current position is truly God’s will or whether it, too, could be in error?

Two Basic Premises

To take these questions seriously and to understand the reasoning and logic that follow, it is assumed the reader already understands and accepts two basic premises:

Being gay is not a choice.[30] A person’s sexual orientation, or attraction to one sex or the other, is instinctive and innate. It typically begins to manifest at an early age and grows in great intensity with sexual maturation. While the etiology of sexual orientation is not yet fully understood (although there is strong evidence of a biological/genetic component), we have the testimony of countless numbers of gay people – including members of our own church – who have told us that their sexual orientation is innate and not chosen, and that intensive and persistent effort to change it has not succeeded. Homosexuals are just as capable as heterosexuals of forming committed, love-based relationships with a person they are naturally attracted to. And those relationships can be just as edifying and meaningful as the relationships formed by heterosexual couples. (Note that acceptance of this premise does not require belief that it is acceptable to God.)

If you do not know any gay people personally and have not had the opportunity to really talk to them about their life experience, particularly those who are in committed same-sex relationships, you may not be able to accept either or both of the above premises, and therefore may be unable to seriously consider what follows in this article. If that is the case, to make this article more meaningful, perhaps you can accept these premises on a hypothetical basis until you have the opportunity to get to know a good number of gay people, understand their experience and make your own observations.[31]

II. Examination of the Church’s Position – Doctrinal Basis

The primary source of doctrine in our church is canonized scripture (the four Standard Works), as well as the open canon of continuing revelation that comes through the words of those we sustain as latter-day prophets, seers and revelators. Both of these forms of doctrine are addressed below.

Canonized Scripture

With respect to canonized scripture, there is very little content on homosexuality and nothing that addresses the modern development of love-based same-sex relationships and marriage. The latter-day scriptural canon – the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants and Pearl of Great Price – contain no prohibition against and are completely silent on homosexuality. In the four gospels of the New Testament, Jesus spoke of marriage, divorce and the sin of adultery but he never directly addressed homosexuality.

The two most direct passages in the Bible come from the Law of Moses and an epistle of Paul. Leviticus 18:22 states, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” In Romans 1:26-27 (NIV) Paul speaks of women who “exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones,” and of men who in the same way “abandoned natural relations with women” and “committed shameful acts with other men.”

While much of the conservative Christian world cites these scriptures as primary evidence of God’s prohibition of homosexual behavior, perhaps somewhat surprisingly the LDS church and its leaders rarely do. For instance, the church’s mormonandgay.org website, its most comprehensive resource on this topic, does not cite the Romans and Leviticus passages. Nor does the LDS.org Gospel Topics entry for “homosexuality” (which redirects to “same-sex attraction“). A search of general conference talks in the last 25-plus years shows that only five referenced the Romans and Leviticus passages – three were from Elder Russell M. Nelson and two were from Elder Boyd K. Packer (see Appendix 1).[32]

Why is it that current church teachings on homosexuality and same-sex marriage rarely cite the two main biblical passages that most evangelicals (and likely most Mormon laity) rely on as evidence of God’s prohibition of same-sex relationships? Perhaps our church leadership (and Correlation) recognize that more rigorous biblical scholarship does not adequately support the conventional interpretation, or at least that those scriptures do not really address the modern development of love-based same-sex relationships. While it is beyond the scope of this article to engage in a thorough exegesis of these passages (there are many other sources that do this quite ably), I will give a brief summary of some of the arguments made by some biblical scholars as to why these passages should not be used as evidence against same-sex marriage.

The Leviticus passage is one of many prohibitions given to the children of Israel to set them apart from their Canaanite and Egyptian neighbors as God’s covenant people (Lev 11:9-12). Like other moral codes in ancient times, the Law of Moses had specific restrictions pertaining to diet and sexual relations. Some of them we follow today, others we do not. For instance, women who were menstruating were considered unclean, as was anything or anyone they touched. Having sex with a menstruating woman was strictly forbidden and required excommunication of both participants (see Lev 15:19-27; 18:19; 20:18). Similarly, the eating of unclean animals, such as shellfish, was considered an “abomination” and strictly forbidden (Lev 11:9-12). No one in our church today considers these laws to be binding, or doctrine, even though they are in the Bible.

The belief in biblical inerrancy is what allowed generations past and present to cite scripture in support of: slavery, genocide of “heathen” peoples, denying women the right to vote, treating women as the property of their husbands, and putting homosexuals to death, to name a few. As Mormons, we believe the Bible “to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly,” and therefore have some latitude in trying to discern what is of God and what is of man, time and culture. In this way, we see that there are many ideas, beliefs and even commandments found in ancient scripture that have not stood the test of time and are not believed to be of God. Therefore, we need not be inextricably bound by the Leviticus passages on homosexuality any more than we are by the passages regarding dietary codes and other sexual mores of that time.

Paul’s treatment of homosexual sex in Romans (and in a few other places) was likely addressing the sexual practices common in his time and culture. Greco-Roman society viewed homosexual sex as indicative of excessive sexual desire, not as a distinct sexual orientation. Indeed, the Greeks and Romans accepted forms of homosexual behavior that would not be acceptable by many of today’s standards, including prostitution, master-slave sex and pederasty.[33] It is these practices that Paul was speaking against, not the modern development of egalitarian, love-based homosexual relationships, a concept unknown in those times (for that matter, egalitarian love-based heterosexual marriage is also a relatively modern development unknown in that time[34]). By decrying various forms of sexual promiscuity, including the homosexual behaviors common in his time, Paul was calling for Christians to reject lasciviousness and promiscuity in favor of virtuousness and chastity.

Other biblical teachings on marriage (and celibacy) can help us understand how we might be able to accept a departure from biblical tradition. Jesus explicitly taught on three separate occasions, including in the Book of Mormon, that anyone who divorced and remarried, or even someone who married a divorced person, was guilty of adultery.[35] This teaching is about as straightforward and unambiguous as it gets, and yet our church doctrine does not prohibit divorce (even of a temple sealing) as the Catholic church does. Why has our church been willing to make exception to this clear teaching from the Savior himself? Nothing in LDS canon or latter-day revelation changed what Jesus taught about divorce, yet the church’s acceptance of divorce is at direct odds with his teachings.

Historically speaking, this acceptance is likely related to our practice of polygamy, which was quite liberal in its allowance of divorce because of the difficult circumstances polygamous relationships sometimes created. But it may also relate to the acknowledgement that mortal life and relationships can be messy and imperfect, often falling short of the ideal. Yet with mercy and understanding the church allows our members who fall short of that ideal to divorce and remarry – or maybe recognizes the reality that people will do so regardless of church mandate. We might ask whether the same mercy could be extended to our gay members whose situation does not fit the heteronormative ideal.

After hearing Jesus’ condemnation of divorce, his disciples observed, “it is not good to marry,” which prompted further teaching from Jesus on the subject of celibacy. Jesus’ response to his disciples’ observation was that “All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.” In other words, celibacy is not a universal requirement but can be a gift to some people. He then explained how some eunuchs (or those who have no desire or attraction for a woman) were born that way, some were made eunuchs of men (a common station in the ancient world) and, perhaps most interestingly, some “made themselves eunuchs [or celibate] for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.” He again reiterated that this was not a universal principle, stating, “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”[36]

What does this mean for our gay brothers and sisters? Perhaps there are some gay members who feel they are among the few “to whom it is given” to be able to live a life of celibacy in order to fully devote themselves to Christ and his gospel (or under current circumstances, to remain in full fellowship in the church). Because they are “able to receive it,” they willingly make themselves celibate “for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.” But we must remember that the ability to make this great sacrifice is a gift given to few and not a universal requirement, at least not required of any of our heterosexual members. Most of us believe that “it is not good for man to be alone” and that marriage and lifelong companionship with the one we love is a crowning experience of mortal life.

Are the biblical prohibitions against homosexual relations applicable to those in loving, committed relationships or are they like the biblical and religious traditions that have not stood the test of time? Perhaps with respect to some of these ancient laws there are underlying doctrinal concepts that are eternal even if the specific laws themselves were not. For instance, biblical prohibitions against usury (interest) are not relevant by today’s standards, but the underlying concept of not taking financial advantage of others would seem to be an eternal principle. And while we no longer judge suicide as equivalent to murder, we still believe in the underlying concept of the sanctity of human life.

By the same token, perhaps the eternal principle underlying the biblical prohibition on homosexual relations pertains to the law of chastity, which teaches that the greatest and most meaningful expression of human sexuality is found in an exclusive, committed, love-based relationship (i.e., marriage). Therefore, in studying any of the Bible passages that regulate sexual conduct, we should consider how the law of chastity informs them and whether the deeper meaning of that law applies to all who abide by it, regardless of sexual orientation.

Modern-day Teachings

As previously discussed, the Church’s recent teachings on the subject of homosexuality and same-sex marriage generally do not draw on the biblical verses prohibiting homosexual relations. Rather, church leaders have developed a theological argument in response to the recent development of same-sex marriage. This theological argument appears to be based on the church’s teachings on eternal marriage, the Plan of Salvation and gender complementarity as set forth in various documents including:

The Family: A Proclamation to the World, 1995

First Presidency Statement on Same-Gender Marriage, 2004[37]

The Divine Institution of Marriage, 2008[38]

Letter from First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve to all church units in the U.S. and Canada after the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, 2015[39]

While the doctrinal exposition contained in these documents is quite spare, they appear to be the primary documents the church cites in support of its position on homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Of these documents, “The Divine Institution of Marriage” is the most comprehensive and, in the church’s own words, “outline[s] its doctrine and position on marriage.”[40] Therefore, my examination of the church’s position will focus on the concepts contained in that document.

One stated purpose of the document is to affirm that “intimate relations are acceptable to God only between a husband and a wife.” In response to that statement, one might ask, “why?” Why is sex between a married man and woman acceptable to God but sex between two married men or two married women not acceptable to God? To those who are born heterosexual – the dominant majority – and into a culture where heteronormativity is a given, to ask “why” may seem preposterous, not even worth serious thought. But to someone born homosexual, that question is enormous, life-impacting, soul-searching, to some even a matter of life and death.

Are we absolutely certain of God’s will on this subject? How can we be so certain of the answer that we are willing to deprive the homosexual minority of something that we in the heterosexual majority consider one of the crowning experiences of mortal life? How can we require something of them that we ourselves are not asked to do? To these questions, the church has given no direct answer. Our gay members may justifiably wonder if church leaders have seriously asked “why?” Have they tried to consider it from the perspective of a gay person? Have they asked God in humility for an answer? Has the prophet received a revelation specific to this issue? Some members of the church may cite the Proclamation on the Family as the revelatory answer to these hard questions. But when President Packer referred to the Proclamation as a “revelation” in his October 2010 conference address, that reference was deleted from the official transcript (along with other incorrect statements).[41]

The church’s requirement for gay people – celibacy – is, ironically, considered a false and apostate doctrine.[42] All members are expected to be sexually abstinent until marrying, but only gay people are required to live lifelong celibacy. Because gay people do not appear to fit into the church’s theology of eternal progression and the Plan of Salvation, and because church leaders have not received revelation or had the time or will to develop a theology that can encompass the wide variety of sexual/gender identity and orientation that we are only now beginning to recognize in God’s children, gay people are simply told “no, not for you.” As one concerned father of a gay son describes it:

Celibacy is the prescribed solution for the question to which we have no revelation. It is not mentioned in the Proclamation. It is not [taught] in the Bible. Neither celibacy nor homosexuality is mentioned in any work of modern scripture… There is no modern apostle or prophet who has expounded on how to live a celibate life. There is no handbook, guide or Church website addressing the subject. It is just expected. It is what you are left with when the commandments leave you nothing else.[43]

In sum, celibacy appears to be the fallback position when prophetic vision, theological innovation and Godlike empathy fail. Rather than envision what might be possible, it is easier to default to “that’s how it’s always been” or “society may change but God does not change.” This same reasoning was used by those who defended slavery, objected to women’s suffrage, feared the civil rights movement, and upheld the priesthood/temple ban as God’s will. This way of thinking is aptly described by the Proverb, “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” (Prov 29:18)[44]

I use this proverb in the way President Gordon B. Hinckley did in his October 1995 general conference talk, “Stay the Course – Keep the Faith.” In that talk he stated:

I cannot understand those of small vision, who regard this work as limited and provincial. They have no expanding view of it. As certainly as there is an Almighty Father in Heaven, as surely as there is His Son, our Divine Redeemer, so certainly is this work destined to reach out to people everywhere.

He then told the story of Joshua and Caleb, who, with ten of their brethren, were tasked with spying out the land of Canaan and reporting back to the people. The ten gave reports filled with doubt and fear while Joshua and Caleb’s reports embodied faith and optimism. President Hinckley summarized the story in a way that appears to describe an oft-repeated pattern:

But the people were more willing to believe the ten doubters than to believe Caleb and Joshua. Then it was that the Lord declared that the children of Israel should wander in the wilderness forty years until the generation of those who had walked with doubt and fear should pass away.

Because we as a church are so unwilling to embrace the paradigm-shifting views of our founding prophet or to sincerely question the status quo, are we destined to wander in the wilderness for 40 years while our LGBT brothers and sisters continue to perish for the lack of vision? Sadly, the positions the church has taken on LGBT issues over the last 20 years do not appear to have originated out of a sincere petitioning of the Lord for further light and knowledge on how the Plan of Salvation can embrace LGBT people, or even out of basic love and concern for our LGBT members. Rather these positions and policies mostly appear to have been a defensive response to political and societal trends towards acceptance of same-sex marriage. The church’s statements and press releases sometimes feel no different than the culture wars waged in secular society, where empathy and mutual understanding have all but disappeared. The result is an “us versus them” mentality in our own church, where LGBT people are seen as the enemy rather than as our brothers and sisters. Is it any wonder that suicides among our gay youth have skyrocketed in this same time period? Truly, where there is no vision, the people perish.

The celibacy requirement made logical sense with the old way of thinking about homosexuality – when it was thought to be like a contagion that would ensnare others unless it were essentially quarantined by forced celibacy and public opprobrium. But with the greater light and knowledge brought about by science and by actually listening to gay people’s lived experience, society – and the church – mostly abandoned that line of thinking, realizing that gay people do not choose their sexual orientation and that there is nothing inherently immoral about being attracted to one’s own sex. But the church’s doctrine evolved to a point that leaves gay people in a kind of no-man’s land where their being gay is, thankfully, not considered sinful anymore, but giving expression to their natural affections and capacities for love and human intimacy – even in lawful monogamous marriage – is still considered a “grievous sin.”[45]

If the church has been able to change its position on the causes and nature of homosexuality so dramatically from the incorrect teachings of past prophets, based on science, listening to the experiences of LGBT people and their families and, hopefully, based on enlightenment and divine inspiration, why is its position on same-sex relationships and marriage still informed by the teachings of those same past leaders whose understanding was unenlightened and incorrect? Based on some of the things they continue to teach, as discussed below, it appears that some church leaders still hold the old view that unchecked homosexuality – specifically, gay marriage – can spread like a contagion to heterosexuals and that gay people can influence heterosexuals to become gay, thus threatening traditional marriage and the bearing of children.

Having mostly publicly abandoned the old view that homosexuality is a chosen condition that goes against God’s will by its very being, the church’s rationale for lifelong celibacy now focuses on the “divinity” of marriage and the divine roles of husband/father and wife/mother, declaring that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. In the Divine Institution of Marriage (referred to hereafter as “the Marriage document”), the church makes three chief arguments in support of this declaration and in opposition to same-sex marriage. None are new or unique – all have been cited in legal briefs and in non-LDS sources by parties opposed to same-sex marriage at one time or another.

Procreation argument – Marriage is closely linked to procreation and only a man and a woman have the biological capacity to procreate; therefore, only men and women should be allowed to marry.

The first problem with the procreation argument is that it is only applied to homosexuals but not to heterosexual couples. Heterosexual couples who do not have the biological capacity to procreate (due to menopause, disease, injury, etc.) are still able to marry. And there are couples who have been previously married, had children, then gotten divorced or been widowed, and find themselves wanting to remarry but not wanting to have more children. The couples in these marriages are either unable or not desirous to fulfill God’s injunction to Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the Earth; yet, according to the church’s position, God still accepts these marriages that are entered into solely for love and companionship.

Furthermore, as quoted above in the Church Handbook of Instructions, “Married couples should also understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a way of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife.” Thus, the church does not require marriage and sexual relations within marriage to be solely for the purpose of procreation with respect to heterosexuals, so why does it use the procreation argument against homosexuals?

If heterosexuals who have no ability or intention to procreate are allowed to marry solely for love and companionship, why can’t homosexuals also be allowed to marry solely for love and companionship? If they have the same capacity as heterosexuals to form loving, lasting unions, and their intimate relations within those marital unions also serve “as a way of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds,” then how do we know that such unions are not divinely approved?

Another problem with the procreation argument is that it is inconsistent with the church’s prescription of celibacy for gay people. The church argues against same-sex marriage because a gay couple is unable to procreate and propagate the species, yet the church’s prescription of celibacy has the same outcome. Whether in a same-sex marriage or living in celibacy, a gay person’s ability to procreate doesn’t change. Therefore, it seems illogical to tell a gay person, “You should be denied the blessings of marriage to the one you love because you can’t procreate,” and to follow that with, “our answer for you is to live a celibate life.”

Finally, there is the unfounded fear that because gay people can’t procreate, society’s acceptance of same-sex marriage would result in rapidly declining birthrates and the depopulation of a nation.[46] This logic seems to be based on the old “contagion” view of homosexuality and that acceptance of same-sex marriage would somehow influence heterosexuals to change their sexual orientation or to stop procreating. This view is hard to fathom. For those of us who are heterosexual, can we imagine becoming attracted to our own sex and losing all attraction to the opposite sex simply because we know happily-married gay people? Whether married or single, gay people – who have always existed and who make up a small minority of the population – aren’t going to affect national birthrates and aren’t going to cause straight people to turn gay.

Complementarianism argument – Only marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God because of the complementary natures of male and female.

The Marriage document states:

The special status granted marriage is nevertheless closely linked to the inherent powers and responsibilities of procreation and to the innate differences between the genders. By contrast, same-sex marriage is an institution no longer linked to gender—to the biological realities and complementary natures of male and female.

Complementarianism is the theological view that men and women have different but complementary roles and responsibilities in marriage, family life, religious leadership and elsewhere. The church appears to accept complementarianism as doctrine, and further holds that the complementarity of male and female provides a rationale for denying marital unions to those of the same sex. The first problem with this rationale is that it seems to imply that true romantic/emotional/spiritual love can only exist between male and female, and that a same-sex couple – because they do not have complementarity of biological sex – are incapable of that kind of love. This assumption can be tested by observing and talking to same-sex couples about their relationships. Once you really get to know such couples, particularly those who have been together for many years, any doubts about the reality of their love and companionship are easily dispelled.

It is true that the opposing but complementary nature of the sexes has inspired art, music, literature and philosophy throughout the ages. There is beauty and mystery in contemplating the unity of opposites symbolized in the union of male and female. But is this aesthetic made any less true or beautiful by the existence of same-sex unions? The male/female aesthetic holds true for the vast majority of the world’s population. Is it really threatened by the small minority of gay people whose “biological reality” does not encompass romantic love and desire for the opposite sex but who are perfectly capable of love for those of the same sex? The existence of gay people, with their unique gifts, abilities and love, could be seen as another expression of the wondrous variation found in all God’s creations. As children of God, gay people have their own unique aesthetic that should be considered complementary, but in no way destructive, to the heteronormative aesthetic.

The church frequently cites the creation narrative in making its argument. In Genesis we read of God creating Adam and stating, “It is not good that the man should be alone,” then making a woman as a “helpmeet” for him, who is later referred to as Adam’s wife. But is it right to interpret this account as an edict against same-sex marriage? Such an interpretation reads more into the narrative than is actually there. Just because God created a man and woman in the beginning and intended for them to pair up and procreate doesn’t mean that the gay people He created aren’t also intended to be able to pair up according to their natural-born attraction. Some may argue that this account illustrates a divine pattern for marriage that same-sex marriage violates. But that divine pattern – a marriage between one man and one woman – was broken repeatedly in the Bible (and of course in our own church) by the practice of polygamy. In addition, that original biblical pattern had to allow for incestuous marriages among Adam and Eve’s children and posterity, which was later strictly prohibited in the Law of Moses and by the standards of most societies. This observation shows us that we should be careful about taking this story too literally or extrapolating it to situations to which it does not apply in order to support a particular position (known as proof texting).

Some look to the future state of an eternally married man and woman, the potential to become like our Heavenly Parents, and the mention of “continuation of the seeds” in D&C 132:19 as evidence of some kind of spiritual procreation that precludes same-sex marriage in the afterlife. Even if these theological ideas are taken literally, they are not weakened or negated by allowing the small number of God’s children who do not fit that mold the opportunity to marry in this life. Moreover, there are three degrees in the Celestial Kingdom, and only one requires the “new and everlasting covenant of marriage”[47] (which early church leaders and members took to mean plural marriage but has now been defined as eternal marriage between one man and one woman). So even taking a very literal approach to this scripture, there are still two degrees in the Celestial Kingdom that do not require marriage between a man and a woman (or women), which could leave room for same-sex married couples as well as single individuals. [48]

Perhaps most importantly, the limited extent of our knowledge of the afterlife regarding sex, procreation, marriage relationships and becoming Heavenly Parents should cause us to be more humble and cautious in how we interpret and apply this knowledge. Terryl Givens’ exhaustive treatment of these doctrines and their genesis shows how little we really know. For example, he states:

The impossibility of establishing with certainty Smith’s position on spirit birth as opposed to spirit adoption is one of many points of indeterminacy in the Mormon past, and a reminder of how much fog enshrouded a narrative that is at times depicted as clear and unfailingly linear in the modern church. It is possible that Smith was undecided relative to two scenarios of human creation. More likely, perhaps, is the fact that neither adoption nor procreation is an adequate human analogue for the process by which Smith believed eternally existing intelligent element (or beings) to be transformed into individual human spirits.[49]

Are we justified in imposing such a drastic restriction on our gay brothers and sisters in this life based on doctrinal speculations that may be more metaphorical than literal and about which we have little to no actual revelation? Should incomplete, uncertain knowledge of the specifics of the afterlife trump what we can know with certainty in this life: that Heavenly Father’s gay children are fully capable of forming loving, meaningful relationships with those to whom they are naturally attracted?

Allowing gay people the right to love and marry in accordance with their “biological reality” need not threaten the doctrines that spring from the creation narrative of Adam and Eve or the eternal nature of the family or eternal progression. Those doctrines still apply to the vast majority of God’s children who are heterosexual. If we ceased trying to shoehorn gay people into conformance with those doctrines, allowing them the same blessings and benefits that heterosexuals derive from marriage, it would not negate, devalue or change in any way these doctrines as they apply to heterosexuals. We would just have to humbly acknowledge that at the present time we do not have answers for how those doctrines relate to God’s LGBT children but that we are confident He has a wondrous plan for them and loves them as much as He does His heterosexual children.

Families and children argument – Redefining marriage will further weaken the institution of marriage and undermine the family.

For this argument in the Marriage document, the church cites a number of academic studies, books and articles that are frequently cited by conservative religious and political groups opposed to same-sex marriage and LGBT rights. While traditionally there has been much mistrust by church leaders and membership of academia – particularly the social sciences – on issues of family and marriage, the church has embraced the sources that align with its position. However, by citing only those sources that align with its position and ignoring the numerous studies and personal experiences that reach different conclusions, the church’s document is lacking in intellectual integrity.

Moreover, if the church is going to step out of the realm of doctrine and theology and into the realm of academic research and political punditry, it can no longer hold its position to be inerrant, unchallengeable or equivalent to the voice of God. To the extent its position relies on science and reason (which is generally a good thing in my opinion), it should be subject to thorough examination such that, ultimately, “truth will prevail.” Or as Brigham Young said, “Be willing to receive the truth, let it come from whom it may”[50] – even if such truth doesn’t support the current position.

Before addressing the specific claims in this section, it should be noted that using families and children as an argument against same-sex marriage is a non sequitur. Unlike heterosexual marriage, children do not automatically result from a same-sex marriage. And the banning of same-sex marriage will not stop some gay couples from having children. Therefore, if the church opposes gay couples raising children, that should be the subject of its prohibition – not same-sex marriage. Notwithstanding, it is acknowledged that with the improved social standing, stability and legal rights granted by legal marriage, more gay couples who choose to marry may desire to have families than had they not had that right. Therefore, I address the following church arguments.

The church states:

Extensive studies have shown, however, that a husband and wife who are united in a loving, committed marriage generally provide the ideal environment for protecting, nurturing, and raising children. This is in part because of the differing qualities and strengths that husbands and wives bring to the task by virtue of their gender. As an eminent academic on family life has written:

“The burden of social science evidence supports the idea that gender differentiated parenting is important for human development and that the contribution of fathers to child rearing is unique and irreplaceable. . . . The complementarity of male and female parenting styles is striking and of enormous importance to a child’s overall development.”

This is the gender complementarity argument applied to parenting. The church cites a number of studies in support of the first statement, which seems like common sense. One could hardly argue that a loving, committed marriage does not provide the ideal environment for raising children; however, such a claim does not demonstrate that two wives or two husbands cannot have a loving, committed relationship that would also provide an ideal environment for raising children. In fact, gay couples who choose to have or adopt children, do so with great forethought – it’s not something that can happen by accident as so often does with heterosexual couples. In my experience knowing a number of same-sex couples who have had children, they are some of the most devoted and loving parents I have ever seen. Rather than relying on secular studies and conventional wisdom for critical doctrinal positions, the church might also consider doing its own “research” by meeting in the homes of gay families and discerning for themselves the spirit that exists in those homes, the strength of their marriages, and how their children are faring.

With respect to the gender complementarity argument in parenting, this argument fails to consider that not all heterosexual marriages have distinct gender roles and characteristics. For instance, the man in the marriage may not exhibit all the traits society or the church considers to be masculine (e.g., emotionally reserved, athletic, career-minded, aggressive) but instead may exhibit many of the traits considered to be essentially feminine (e.g., sensitive, nurturing, artistic, passive). By the same token, two husbands or two wives in a same-sex union may exhibit the full complement of masculine and feminine traits, thereby qualifying for the supposed benefits such traits convey. Regardless, studies show that children raised by same-sex couples do not differ markedly from those raised by heterosexual parents, as summarized in this research summary by the American Psychological Association over 12 years ago:

Results of social science research have failed to confirm any of these concerns about children of lesbian and gay parents. Research suggests that sexual identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same ways among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents. Studies of other aspects of personal development (including personality, self-concept, and conduct) similarly reveal few differences between children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual parents. … The picture that emerges from research is one of general engagement in social life with peers, parents, family members, and friends. … Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents.[51]

In the Conclusion section of the Marriage document, the church states:

When marriage is undermined by gender confusion and by distortions of its God-given meaning, the rising generation of children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identities as men or women. Some will find it more difficult to engage in wholesome courtships, form stable marriages, and raise another generation imbued with moral strength and purpose.

This is a bold statement – again drawing on the old “contagion” theory – and not surprisingly the church cites no scientific studies for its support. That is because there are no reputable studies, it is simply opinion. And this opinion demonstrates a lack of basic understanding by conflating sexual orientation and gender identity. Also, it provides no explanation for how same-sex marriage will make it harder for heterosexuals to date and have stable marriages. As previously discussed, such a claim just doesn’t make sense.

Before concluding this section, I feel it is important to address one more doctrinal issue that has been cropping up with more frequency in recent years. It is the unfounded doctrinal speculation that a faithful gay person will be “cured” or changed to heterosexual in the next life. This teaching likely stems from the church’s 2006 Wickman/Oaks interview on same-gender attraction.[52] In that interview, Elder Wickman stated:

One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is … “If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?”

Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence. … [You’re] not stuck with it forever. It’s just now.

Straight people may take some comfort in this doctrine because it helps them reconcile the obvious unfairness gay people face in this life through no fault of their own. If they can just remain celibate in this life, all will be made right in the next life when they are changed. But this belief is actually quite damaging – similar to the hurtful folk doctrines white church members made up about black people’s lack of valiance in the pre-existence to reconcile the unfair and discriminatory way they were treated in the church. This speculative doctrine is damaging to gays for a number of reasons. First, many gay people consider being married to a person of the opposite sex for eternity to be an awful prospect. To see it from their perspective, consider how a straight man would feel about being changed to homosexual in the afterlife and being married to another man for the rest of eternity.

Furthermore, many gay people feel that their gay identity is more than just a sexual orientation and comes bundled with a host of gifts such as, for instance, empathy, artistic expression and spirituality. They do not want their homosexuality changed because it would feel like giving up an integral part of who they are and losing all the unique gifts that come with being gay. But to others whose same-sex attraction feels like a constant weight dragging them down to destruction, this new folk doctrine may make suicide seem like a better choice, or even the only means of finally being rid of their evil desires and susceptibilities. For these reasons, I sincerely hope that the church would put an end to the teaching of this speculative and unfounded doctrine.

Doctrinal Basis Conclusion

Given all the above doctrinal considerations, and particularly if we acknowledge that sexual orientation is not chosen, can’t be spread like a contagion, and that gay people are just as capable as heterosexuals of forming committed, meaningful marriage relationships, we must be willing to ask the following questions:

Do we really have absolute doctrinal certainty that God’s will for His children who are born with a homosexual orientation is lifelong celibacy without the emotional, physical and spiritual attachment of someone they are naturally attracted to and can fall in love with?

Are we so certain of God’s will on this subject that we are willing to accept as consequences: depression and personal anguish to the point of suicide in some cases, and loss of faith in God and the church in the majority of cases?

Are we as a church rightfully resisting societal acceptance of homosexuality, or are we simply holding to past traditions and internal biases that are causing severe harm to gay people, as we previously did with the blacks and the priesthood? Is it possible that society is moving in the right direction, as it generally has over the ages on so many other social issues?

In addition to believing that God can provide an answer, any serious consideration of such admittedly difficult questions requires godlike empathy, humility and courage. President Kimball’s experience leading up to the 1978 revelation provides a near perfect model of these traits. Once black people became more than an abstract doctrinal issue to him, and he came to know and understand them as real people, he developed a godlike empathy for them.[53] It wasn’t until he obtained that empathy, and was humble enough to admit the church could be wrong, that he even had the capacity to actually question the church’s position and to begin studying the issue and petitioning the Lord for more understanding. As President Hinckley said of President Kimball:

Here was a little man, filled with love, able to reach out to people . . . He was not the first to worry about the priesthood question, but he had the compassion to pursue it and a boldness that allowed him to act, to get the revelation.[54]

Reflecting back on those times, President Kimball recalled his personal struggle:

Day after day, and especially on Saturdays and Sundays when there were no organizations [sessions] in the temple, I went there when I could be alone.

I was very humble . . . I was searching for this . . . I wanted to be sure. . . .

I had a great deal to fight . . . myself, largely, because I had grown up with this thought that Negroes should not have the priesthood and I was prepared to go all the rest of my life until my death and fight for it and defend it as it was.[55]

Despite years of prophetic precedent and the statements of so many past leaders, he had the courage to question, and even greater courage to begin talking to his fellow brethren of the Twelve and First Presidency about his questioning, which ultimately paved the way for the confirming spirit of revelation and unanimous acceptance by the quorum.

Not only was the Spirit working on President Kimball, but it was also working on many faithful members of the church who knew in their hearts long before 1978 that the church’s position was not of God. How did they know? An oft-cited example for testing prophetic pronouncements is this statement from President J. Reuben Clark:

I say it illustrates a principle – that even the President of the Church, himself, may not always be ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost,’ when he addresses the people. This has happened about matters of doctrine (usually of a highly speculative character) where subsequent Presidents of the Church and the peoples themselves have felt that in declaring the doctrine, the announcer was not ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’

How shall the Church know when these adventurous expeditions of the brethren into these highly speculative principles and doctrines meet the requirements of the statutes that the announcers thereof have been ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’? The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest.[56]

How can we know if the controversial positions and teachings of the brethren on homosexuality are from the Holy Ghost? Have the members of the church received the confirming testimony of the Holy Ghost on this issue, or do they simply accept what our leaders have said because the issue does not affect them personally? How much time must pass, during which gay people continue to suffer and some commit suicide, until “due time” is reached and the truth or error is sufficiently made manifest?

Many members have received answers to this question by the power of the Holy Ghost. They include our gay members who have wrestled for years with this question and have paid the price to know – they have studied, pondered, gone to the temple, and pleaded with God in the depths of humility to know what He wants for them. They include faithful parents, who have desperately sought answers to help them teach and raise their LGBT children in a way to best balance their spiritual and emotional wellbeing. They include members who are neither gay nor have LGBT family members but who have hearts that know and feel with a Godlike empathy the pains our gay brothers and sisters have had to bear.

Some of the things said by our church leaders seem to indicate that they do not yet have a very good understanding of or godlike empathy for our LGBT members and their families. They may not have reached the place President Kimball did where they are willing to sincerely and humbly question their long-held opinions on this issue. For those of us who feel so certain in our understanding of God’s will, we would do well to remember Elder McConkie’s words after having to retract what he said prior to the 1978 revelation:

Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.[57]

There is another indication that lets us know if a doctrine taught by our leaders is truly of God. As Joseph Smith described it:

This is good doctrine. It tastes good. I can taste the principles of eternal life, and so can you. They are given to me by the revelations of Jesus Christ… and when I tell you of these things which were given me by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, you are bound to receive them as sweet, and rejoice more and more.[58]

For those who have paid the heavy price to know of the doctrine, who have yoked themselves to it and tasted its bitterness, the church’s position – especially the November 2015 policy – does not taste good, it is not sweet, and it has not brought rejoicing. These are not the fruits of the Spirit.

III. Examination of the Church’s Position – Moral Basis

The church would likely assert that the moral basis for any of its policies or positions is axiomatic if they are based on true doctrine. However, as explained above, there have been many teachings or doctrines – whether contained in the scriptures or taught by latter-day church leaders – that have been discarded because they are no longer believed to be true and have even been harmful. As described by President Dieter F. Uchtdorf:

And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.[59]

Therefore, given the potential for error in any particular doctrine that has not withstood the test of time, particularly if it is controversial and not universally accepted by the membership, this section examines the church’s current position on homosexuality solely on the basis of moral reasoning, setting aside the question of whether that position is true doctrine or God’s will. In other words, if an honest, moral person were not convinced that the church’s position was of God, using her own God-given intellect and ability to reason, what kind of reasoning might she use to determine whether same-sex marriage is moral or immoral – setting aside all religious implications for the time being.

Love vs. Sex

In my experience, I have found that those who see same-sex relationships as sinful and immoral are focused only on the sexual aspect. They are generally unfamiliar with gay people and therefore can’t even conceive of a gay person being in a loving relationship similar to that of a loving heterosexual couple. To them, being gay is only about sex. The result is that they see gay people primarily as sex objects instead of whole human beings, and they see their relationships as based only on lust and unnatural sexual desire and not on love, kindness and mutual respect.

This view is a twisted and unfair basis on which to make a moral judgment. What if this same perspective were used to view young straight couples, newly married and deeply in love? In viewing their relationships, would it be proper to think only about their private sex lives or to visualize the kinds of sex acts they performed in the privacy of their bedrooms? Would it be proper to assume that their young love was based solely on uncontrollable lust for each other, and that the only reason they got married was to satisfy their untamable sexual desire? Such a perspective is clearly unfair and would result in a perverse view of any couple’s relationship, whether gay or straight. Yet this seems to be the perspective that many people use to judge gay people’s relationships, which results in a faulty moral judgment.

I find it interesting that when certain church members first learn of someone they know coming out as gay, they often want to know if, or be assured that, the gay person is still celibate and what their intention is in that regard. This is such an intimate and personal question, one they would likely never ask their straight acquaintances, but for some reason they feel compelled or entitled to delve into that aspect of a gay person’s life. It is as though gay people are safe and acceptable only as long as they are celibate or essentially asexual; otherwise, their very existence offends the sensibilities and minds of some straight people who are now “forced” to think about gay sex. This is another example of how some straight people tend to objectify gay people.

In judging the morality of a gay couple’s relationship, we should use the same perspective we use to view a straight couple’s relationship. We should view them as whole human beings who have an innate desire for emotional, intellectual, spiritual and physical attachment with another human being, as most humans do. We might observe such a couple to “be in love” in the same way any straight couple is. We might observe whether that love manifests itself in mutual affection, kindness, respect, compatibility, complementarity, commitment and stability, as well as physical attraction. If we generally observe these characteristics in their relationship, perhaps we may then conclude that there is no reason their relationship is any less edifying, beneficial and moral than that of a similarly situated straight couple. If so, we might conclude that a relationship between any two consenting adults who have the mental and emotional capacity to form a union based on love and mutual respect can thus be a moral relationship, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Instinct vs. Reason

Human judgment about what is moral or immoral is often not based on logic or reason but is simply a matter of gut instinct. Sexuality is one area that arouses strong positive or negative feelings in people. Heterosexuals may feel revulsion or discomfort at the thought of same-sex intimacy and may interpret those feelings as their spirit recoiling at something unnatural and immoral. However, this interpretation fails to consider that homosexuals may have the same feelings about opposite-sex intimacy. Whatever the feeling, are such gut instincts always to be trusted? Would it be proper, for instance, to judge interracial marriage as immoral just because you personally feel internal discomfort at the thought of intimacy with someone of another race? Such feelings may have been at the root of early church doctrines (and civil laws) that declared interracial marriage a sin against nature and denied black people the priesthood and temple blessings.[60] Today of course, the church disavows that mixed-race marriage is a sin.[61]

Or what about the gut instincts we had as children? Think back to when you first learned how babies were made. If you were told the details while in your prepubescent childhood, perhaps on the playground at school or from an older sibling, you may have been shocked and disgusted at the thought and denied that such a thing could be proper or true. Certainly your parents would never do such a thing! Those were my thoughts when friends at school first told me. Because those feelings of disgust were so strong and the idea of sexual intercourse seemed so contrary to everything I had been taught, I could not believe in my childish mind that human sexuality could ever be acceptable or true. But with sexual maturation and development, what once seemed bizarre and disgusting all of a sudden felt instinctively natural, desirable and, of course, morally acceptable as long as it was within marriage.

Like the child who is developmentally incapable of comprehending adult human sexual intimacy, a heterosexual person may be incapable of fully comprehending same-sex intimacy. So if it is nonsensical to interpret childhood feelings about sexual intimacy as evidence of immorality, shouldn’t it also be nonsensical to interpret a heterosexual’s feelings about same-sex intimacy as evidence of immorality? Does it make sense that the heterosexual majority gets to decide the morality of sexual relationships for the homosexual minority? Isn’t that a bit like right-handed people requiring that everyone use only their right hand for eating, writing, playing sports, etc. because that’s what feels right and natural to them while using their left hand feels entirely wrong and unnatural?

If heterosexuals get to judge the morality of romantic relationships based on what feels right and natural to them, shouldn’t gay people be able to use that same basis to judge their relationships? Some might protest that this line of reasoning is essentially, “if it feels good, do it.” But that is faulty logic. This reasoning simply says that gay people should be able to judge the rightness and morality of their relationships the same way heterosexuals do – based on their own gut instinct but still within certain moral bounds. That basis does not give an automatic moral pass to do whatever they want with whomever they want. The same rules regarding consent, age, emotional and mental capacity and mutual respect still apply – but the rules should apply equally whether gay or straight. Therefore, if someone wants to rely on their gut instinct as an indicator of morality, let them judge that morality for themselves and not for others whose gut instincts may differ.

Natural or Unnatural

One argument against same-sex relationships is that they are “unnatural” because they go against nature’s intended purpose for the sexes. However, whether something is natural or not is not necessarily a good indicator of morality. Think of the many medical advances, such as artificial joints, artificial hearts and in-vitro fertilization, that are unnatural but are not considered immoral (at least not by most people). Using one’s left hand, or being left-handed, was once viewed as unnatural but is not considered immoral (although that was not always the case – the Latin word for left is “sinister”).

As a missionary in the Missionary Training Center, I remember watching a short documentary about a woman who was born without arms but who had mastered the ability to use her feet to prepare her family’s meals, do her kids’ hair, bottle feed her baby, put on her makeup, drive a car, and, in short, do just about anything a mother with arms could do.[62] She was doing things with her feet that at first glance, appeared unnatural and even somewhat off-putting. Using her feet to peel and cut apples or to caress her baby’s face was not what nature had intended for those body parts. But by the end of the film, I saw her as an inspiration and felt convicted for my initial feelings of discomfort. Certainly no one could say that the “unnatural” way in which she used her feet was immoral. Is it possible to countenance gay sexuality in the same light?

Setting aside whether unnatural equates to immoral, let’s simply consider the question of whether homosexuality is natural or unnatural. Those who view homosexuality as unnatural would probably cite two main reasons: (1) it cannot produce offspring, which is nature’s objective for sexual relations, and (2) gay sex itself is inherently unnatural.

Sexual reproduction evolved as a very effective means of ensuring propagation of the species – so, yes, sex for the purpose of having offspring is “natural.” However, the vast majority of human sexual activity, including within healthy, stable marriages, is not for the purpose of reproduction but solely to express love and desire. Does that make such sexual activity unnatural? As discussed above with respect to the church’s procreation argument, a relationship built on love does not require that sexual relations be for the sole purpose of reproducing. If the outcomes of a committed, loving same-sex relationship are just as positive and edifying as those of a heterosexual relationship, the ability to have children shouldn’t determine the “naturalness” of those relationships, whether gay or straight. In addition, there are a number of genetic and evolutionary theories that explain how homosexuality is an advantage in human societies (and actually strengthens wider family units) and therefore continues to exist in a minority of the population. Based on these evolutionary advantages, homosexuality can be considered “natural.”[63]

Whether gay sex is seen as “natural” comes down to very personal and subjective opinion that mostly hinges on one’s own sexual orientation, as discussed above in the section on gut instinct. To a straight person, the thought of same-sex intimacy feels unnatural, whereas to a gay person, heterosexual intimacy feels unnatural. In addition, heterosexual couples may engage in the same type of sexual activity that gay couples do, but there are no bedroom police to tell them what they can and can’t do or what is moral or immoral. At one time not long ago, the church used to weigh in on this aspect of couples’ sexual relations as it pertained to temple worthiness but soon thereafter left it alone.[64] Like the very personal and intimate decisions on birth control and family size, the church has left this area to married couples to decide on their own.

Finally, the church’s prescription for gay people – celibacy – is clearly not natural. Having to forgo human intimacy, physical affection and touch, romantic love, and lifelong companionship goes against human nature. To deny someone such fundamental human experience based on highly subjective personal beliefs and opinions could itself be considered immoral, especially considering all the associated negative outcomes.

Harm or Benefit

One way to judge the morality of something is if it causes harm. Does a committed, monogamous same-sex relationship cause harm? As discussed in the doctrinal section above, the church has stated its belief that same-sex marriage harms society and families because “children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identities as men or women. Some will find it more difficult to engage in wholesome courtships, form stable marriages.” There is simply no basis or evidence for this claim. It appears to be based on the outdated “contagion” belief that people, especially youth and children, are recruited to be gay or that their innate sexual orientation is susceptible to change due to external influences or traumatic events in their lives. For those who still think this way, they simply need to get to know gay people and learn of their life experience. Just as harmful racist notions about other races based on nothing more than oft-repeated stereotypes and internal prejudices were dispelled by actually coming to know people of different races, so too can harmful and erroneous notions about gay people be dispelled by getting to know them.

Once these erroneous notions are dispelled, it may be possible to see same-sex marriage as a benefit to society. Traditionally, society has valued the institution of marriage based on the belief that it causes young single people – who may be prone to more profligate, reckless living that can endanger the physical and emotional health of themselves and others – to settle down, become responsible and think about others above themselves. If marriage really accomplishes this, why wouldn’t we want it for gay people as well as straight people? Would we rather keep gay people on the margins of “accept