The LDS church often speaks about hating the sin, and not the sinner. They used this kind of logic to vilify drinking, smoking, pornography and adultery without actually calling the people that make those choices evil. Whether what the LDS church calls sins are actually “evil” or not is obviously up to interpretation, but the “hate the sin, not the sinner” paradigm is definitely a step up from hating perceived sinners. However, when it comes to how Mormons treat members of the LGBTQ community, this paradigm is no better than hating them in the first place.

Let’s start by looking at the LDS church’s position on homosexuality and homosexuals:

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.

Note that in the third sentence, the church admits that homosexuality is not a choice, as they have previously claimed. This is pretty obvious to non-Mormons, but the LDS church has been teaching its members for years that homosexuality was not only a choice, but that it could be caused by masturbation. So this is relatively progressive. However, it also puts the LDS church in an awkward position, as highlighted by this same paragraph quote.

The LDS church’s claim, as made clear by this quote, is that acting on homosexual desires is a sin, but simply having them is not. In other words, for a gay person to be deemed “worthy” of temple attendance and entering the Celestial Kingdom in the afterlife, they need to not act on their sexuality. This puts an unfair isolation on members of the LGBTQ community growing up as Mormons as their peers begin dating while their religious tell them they cannot. The alternative is these gay children are forced or coerced into dating against their preference, which is arguably worse. If you’re straight and you disagree, just try to image dating only your own gender because if you don’t you can’t go to heaven.

Even worse is the church’s false distinction between “sin” and “sinner” as it were. Sexuality is a part of a person, not a choice. So no matter how much prose you use to identify a distinction, anything spoken against someone’s sexuality is spoken against them. Don’t believe me? See if you can tell your spouse their sexuality offends you without it becoming personal.

See, this is what Mormons are failing to see: gay people and other LGBTQ people aren’t trying to be perverse. They’re trying to be human, just like us. When two spouses share their thoughts and feelings with one another as they struggle with work, school, family, and talents, is the nature of that affection changed by what genitalia they possess, or what social gender they identify with?

Normally, I have no problem with religious people of any church believe whatever they want. But when your beliefs are hateful enough that teaching them causes youth to lose self worth, I think there’s a problem, especially when you claim to represent Jesus Christ, a symbol of tolerance, charity and empathy. If you don’t agree that Mormon teaching are hateful, or that the problem lies with every day members and not with their leaders, check out this quote from a 2006 interview with Dallin H. Oaks:

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: At what point does showing that love cross the line into inadvertently endorsing behavior? If the son says, ‘Well, if you love me, can I bring my partner to our home to visit? Can we come for holidays?’ How do you balance that against, for example, concern for other children in the home?’ ELDER OAKS: That’s a decision that needs to be made individually by the person responsible, calling upon the Lord for inspiration. I can imagine that in most circumstances the parents would say, ‘Please don’t do that. Don’t put us into that position.’ Surely if there are children in the home who would be influenced by this example, the answer would likely be that. There would also be other factors that would make that the likely answer. I can also imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, ‘Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.” There are so many different circumstances, it’s impossible to give one answer that fits all.

There is no wiggle room here. An Apostle of the LDS church goes on the record stating that it is appropriate to turn away your child’s partner (potentially your own son- or daughter-in-law) out of respect for your other children. What is the underlying assumption there? That heterosexual people can somehow be offended by homosexual people’s presence? Again, Oaks goes on to set the expectation that gay family members shouldn’t expect their straight family to own them in public for fear of expressing “approval” of them. Call it what you want, but if a parent is willing to tell a child they won’t be seen in public with them because the child is honestly pursuing the same intimacy the parents obviously had at one point, how is that good parenting? What happened to family first, or no success can make up for failure in the home?

Mormons, wake up. We are hurting our brothers and sisters with our teachings.

Stop telling gays their love is less valuable than yours. Jesus loves us all equally.

Stop trying to interject your disapproval of their relationships into your interactions. Nobody cares if you approve or not, and nobody but self-righteous bigots are judging you for keeping your opinions to yourself. You do it with that one in-law you all hate anyway, but happens to be straight.

Stop pretending the LDS church is nice to gay people. It isn’t. It speaks of reaching out with love and understanding to gays in its stance at the head of the article, but how can it be called “understanding” when their teaching show a provable lack of empathy or equal respect for all human beings?

Stop pretending your doctrine isn’t hateful. Telling someone their sexuality is really different and they’ll see after they die is no better than telling black people they’ll be white in the afterlife. Both skin color and sexual identity are not choices, and they therefore do not have an impact on the value of a person if you truly believe all men and women are born equal as children of God.

Stop saying you hate homosexuality but love gay people. Just love people for who they are and let them decide for themselves what to believe and act upon.