Can individuals who identify as LGBTQ+ truly find peace as active members of the LDS Church?

[Anonymous]

I subscribed here (and offered a little personal background in the introductions area) to ask this question to all who are willing to delve with me into the messy territory of gender and identity. I have posed the question I spent over fifty years overtly attempting to exemplify in a positive sense without fully realising what I was doing. In the five years since, however, my entire outlook has shifted, and I have resigned myself to remaining in unhappiness and occasional distress for as long as I remain an active, covenant-keeping Church member (which is all I know). I suspect my rationale will surprise you — and it is for this reason that I really, really, really want to talk it through with someone who will listen and respond with kindness. Maybe even show me how to avoid what now feels inevitable.

I spent three years interacting with rather a lot of “those” people. Here is a Google map I created between 2018 and 2019 as part of my outreach to a few acquaintances and almost 1,000 members of the North Star organisation, which operates in support of LDS Church teachings in respect of chastity and the Family Proclamation: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=15vNARE93vjcxAKL9UdUeZFtyPu7Xr6A&usp=sharing

Zoom in to an area with stars. Right in. A single star represents one or more individuals in the stake named by clicking on it — where red (a whole or partial star) indicates one or more same-sex-attracted men, green represents one or more transgender individuals, yellow represents one or more same-sex-attracted women, blue represents one or more non-binary-gender individuals, and lilac represents one or more asexual individuals. Many members will have changed locations since then, some will have left the Church, and a few may even have killed themselves. The map is simply a snapshot in time of a few individuals whose paths crossed mine. There are hundreds of thousands of others whose paths did not cross mine.

In the course of my interactions with all these members, as well as with LDS Family Services, Church therapists, and Church leaders — from local level to the Office of the First Presidency — my optimism for a future without distress has systematically evaporated.

As stated earlier, I suspect my rationale will surprise you.

[Anonymous]

You’re teasing with the rationale statements! I want to hear it.

In answer tot he question, no, I do not think it’s possible to truly find peace with current policies. However, if it’s not all or nothing with true peace, I do think it is possible to find some measure of a middle way.

In another thread (your introduction) Roy said this:

Roy wrote:

Now, the church strongly advises against heterosexual marriage for gay members. The reality of how challenging those marriages were and are is just too jarring to ignore. But for a church that claims to speak for God, how could they get it so horribly wrong? And what do they offer as a solution now?

I meant to respond there, but this is good. This is the heart of my very issue with the subject and the church. The church’s treatment of LGBTQIA+ individuals is not fair, and while some can allude to revelation on topics such as the use of the word Mormon, they seem to have no inspiration on this (in my opinion) more important topic. I perceive it as more important because of how it directly affects individuals and families.

One aspect of the unfairness can be demonstrated by an analogy of couples being taught by missionaries. Couple one, heterosexual and living together for several years and very much in love. In theory (and it likely has happened in practice) this couple could get married and baptized today and everything is just hunky dory. Couple two are homosexual, also living together and very much in love. They have no such option and the only way they can become members (and remain so) is to split, and stop having sex. The church admits they did not choose their sexuality, but asserts they choose to act on their sexual desires. The other couple also didn’t choose their sexuality but is allowed to follow their (I believe) hard wired sexuality. As Roy said, the church offers no solution other than celibacy, and seriously, the vast majority of us are not going to choose celibacy. Additionally, because of their homosexuality, even if they do remain celibate and are otherwise “worthy” there are certain church positions they cannot hold. It is not fair (just). I recognize life isn’t fair and that’s part of the allure and hope of heaven – there is justice there.

I am advocating for the church to perform gay sealings in the temple, although I don’t think there is doctrine that would forbid it (and this is where we get into the doctrine/policy/practice discussion that’s for another place and has been done). I do advocate for fairness and at least recognition that love is love.

Just a side note on North Star Saints. I am not a fan, and I don’t believe very many of church’s current or past LGBTQIA+ people are. I dislike them because of their advocacy and participation in conversion therapy which is psychologically unsound and damaging. I do recognize they have backed away from that stance, but not completely. They also advocate for mixed marriage, which, as Roy says, even the church now discourages (and I also recognize North Star says it’s an individual choice). I just think they are very much in line with the church – they don’t offer a solution.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

You’re teasing with the rationale statements! I want to hear it.

Thank you for you generous tone. Unfeasible though it is, I’d love to sit down with someone like you to gently unravel the detail of this monstrous issue. I guess I’ll have to settle for pulling up a figurative chair and attempting to do so here.

In the years since all my frames of reference fell apart (from the day I learnt that the Church had ceased “officially” accusing benign individuals like me of choosing to follow Satan), I have been unable to find anyone with whom to impartially discuss my deeper concerns about the ongoing predicament. Everyone has an agenda, and convictions are invariably too ingrained on both sides of the argument to ease the stalemate.

As I have explained, I found myself dragged from one camp into another a few years ago. I had been imprinted for decades with bigotry, yet suddenly a bunch of North Star strangers were trying to convince me to identify as a homo (or MoHo as they termed it). I soon felt unable to trust what anyone was telling me because everyone was always defending a position.

I now suspect that the entire argument is a massive misunderstanding that has become so distorted that everyone is looking in the wrong places for solutions.

In respect of North Star, I eventually felt obliged to unsubscribe because my views were received with contempt. The victim culture is alive and well there. I tried to coax hundreds of them into bringing about wholesome change (such as efforts to dispel bigotry at ward and stake level, which I modelled in my own stake), but literally no one was interested. They are all simply hanging on for doctrinal change. I hope it never comes.

Your comments about North Star made me smile. In the course of contacting so many individuals, I encountered a former NS subscriber who said something along the lines of “North Star members are all depressed, needy, and hate themselves. Why would I want to be part of such a group?” I protested it was untrue, but I have since changed my mind.

In terms of what you shared about unfairness, I have heard the same ideas from North Star subscribers and others. And I have no difficulty understanding why people feel that way.

So, brace yourself; this is where I get all crazy. For simplicity, I will focus on the oldest-recorded and maybe simplest issue: homosexuality.

Faith position: As per Genesis and the writings of the Apostle Paul, two men (or women) engaging in sexual activity is an unnatural act and against God’s law. Well, as someone who has a testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and who believes in the evolution of species (a whole different ball game), I actually support that position. It’s what I defended for decades.

Secular position: People deserve inalienable rights of self-expression, of dignity, and of self-governance — meaning they must be allowed to love whomever they wish. Well, I also support the whole drive for human rights.

What I now suspect to be a critical misdirection, however, is not the actual choices we face but how we reached the point where we are faced with these incompatible choices.

Using an overly simplified soundbite, I increasingly suspect that all the challenges associated with gender and identity can be encompassed thus:

“Biology loads the gun. Society (family, faith-based, and secular) pulls the trigger.”

Please don’t be angry with me. I will be happy to expound further so you can offer valuable insight. My already stated position is that my entire life has been underpinned by sadness, and my faith in God informs me that something beyond my control is therefore wrong. I am simply searching for truth that may steer me towards ways to mitigate the distress.

[Anonymous]

Here’s a little more of my thinking. Of all the hundreds of Church members with whom I have communicated and who identify as being somewhere on the LGBTQIA+ spectrum, I believe I’m pretty much the only one who doesn’t believe they were born like it (or worse, that they were perversely blessed by God to experience life differently). This goes against all my logic from a faith perspective. I struggle to accept that a loving God would confuse the core identity of any individual (which puts me firmly in agreement with DarkJedi’s earlier statements), thus setting them up to fail. That is not the God in which I have faith.

The standard argument adopted by most is that they can’t remember feeling any different, so they must have been born that way. My counter argument is that absolutely no one can say for sure how or what they felt like as a baby because no one can remember what took place in those critical months and years when each of us was learning our place in society. My earliest memories date back to just before my second birthday, and I only have a couple of them. I have no inkling of how I was interpreting cues from society in my formative years nor of what was taking place in my home and how that affected my development.

And then there’s the Church position within the wider religious context of the Abrahamic faiths. Moses got the ball rolling by documenting debauchery and associating it with personal choice. Senior Church leaders in the latter half of the 20th century subsequently ratcheted up the hatred by declaring in no uncertain terms that identity-challenged individuals were sick perverts by choice, but that they could equally choose a path to normality if they were more faithful. I believe we can all agree that senior priesthood leaders are no longer permitted to make such “inspired” statements.

In respect of how people end up experiencing life differently, I am drawn to an alternative explanation. It involves humanity trying to ensure its own survival by setting up a straw man argument. A child perceived as weak, too sensitive, or in some other way lacking desirable traits of the idealised sexual binary finds themselves constantly challenged over their shortcomings, which serves only to disconnect them from precisely the reaffirming influences necessary for normal adulthood.

I’m gonna cut this short. It’s my bed time.

[Anonymous]

More from me.

Who among us genuinely believes that individuals in Biblical times were possessed by evil spirits and demons? It works in fairytales, but it is unreasonable in an age of greater education and science. Surely those poor folk were suffering from conditions that science has since shown to be unrelated to the devil: epilepsy, schizophrenia, personality disorders, etc. But everything inexplicable was treated with suspicion and associated with the father of lies. And that culture of fear is likely to have poisoned society from its origins. I am left-handed. Did you know that the word “sinister” comes from the Latin for “left”? Such indoctrination is founded on ignorance and persists in cultures today.

I suspect that what we now describe as issues relating to gender and identity are outcomes of the same inherited backwardness. What if the presentation of these challenges is simply a reaction to and symptoms of society’s limited understanding? Of fearing the implications of non-compliance and responding with mistrust or rejection of those in question — thus preventing them from accessing the validation they need to thrive in the dominant gender binary — driving them in the opposite direction. What if individuals are conditioned into believing they don’t fit because society relentlessly imprints that disconnect into them?

Consider the actor Jason Statham: https://www.looper.com/341342/the-untold-truth-of-jason-statham

Was he likely to have had his gender and identity questioned and ridiculed from childhood? Not on the basis of his appearance, no.

And what about this other actor, Harry Trevaldwyn https://www.vanityfair.com/london/2022/04/quick-fire-questions-harry-trevaldwyn

Wait, what? He’s gay? How could that be? Surely someone like him would never have been subject to cruelty, hatred, and general viciousness. Hmm.

There are plenty of effeminate men (and butch women) who don’t turn out gay, however, and I’d like to think that they were nurtured appropriately, whereas those whose compass spins the other way are likely to have been subject to unrelenting childhood and adolescent nastiness. That was my personal experience.

There is no actual gender binary. It is a scale with chromosome-disadvantaged intersex individuals in the middle. I have come to suspect that the closer one is to the biological centre (or the further one appears to be from the biological ideal), the increased likelihood there is that a rough life-path will lie ahead.

There are also macho guys and girly girls who end up same-sex attracted, of course, but there are no end of emotional conditions (as expressions of one’s biology) upon which society preys to undermine, confuse, and disenfranchise when such individuals display undesirable behaviours or impressions of failing to align with the desired binary.

My stake president father used to beat his children into strict observance. My older siblings seem to have emerged from that trauma intact, but the genesis of my identity confusion was manifest when I begged for a doll for my seventh birthday. In hindsight, I was unable to relate to the masculine role models in my life. They subjected me to constant punishment.

For convenience and understanding, I describe myself in confidential settings as same-sex attracted. However, under scrutiny that descriptor simply isn’t true. I am attracted to masculinity — not individuals. I crave its companionship because I have always found myself excluded from it.

And now movements such as Pride have risen up to demand acceptance of the things society hates and that may, ironically, be the outcomes of its own wrongdoing. If that is true, it is no wonder we are at an impasse. I am now of the opinion that the positions of both secular society and the Church are wrong in ways they simply cannot conceive.

That is my belief. It is why I now suspect that biology loads the gun — and society pulls the trigger.

[Anonymous]

Interesting thoughts. Thanks for opening up and sharing them.

As to the question, can individuals who identify as LGBTQ+ truly find peace as active members of the LDS Church? That’s probably down to the individual but I’d say that generally no, they can’t.

Frankly I don’t see how any member can find peace as an active member but that’s down to my own experiences with orthodoxy. The church’s brand of orthodoxy is not kind to a person’s sense of self-worth. LBGTQIA+ members are at even more of a disadvantage than most because they have to deal with an additional thick layer of indoctrinated self loathing and cultural othering.

Carburettor wrote:

What if individuals are conditioned into believing they don’t fit because society relentlessly imprints that disconnect into them?

Feel free to expand my next statements out from the church to general Christendom, all religion, or even society as a whole, but I’ll use the church for shorthand.

The only hell LGBTQIA+ people are going to is the one that the church itself creates for them. It’s not unlike a self-fulfilled prophecy, look how miserable they are because of how miserable we’ve made things for them. Then human prejudices and a feedback loop take over. They must be miserable because they’re doing something wrong, which justifies our mistreatment of them, which makes them more miserable.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

The only hell LGBTQIA+ people are going to is the one that the church itself creates for them. It’s not unlike a self-fulfilled prophecy, look how miserable they are because of how miserable we’ve made things for them. Then human prejudices and a feedback loop take over. They must be miserable because they’re doing something wrong, which justifies our mistreatment of them, which makes them more miserable.

Thank you for being charitable with me. When I have voiced my suspicions elsewhere that individuals who experience challenges with gender and identity probably have many commonalities with soldiers who return from battle with PTSD, I have been mocked and vilified. Yet I feel there is mileage in exploring the idea that such self-expression could be a logical stress response from insidious or accidental childhood trauma.

As someone who believes in evolution (within a orderly plan), I can find no sense in such aberrations from a biological standpoint. They are self-defeating. Also as someone of faith, I find they make no sense in the context of loving deity. That leads me to conclude that other forces must be at play — but no one wants to address such an outrageous idea that society may be creating its own monsters. Everyone wants to blame someone else, but perhaps we are all to blame.

It is my understanding that “experts” used to believe that homosexuality and the other stuff were mental illnesses until it was agreed that the individuals showed none of the classic hallmarks of illness. However, it is possible to experience the outcomes of trauma in the form of PTSD, for example, without being mentally ill.

I hope it won’t be offensive to suggest that it sounds to me like you may either be a disaffected/disenfranchised/ex- church member or an agnostic or atheist. If that is the case, it would be perfectly reasonable for you to blame the church and the wider faith community. In the context of my own assertions, I find myself somewhat in the same boat — but I am mindful that I wish to avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

If church leaders could adequately address the mistakes made in the name of God for decades, it would be easier to trust them. At the moment, however, I feel that trust has been betrayed.

[Anonymous]

After discovering the Church’s website material previously published as “Mormon and Gay” (now “Same-Sex Attraction” – https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay) I scoured it for help to address my confusion, anger, and distress — but there was nothing. The stories in its pages remain devoid of practical guidance because Church leaders recognise that healing is impossible within the framework it has helped to construct. The web pages are filled with false hope.

And it wasn’t too long before I noticed that some individuals whose glossy stories graced its content had their faith-affirming articles swiftly removed when they went off the rails. It was inevitable. White-knuckling through life (as it is referred to when one lives in denial) is no life at all.

A question that bothers me a lot and has previously been raised is that of how can revelation positively gush out of our leaders on every conceivable topic that is either self-evident or inconsequential in the grand scheme of things while, for something of such critical importance, the heavens remain closed. Something is wrong. Something smells rat-like. And no one can be held to account.

I searched the web pages for a personal history to which I could relate; someone like me who had followed the Lord’s counsel to marry and have children despite their being intrinsically unsuitable. I found nothing. So I emailed the content owner using the address provided and received an automated response to assure me that my query would be addressed in due course. I never heard back.

The same thing happened when I contacted Deseret Book on March 15, 2019 to request its removal from sale of The Miracle of Forgiveness in eBook form. I made the following assertion: “President Kimball was an inspired prophet of God, but his seminal work The Miracle of Forgiveness includes material that is offensive, divisive, and in stark contrast with the greater light and knowledge revealed to successive prophets.” No one responded, but the publication was withdrawn from sale soon afterwards.

On some days, I feel so much anger, resentment, and frustration. I simply desire to feel normal, and to love my wife like she is my entire world. But demons lurk in my shadows, and many have the silhouettes of senior priesthood leaders.

I wrote to the Office of the First Presidency with a lengthy accusation of Church-sponsored abuse in relation to its decades-long practice of portraying vulnerable individuals as perverts and worse. I published the material anonymously on a website and asked them to respond to me using the contact details on the site. It will come as no surprise that, seven months later, I have received no response. I wrote anonymously to prevent them from simply forwarding my letter to my stake president who is fully aware of my situation and that of others in my stake but has no idea how to accomplish anything positive within the stranglehold maintained by the Quorum of the 12.

I love the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but what is still being perpetrated in the name of Jesus Christ is abhorrent.

So I hang on — serving to the best of my ability in stake leadership — wondering how long it will be before I reach the end.

[Anonymous]

Carburettor wrote:

That is my belief. It is why I now suspect that biology loads the gun — and society pulls the trigger.

Really the question breaks down as “can individuals who are marginalized in specific ways or “display gender markers differently (if at all) [insert examples of LGBTQ+ (and allies), Disabled/Differently Abled, Scholars, Feminists, etc. as some of the “labels”] truly find “peace” as “active members” of the LDS Church?

My answer is “Your Mileage May Vary” and/or “It Depends”.

Factors include:

– How many of the “marginalized” checkboxes/labels the person believes applies to their situation.

– Who their family, extended family, and friend groups are and how well they include the individual.

– Where this is all taking place (in terms of geography).

– Does/Can/Will the individual “mask” enough to “perform their biological gender” properly/according to expectations?

– What the individual has a testimony of.

– The degree of trauma related to the situation.

Definitions of “Peace” and “Active Members of the Church” are additional variables.

NOTE: You have clearly identified the cognitive tension between “the doctrine” as currently understood by the church and/or church members, and “secular understanding”.

NOTE 2: You might like the movie, “Stranger than Fiction” that is a story about a character who goes from living a very dry, almost cardboard life to one of their own choosing.

[Anonymous]

Lots of great comments here.

To begin, I agree with DJ [and Amy that was typing at the same time as me] that active LDS LGBTQ+ members can achieve a measure of peace with a caveat. I believe that this measure of peace would require for them to not take the church very seriously. They could not take church statements for evidence of God’s love for them personally. In other words, they may be present at church physically but mentally they are strongly insulated internally against church beliefs and comments. I have heard this described as putting on an anthropologist hat. The individual may feel like an outside observer. As you can see, this involves a level of detachment mentally even if not physically.

I do believe that some people can find great confidence and peace in the LDS church. I believe that this works best for people whose lives and dreams are most promoted and affirmed by LDS teachings. The degree that people diverge from this model member ideal reduces the amount of peace that they can attain.

I feel that this is well explained by the concept of cognitive dissonance. If a person’s actions or identity are in conflict with their beliefs then they will need to either change their actions/identity or change their beliefs in order to reduce dissonance. Many aspects of a person’s life can be changed to better fit the mold. Other aspects are harder to change or even unable to change. These aspects will continue to create dissonance as long as the beliefs are in conflict.

[Anonymous]

AmyJ wrote:

You might like the movie, “Stranger than Fiction” that is a story about a character who goes from living a very dry, almost cardboard life to one of their own choosing.

Thanks, AmyJ. I found nothing on Netflix, but there are three movies by that name on Amazon Prime. I’m hoping it’s the one with Will Ferrell, and I’ll watch that this weekend.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Lots of great comments here.

I’m still waiting for someone to bring out the figurative pitchforks. That’s what I’m used to. You’re all being far too nice.

I agree with pretty much everything that has been said, except the level of discomfort associated with identity misalignment. Being left-handed in a right-handed culture is a trial to endure (passing the sacrament, sustaining, etc.) as is, say, losing a leg, or having a debilitating or terminal disease. Such challenges, however, may be less likely to trigger a core disconnect or dissonance, other than experiencing feelings of “why me?” Confusion in respect of gender and identity, on the other hand, puts gospel-loving individuals at odds with God if we believe what our priesthood leaders tell us. The difference in one’s emotional fracturing is orders of magnitude larger. In my opinion, there is no comparison.

LGBTQIA-identifying individuals joining the Church today know what they’re getting into, and I doubt the long-term retention rate will be high. People like me, on the other hand, who were raised in a culture of devout hatred are burdened by internally digested stigma that I suspect they can never shed.

I feel a measure of peace only when I am contributing to self harm by pretending I am someone else. I believe this is unjust, so I cannot accept that God is the author of it.

At the risk of venturing into melodrama, my situation results in occasional waves of morbid thoughts. Thankfully, pondering the enduring impact on my wife and children deters me from taking action. If I were not a member, I’d simply be dealing with the emotional issues I have found to be commonplace among those in LGBTQIA groups (having participated in several secular and faith-based ones). The additional dimension of hellfire and damnation, however, is enough to make a situation unbearable.

Perhaps we should review some of the “inspired” statements of senior priesthood leaders from my formative years to evaluate whether I am being overly sensitive. They are found in the public domain and are easily verifiable.

[Anonymous]

Carburettor wrote:

“Biology loads the gun. Society (family, faith-based, and secular) pulls the trigger.”

Carburettor wrote:

Of all the hundreds of Church members with whom I have communicated and who identify as being somewhere on the LGBTQIA+ spectrum, I believe I’m pretty much the only one who doesn’t believe they were born like it (or worse, that they were perversely blessed by God to experience life differently).

This goes back to the old nature vs. nurture argument.

I do not believe that it is not possible scientifically to answer this question. Science can give us correlation but it cannot give us causation. To prove causation would require conducting controlled experiments that would not be moral or ethical.

I believe that, regardless of the exact percentage of nature vs. nurture, the important point is that the individual did not choose it for themselves and, in most cases, cannot change it.

I do feel that there are advantages to erring on the side of “born that way.” I think that there had been much blaming of parents in the past for either being too affectionate or not affectionate enough and many other theories for what form of “nurture” could cause SSA. Saying that a person is born that way sidesteps this whole pointless exercise. LGTQ+ people exist. Rather then worrying about why they exist, let’s put more focus into including them into those structures and communities that provide meaning in our lives.

I feel that it is possible that there can be multiple causes and multiple pathways to the same state of being. It is entirely possible that one person is indeed 100% nature and 0% nurture. If someone tells me that this is their experience then I think that the respectful thing is to believe them and validate them as the only living expert on what it is to be them. It is true that all humans have “blindspots” that prevent us from seeing ourselves or others with perfect clarity. I try to consider my own blindspots and biases and give others grace with their own.

Carburettor wrote:

My stake president father used to beat his children into strict observance. My older siblings seem to have emerged from that trauma intact, but by the age of six I used to dress up in my sister’s clothes and begged for a doll for my seventh birthday.

In this way, I can believe you that your experience with your father during your formative years was very impactful to your sexual identity and attraction and ALSO believe others that say that they were born that way and always remember feeling the same.

[Anonymous]

Taking the question of nature vs. nurture a bit further you bring up some faith based and evolutionary thoughts in your reasoning.

Carburettor wrote:

As someone who believes in evolution (within a orderly plan), I can find no sense in such aberrations from a biological standpoint. They are self-defeating.

Allow me to gently push back against an assumption. You seem to be envisioning evolution as moving from lower life forms to higher life forms with the purpose of becoming the strongest. In other words, “survival of the fittest.” Evolution, as I understand it, does not work that way. There are genetic variations (it is important for the variations to be genetic in order to allow them to be passed down to offspring) within a population. Some variations are advantageous for the environment, some are neutral, and some are disadvantageous. If the variations give one segment of the population a significant advantage then that segment should reproduce more and over time become the dominant variation.

The point is that the variations do not have purpose. They just exist as natural genetic differences within the same species. Over time the “genetic drift” can become sufficient enough to form an entirely new species.

Carburettor wrote:

This goes against all my logic from a faith perspective. I struggle to accept that a loving God would confuse the core identity of any individual (which puts me firmly in agreement with DarkJedi’s earlier statements), thus setting them up to fail. That is not the God in which I have faith.

I feel that this statement also has assumptions imbedded. It may be helpful to analyze them. I think the assumptions are that a loving God exists and created us. God also had the power to create us differently. Because God is loving, he would choose to create us in ways that would maximize our potential for success. I also believe that it is inferred that success means something about getting married in the temple and going to heaven as an exalted male and female couple.

Those are assumptions. We can play with them and come to different conclusions. I do not understand assumptions to be bad. We all have them. Sometimes they can be very useful and sometimes they can hold us back. Assumptions do not change easily but they can change. Sometimes the first step is to recognize that they exist, that they frame our worldview, and that they are not necessarily fixed or “eternal truth.”

[Anonymous]

Carburettor wrote:

Perhaps we should review some of the “inspired” statements of senior priesthood leaders from my formative years to evaluate whether I am being overly sensitive. They are found in the public domain and are easily verifiable.

No, you are not being overly sensitive. I would take it as a statement of fact that horrible things were said by senior priesthood leaders and that those same sentiments (and even worse outgrowths of those sentiments) permeated the membership during your formative years. I also believe that these bad sentiments towards LGBTQ+ individuals still to this day have a strong footing within the leadership and the membership.

I believe that the church could “repent” or turn away from these bad sentiments and work hard to make the LDS church a more welcoming and peaceful place for LGBTQ+ individuals.

Unfortunately, progress in this area is slow and non-linear. I believe the path of “waiting for the church to change” is a path of ups and downs but lots and lots of frustration. That, to me, is the opposite of peace and not something that I would ever recommend.

[Author]

Posts