Skip to content

🏳‍🌈 LGBTQ+

Estimated time to read: 21 minutes

I'll be the first to admit that, having spent my teenage years in the mid-2000's, I had a lot of internalized homophobia. I'd like to think that I've grown and learned better since those years. Since I grew up socially isolated and sheltered, the only source I had for that hateful influence was The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I will also concede that I don't count myself as being a part of the LGBTQ+ community. I do, however, recognize humans as humans, and sympathize with the denigration and contempt that they experience. My commentary on the LDS church's prejudice will not carry as much weight as a commentary from someone who was the target of that prejudice. I'm absolutely willing to amplify their voices over my own.

Speaking of...

 

On the Record

I've accumulated a few quotes to post and share on another page, but it's absolutely worth mentioning another compilation of quotes that I'd stumbled across. A fellow named Kyle Ashworth hosts a podcast and website called Latter Gay Stories, where I would point readers to for a more meaningful commentary on the LDS & LGBT experience. This website also features a highly impressive document titled On the Record, (archive) detailing "a chronology of LGBTQ+ messaging within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".

At the time of writing this page of notes, the latest version is a 109-page PDF outlining statements and policies from LDS church figureheads. I highly recommend reading through it for yourself. The above link can take you to the source document—give their site some traffic!

I've got another page of my own notes on what the modern church's leadership has said on the matter. There might be some overlap, but I recommend this On the Record document.

 

Don't act on it

Let us be clear: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that “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.

— The Lord Needs You Now!, Elder M. Russell Ballard, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles; From a CES devotional for young adults, “Be Still and Know That I Am God,” delivered in California, USA, on May 4, 2014.

 

What is the practical application of this doctrine policy? Can we separate the attraction from the action? This would be like asserting:

  • Hunger isn't a sin, but eating is.
  • Literacy isn't a sin, but reading is.
  • Liking music isn't a sin, but listening to it is.
  • Having friends isn't a sin, but talking to them is.

 

Do these people not realize how preposterous this sounds?

"God doesn't hate you, He just demands that your life is lonely and unfulfilling. Isn't it amazing how infinitely charitable and perfectly loving He is?"

 

"If you want a meaningful human connection, you might just risk eternal damnation and suffering tho~ wouldn't you rather live forever with your Father in Heaven who imposed this stipulation onto your conscious existence? No? You must be some kind of sexual degenerate, whom we need to protect our children from. We wouldn't want them to grow up to be like you."

Yeah no shit Utah has a suicide epidemic

 

"We have a prophet to lead and guide us today! ... We have no answers at all concerning what makes people gay. But God loves you! ... Although God's love is contingent upon you never developing affection for another human, that is. Why aren't you coming to church every week? I'm being persecuted by your unwillingness to participate!"

 

Quotes

There is room for those with differing sexual attractions. ... With divine imperatives of love and faith, repentance and compassion, honesty and forgiveness, there is room in this choir for all who wish to be there. “Come as you are,” a loving Father says to each of us, but He adds, “Don’t plan to stay as you are.” We smile and remember that God is determined to make of us more than we thought we could be.

— Songs Sung and Unsung, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles; General Conference 2017 April

 

"No, we don't turn people away because of who they are—we just demand that they change who they are in order to stay here. Totally different. Why are you so bitter that we insist you change and conform to our ideology?"

Look, if a religious institution told me that I'm welcome to attend, but must fundamentally change who I am in order to "stay," I don't think I'd want to stay. Would you?

"There's clearly something wrong with you, but don't worry—God will make you better!" OR they're just a regular ol' human with nothing wrong at all, and they happen to be gay?

It's evident to me that the above excerpt from Holland is not directly quoting God, but really; where does God allude to "don't plan to stay as you are"?

 

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.

— mormonsandgays.org; this site domain has since been deleted. Link is to an archive captured in February 2015

Quick side note: this website domain did explicitly say that "individuals do not choose to have such attractions," but the church's official stance now is "no stance"

 

I really think it's worth examining this "complex reality for many people." I'm not so sure that the complexity is stemming from attraction. If your daughter likes other women, that isn't complicated. The complexity comes from her parents threatening to abuse or disown her if she so much as holds hands with a romantic interest. Put another way, having a homosexual family member isn't a problem—you are the problem.

 

Tell me which of these factors lends more to "complexity":

  1. My teenage son has a boyfriend

or

  1. I demand that my teenage son denies himself any affection or desire because of a bigoted misinterpretation of a 3,000 year old document; if he doesn't, I will threaten to take away his livelihood and place of residence; because of this, my son is fearful and anxious about expressing emotion or forming relationships with anyone

 

BUT THE BIBLE SAYS

bro the bible says a lot of things.

If we were going to take biblical passages so literally, we'd have "good Christian folk" or Utah pundits pushing legislation against "a garment mingled of linen and woollen"—described not once, but twice in the scripture—and condemning the eating of shrimp.

I've heard the rationality that these rules no longer apply, since the Law of Moses is "fulfilled" by Christ's atonement, so we just have to listen to what Jesus said in the New Testament now. If that were the case, why are Christians still condemning one interpretation of passages in Leviticus concerning whom or what a man may "lay with"?

Either there's nuance in these passages or there is not. I don't think we can pick and choose what parts of the bible to adhere to, or to interpret literally.

 

One can find a lot of compiled lists of "what the bible says about homosexuality" by searching online. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Fortunately, for the LDS church, we have prophets and apostles who speak for God to clarify what scriptures say and mean. Coincidentally, out of all the times when the bible is not translated correctly, each passage that purportedly condemns same-sex relations were all translated perfectly and need no further scrutiny nor examination. How about that!

 

Social Hierarchy

This should not come as a surprise to anyone, but when the book of Leviticus was written (1, 2) social norms and cultures were very different than they are today in the 21st century.

What we today think of as "sexuality" is not at all how ancient Israelites thought of it. Sex wasn't an activity that two humans engaged in together, it was done to a recipient by an initiating agent. Sexual orientation wasn't a social construct, nor a relevant factor until around the 19th century. An agent's chosen recipient was deemed by the recipient's relative standing in a social hierarchy rather than biology. Ancient Southwestern Asia positions free-born citizen men at the top of this social hierarchy. Below them are men who are not free-born (slaves, serfs, etc); below them are women. In this culture, sex is "performed" or "done to" someone below the initiating agent—not the other way around. Whoever is "on top" in the social structure is also "on top" en coitus—not the other way around. Any reversal of this order would be a breach of social and cultural boundaries.

How does this context affect the admonition against "a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman"? Our modern cultural framework sees the biological indicators and roles of men and women, and understandably, we piece together what the equivocated action is. What cultural context tells us is that rather than forbidding same-sex relations outright, this biblical passage is forbidding scorn of the hierarchy.

There is absolutely no condemnation of same-sex relations within the same social hierarchical stratum. Free-born citizen men can engage with each other without breaking these rules. Lesbians are not forbidden or condemned in any way. Lest we try to extrapolate, I will direct your attention to context surrounding the verses in Leviticus 18 and 20 where rules for women are explicitly outlined concerning things like bestiality. Outlining parameters for women is suspiciously absent for the verses condemning whom one should "lay with."

 

Who is the target audience for this documented teaching? Who is the book of Leviticus written to? It wouldn't be to illiterate people in the subservient class. Women weren't really treated as humans around 500 BC, so there'd be no sense in preaching to them. This Levitical scripture is condemning sexual assault or abuse of someone below you—the literate reader, presumed to be a free-born citizen man in the Levitical priestly bloodline—on that hierarchy. Simply put, the biblical passage is saying "priests mustn't force themselves upon a slave."

 

Sources

I've made the case that the bible isn't condemning homosexual people nor their proclivities. This flies in the face of what preachers have propagated for hundreds of years, and so I'm prepared to back up my claim with sources.

First are some videos suited for casual attention spans. To be clear, there's no shame in wanting a shorter, more easily digestible source of information! These are sourced from a fellow named Dan McClellan, a veritable bible scholar who arguably understands scriptures better than I do. I find Dan to be a credible source, and appreciate that he'll present what the Aramaic & Hebrew texts contain, and examine contemporary culture rather than focus on a dogmatic interpretation. (I want to avoid calling it a narrative as I associate that phrasing with conspiracy theories)

 

If you'd prefer sources that are more authoritative and dignified than "man on computer with microphone," then here are some printed sources to examine:

  • Brooten, Bernadette J. (1998) Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism. (1, 2, 3, 4)
  • Hallett, Judith P., Skinner, Marilyn B. (1998) Roman Sexualities (1, 2, 3)
  • Crompton, Louis (2003) Homosexuality and Civilization (1, 2, 3)
  • Hubbard, T. K. (2014). A companion to Greek and Roman sexualities (1st ed). Wiley-Blackwell. (1, 2, 3, 4)
  • Halperin, D. M. (2015). Ancient Sex: New Essays (R. BLONDELL & K. ORMAND, Eds.). Ohio State University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv3s8shv; see also (1, 2)
  • Dunning, Benjamin H. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of New Testament, Gender, and Sexuality, Oxford Handbooks (2019; online edn, Oxford Academic, 4 Oct. 2019), https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190213398.001.0001; see also (1, 2, 3)

 

Sodom & Gomorrah

A variety of sermons will use the dramatic example of the cities Sodom & Gomorrah being destroyed as an example of the extent to which homosexuality pisses off God.

This is only a logical conclusion to reach if we can agree that there's actually a connection here. I'm not about to claim that I understand ancient Hebrew, nor that I've got any knowledge of the Torah that any other clown on the internet doesn't have access to. What I find most bothersome about this teaching is that it reduces humans to a sexual proclivity—it teaches that the poophole-loophole was a stronger motivator for queer folks than romance, emotional fulfillment, social connection, or even simply loving another human.

The LDS scripture's topical guide entry for "homosexual behavior" cites the passage describing "the men of Sodom" wishing to "know" Lot's angelic pals instead of Lot's daughters, and extrapolating that as the reason for the city's subsequent destruction. For some reason, this is interpreted today as a divine sign of approval for ignoring everything that Jesus taught about loving people for who they are, and you're justified in violently abusing your kids for deviating even slightly from heteronormativity.

 

This sounds like one of those scenarios where mankind would really benefit from having a living prophet to clarify what God meant, and how we should handle things today. Conveniently, I can name a specific church who claims precisely that kind of authority! So... do we have an LDS prophet's guidance on how to interpret this?

 

“In consequence of rejecting the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Prophets whom God hath sent, the judgments of God have rested upon people, cities, and nations, in various ages of the world, which was the case with the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, that were destroyed for rejecting the Prophets.”

— Chapter 16: Revelation and the Living Prophet; Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith. Cites History of the Church, 5:256–57; from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on Jan. 22, 1843, in Nauvoo, Illinois; reported by Wilford Woodruff. Also mentioned in chapter 6.

This is also described in Re-examining Lot, an article in BYU's Religious Educator Vol. 14 No. 1 · 2013.

Oddly enough, when the LDS church has an opportunity to marginalize and discriminate against an out-group, we can just ignore what the founding prophet of our dispensation has to say. Sodom & Gomorrah were destroyed because there were gay people in 'em 😤 don't actually check on what Joseph Smith had to say, please

 

What is instead taught in the LDS church's manuals is, in very conveniently equivocated terms, that the reason for the destruction of the two cities was homosexuality.

This lesson addresses a sin that was prevalent among the people of Sodom and Gomorrah—homosexual behavior.

If students have the Latter-day Saint edition of the King James Version of the Bible, invite them to look at Genesis 18:20, footnote b, to discover what was included among the grievous sins being committed by the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. If students do not have the LDS edition of the King James Bible, explain that the grievous sin mentioned in verse 20 included homosexual behavior.

Based on Genesis 18:20, how does the Lord view homosexual behavior? (As a “very grievous” sin. Explain that all violations of the law of chastity, or sexual sins, are very serious. Consider writing the following truth on the board: Homosexual behavior is a serious sin.)

— Home-Study Lesson: Abraham 3; Genesis 13–18 (Unit 5), Old Testament Seminary Teacher Manual

In fairness, this lesson manual takes the effort to qualify its condemnation by outlining "sexual sin including homosexual behavior." My brief read-through of the lesson material offered absolutely no attention on any "sexual sin" outside of homosexuality. Good job equivocating, fellas. You've surely covered your bases against young'uns becoming depressed because they're convinced that God hates them for who they are.

Pointing to footnotes in the LDS-printed copy of the KJV bible as proof of objectivity seems... circular. I'll direct your attention to The New Publications of the Standard Works—1979, 1981 (link, archive) published by BYU Studies Quarterly. This article describes the Scriptures Publications Committee. It describes that between 1972 and 1979, various LDS apostles put together the footnotes, chapter headings, and other study helps. Observing that your church's own bible publication's footnotes as objectively declaring "homosexuality" as the grievous sin is what I would call a logical fallacy. "This passage says what I say it says because I said it says that in the 70's."

It holds up if you already believe everything at face value what the top leadership has to say.

... Actually, a lot of things only hold up if you discard any and all critical evaluation.

 

Flip the script

Pick any quote from a church leader pertaining to sexual orientation, and imagine if the binary were switched.

Assuming you count yourself as heterosexual, what if you heard someone at the pulpit express sympathy for your struggle with opposite-sex attraction? Expressing sympathy for you, saying that the leaders "reach out with love and understanding"? Imagine this hypothetical church insisting that anyone outside of their belief system will be denied eternal exaltation... but don't worry, if you don't conform and join now, they'll just convert you after you die!

Really, though. I count myself as straight, and think it would feel very awkward to hear someone tell me that I'm struggling with opposite-sex attraction. I would make the argument that it is not a struggle—I'd say that I'm having a pretty good go of it. So flip the script: someone whose attraction is to the same sex (I imagine) would feel comparably awkward being told that this natural inclination is unnatural, wrong, and the root cause of all of his or her problems. I don't have many LGBTQ+ peers, but of the few that come to mind, I don't think they're struggling with it. The only struggle to be had is conforming to their religious parents' demands, and denying themselves of humanity or romantic connection.

 

The more we stop and think about it, you might realize that all LGBTQ+ peers you've known has used heterosexuality as a stepping stone toward coming out as lesbian, gay, bi, trans, etc. Maybe we need to have a real conversation about whether heterosexuality really exists, or if it's just a phase?

Maybe you and I just need to pray more to become gay and get over this nonsensical "straight" phase, you whippersnapper.

 

What's actually wrong here

I have yet to find what societal ills are traced back to LGBT folks. What argument do we have against them? Are they causing problems? If so, what are they? Are those problems exclusive to a sexual orientation?

Reproduction

"Gay relationships don't produce kids, can ultimately lead to a population decline collapse!"

I guess? That sounds like a slippery slope fallacy, where points A and B must surely lead to points X, Y, and Z.

What does this imply about relationships or marriage? That their only purpose and utility is to create kids? Don't you think that's a bit reductive?

What does that argument mean when pointed to heterosexual couples experiencing infertility? Are they just as much of a social scourge? I myself am married and count myself as straight, and don't have any kids. What does that make me?

 

It's simply sinful

"It's sexual sin; we can be tempted but must not give in!"

I've read in a variety of LDS publications that the Law of Chastity is the same for all orientations; struggling with same-sex attraction is then homogenized into whatever deviant proclivity a straight person would grapple with. Acknowledging that I'm not the target recipient of this advice, it feels condescending to me.

Moreover, I can point to lots of talks in General Conference, published pamphlets and booklets all warning specifically against homosexuality. What exactly is a sexual sin that gets comparable scrutiny and condemnation? Have you ever seen an apostle warn against the evils of autoerotic self-asphyxiation? I would call that deviant. There are myriad addresses and lessons condemning the use of porn and masturbation from LDS leadership. At one point in time, the dreaded outcome being warned against is that it could turn you gay.

I'm not about to try and enumerate sexual deviancies and draw comparisons to each, nor try to evaluate or rank them. You can do that on your own time. Don't tell me what you find. My point is that if homosexuality is simply a sexual sin that must be resisted "just like all the other sexual sins," I can observe that homosexuality gets a disproportionate amount of condemnation, scrutiny and attention.

In fact, the LDS church teaches that sex (between a hetero, married couple) is so good and special that it must only be done with one chosen person who is subjectively special to you. ... Unless you're gay, then it's wrong and bad. Gay folks can also respect relationship boundaries and forego anything sexual until after marriage! It's been done before. ... Also, we have to fight against their rights to get married... just cause. If they were allowed to get married, then we couldn't accuse them of being adulterous deviants anymore!

 

God commanded it

"But God commanded it! His ways are higher than our ways!"

Yeah? He did? Through his prophets? Those prophets whom we can never tell if they're speaking as a man or not until years after? The same prophets who told us that black people don't get to participate in saving priesthood ordinances, but then just said "jk lol they're cool now"? The same prophets who blamed God for the policy that straight kids of gay parents don't deserve to be saved unless they denounce and abandon their family? (families are very important btw) but then reversed the policy and blamed God again for the reversal?

Representing an eternal, unchanging deity and then changing His applicable teachings isn't a good look. Makes people wonder if the prophets actually represent God.

 

What do we do?

From my perspective, it isn't very complicated. Let people live their life. You don't have to do a damned thing. If the home neighboring yours has a newlywed gay couple move in, you don't have to do anything about it. You don't have to wonder what's happening in their bedroom. You don't have to think about whether their romance is legitimate or not.

LGBTQ+ includes a wide variety of people, and I've only really written notes on the first two of those letters in the acronym. I imagine much of the same notes here apply to someone coming out as trans, though. Let them live their lives. Don't make life harder for anyone than it already is. Asexuality exists. Intersex exists.

 

I've got some notes cooking up on Prop 8, November 2015, BYU, and others. Tune in later to see if they're done!

Comments