Theology matters to me. I know it is normal to ascribe nefarious intentions and motives to why people leave the Church and they usually begin and end with sin, offense and being weak. You can really point to any and every reason except (1) the doctrine or (2) the brethren. However, my exit from Mormonism is directly impacted and driven by both modern interpretation of doctrine and the words and actions of the brethren. But even in my spiritual life beyond Mormonism, theology and spirituality are still very important parts of my life.
I don’t generally read or watch conference talks anymore. My only reason for listening to Oak’s 2017 General Conference address was because I wanted to spell out, for whomever is interested, why this is such a problematic talk. It causes harm to the LGBT community whom I love and care for deeply. And so, it warranted a response.
Exclusion and Rejection
From the start Oaks is intent on drawing lines and defining who is on each side of the line. He draws on scripture and the prophet to define these exclusions.
Quoting James, “whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.” Quoting Monson, “it is essential that we reject anything that does not conform to our standards.”
This talk is primarily geared toward addressing the Proclamation and its opposition to same sex marriage. Oaks is drawing definitive lines that anyone who supports same sex marriage is “an enemy to God” and should be “rejected”.
Conflation
Oaks conflates same sex marriage and relationships outside of wedlock. He cites rates of children being born outside of wedlock. There is nothing equal in the commitment/love of married persons and those who are not married. No same sex marriage has increased the rate of children born out of wedlock.
Conflating these things allows heterosexual members to equate infidelity and fornication with same sex marriage.
The Gospel
Oaks says, “The gospel plan that each family should follow to prepare for eternal life and exaltation is outlined in the Proclamation…”
“Converted Latter Day Saints believe that the Proclamation…is the Lord’s re-emphasis of the gospel truths we need to sustain us.”
The problem – Jesus never connected the gospel or eternal life to anything remotely resembling the Proclamation. Not in the New Testament or the Book of Mormon. And nothing Jesus did teach regarding salvation is in the Proclamation. The Proclamation is not the gospel.
Salvation
The Proclamation and Oaks talk are almost exclusively focused on exaltation. Salvation, the Atonement and the gospel Jesus taught are at best an afterthought or a lessor gospel. And this is the real issue –
In the pursuit of exaltation, Mormons have completely disregarded and ignored whom we exclude on that basis. Meaning, if you are not on the path of exaltation within Mormonism, they will deny you the ordinances of salvation (baptism, gift of the Holy Ghost). Everything is judged on top tier membership in the Celestial Kingdom at the expense of everyone else.
This is not the gospel Jesus taught. You can claim it is how it is revealed to modern prophets or is interpretation of Old Testament stories (Adam or Abraham), but you can’t claim it is the gospel Jesus taught (either in the Book of Mormon or New Testament).
And if the pursuit of Celestial exaltation harms or detracts from the work of salvation, I would suggest that you need to explore whether your doctrine of exaltation is accurate or not. Because God may have a problem with that.
Because even of his apostles Jesus begs, “Feed my sheep. Feed my sheep. Feed my sheep.”
Motives
For those wondering why Elder Oaks would speak against same-sex marriage (again) in such strong language in General Conference, there is actually very good reason. The position of the Church is teetering on the edge of collapse. Not only is same sex marriage legal, but some courageous members are on a historical, biological and theological basis completely unraveling the Church’s weak position.
Recently, Bryce Cook‘s essay “What Do We Know of God’s Will For His LGBT Children? An Examination of the LDS Church’s Position on Homosexuality” does a complete review of the theological, ethical and moral stand of the Church.
https://mormonlgbtquestions.com/…/what-do-we-know-of-gods-…/
Last week, Greg Prince gave a lecture at the University of Utah that establishes without question that homosexuality is biological. He also notes that the Church’s position on homosexuality has been changing and backtracking (not eternal and unchanging) since the 1960s and 1970s. The fact that the Church’s position has changed isn’t a problem unless you hold to belief that Church doctrine never changes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gssnz1WZ3dU&feature=youtu.be
Greg Prince is also finalizing a history called Mormon and Gay which is a comprehensive history of the Church’s history with LGBT issues. Greg is an accomplished and published historian.
So, there is plenty of powerful information out in the world that Elder Oaks needs to scare members away from in order to maintain the current status-quo in the Church. Much like how the Exclusion Policy was intended to limit members being exposed to healthy, happy same sex couples. It’s not the children of said marriages being protected, but the cognitive dissonance of the members.
Thomas Montgomery
TOM MONTGOMERY has been writing on the intersection of LDS and LGBT issues since 2012. He was an active member of the LDS Church until 2016. His journey covers going door-to-door in support of Prop 8 in California to having a great love for the LGBT Mormon community. He says that his single qualification to be in this esteemed company of authors is the privilege of being the father of a wonderful gay son. This has been a very spiritual journey. His greatest priority is being 100% supportive of the health and well-being of LGBT Mormon youth and adults in or out of Mormonism. Tom has written articles for Rational Faiths (http://rationalfaiths.com/author/thomas-montgomery/) and No More Strangers (http://www.nomorestrangers.org/grace/).
All posts by Thomas Montgomery
Good job. I agree completely with you. As D&C 112 said: The Lord is going to start “cleaning out” from “inside of His house” and I am sure that He is going to start from “the TOP: those so-call “General Authorities”
What really rankles for me is using this argument that our position hasn’t changed, a thousand years of history is on our side–when we are the very ones who changed marriage by adding polygamy! And early church leaders said that exaltation was only possible with polygamous marriage, which is obviously not being preached now (although Oaks himself is married polygamously in the eternal sense).
“In my Father’s house,” says Jesus in John 14:2, “are many mansions.” “In thy presence is fulness of joy” (Ps. 16:11). Here is the introduction to DC 76:
“Upon my return from Amherst conference, I resumed the translation of the Scriptures. From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of man had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled. It appeared self-evident from what truths were left, that if God rewarded every one according to the deeds done in the body the term ‘Heaven,’ as intended for the Saints’ eternal home, must include more kingdoms than one. Accordingly, while translating St. John’s Gospel, myself and Elder Rigdon saw the following vision.”
This is a perfectly reasonable observation by the Prophet and it led to revelation. If you accept Joseph Smith as a prophet to whom a revelation of the kingdoms of glory was then given, fine. It expands upon what we have of the New Testament. (See DC 76:7: “And to them will I reveal all mysteries, yea, all the hidden mysteries of my kingdom from days of old, and for ages to come, will I make known unto them the good pleasure of my will concerning all things pertaining to my kingdom.”) If you reject Joseph Smith as a fraud, then of course this vision is fiction. It doesn’t come down to the New Testament, it comes down to the restoration of the ancient office of prophet. I say Joseph is good to go, you don’t.
All of the ordinances from baptism on up are for exaltation and always have been; there aren’t any ordinances for entry into the Terrestrial or Telestial Kingdoms (or, if there are, they are being done after this life because they sure aren’t being done here). Am I supposed to reject Eternal Life and aim for some other “kind” of salvation? What salvation would that be and why would I do that? The Gospel Jesus taught is the one given him by the Father to reconcile us to the Father (see John 14:6; 17:3). I certainly can and do claim it is the gospel Jesus taught. Exaltation is the only destination we are heading for.
Elder Oaks is not conflating same-sex marriage and sexual relations outside of wedlock, he is saying they are two modern examples of going beyond the boundaries the Lord has set. Each is unacceptable. Both have been non-starters for 6,000 years with God, now both have been given the green light by the world; both are legal (as is prostitution in some areas. The ship for the social acceptance of sex outside of marriage left port some time ago and has disappeared over the horizon. It’s sailed.) We are not to conform to either of them. Same sex marriage is not like prostitution or out-of-marriage sex other than each is proscribed by God, whether they are legal or not.
The position of the Church, by which you seem to mean the Proclamation, is not teetering on any edge. And you are conflating two things: An understanding of same sex attraction, which is evolving, and the acceptance by the Church of same-sex marriage, which is not. Elder Oaks is stating what every other General Authority would state: It is God who says no to same-sex marriage. Clearly, many cannot accept this. But that is what the position of the Church is.
I know that there is a feeling among same-sex marriage proponents that the Church will eventually wake up, smell the bacon, and cave on same-sex marriage, and I have no problem with this viewpoint. I don’t see it but I can say: Fine, we’ll see.
Tim, you pretty much make my point for me. “In my Father’s house there are many mansions” – but there is only one that really counts. And if you are not hyper focused on that one mansion, you don’t even get membership in the Kingdom.
“All of the ordinances from baptism on up are for exaltation and always have been…” Again, making my point. Funny, I used to think as a missionary I was preaching salvation. Clearly I was uninformed.
“Elder Oaks is stating what every other General Authority would state: It is God who says no to same-sex marriage.” Just like when General Authorities and scripture said blacks were cursed and less valiant in the pre-existence and were banned from LDS temples. And when the scritpures condoned slavery, rape and at times incest. That was all God.
Tom, the only one that “really counts” is the one that God wants us to be in. He wants all his children to make choices that will bring them back to him. What Kingdom do you think God wants us to be members of? What Kingdom do you think baptism qualifies you for and why is Christ so adamant about it? Are we supposed to tell people to aim lower? Obviously exaltation is salvation. Why do you think we perform the saving ordinances by proxy in temples? Because they are of no value to the dead?
I hear variations on your last paragraph a lot. Unfortunately, it’s illogical. Maybe the Book of Mormon isn’t true; after all, the General Authorities say it is, but then look at the priesthood restrictions – so how can we trust their word on the Book of Mormon? You can pick anything from A to Z and say, “Well, that’s what a General Authority testified to, but look at the priesthood restrictions – let’s reject everything. This thing or that thing isn’t automatically “just like” something else.
While we’re at it, what do think salvation is?
Tim Boone, there are two salvations at least that was the doctrine/dogma when I grew up. All men are saved from the physical death by the resurrection of Christ the second is a spiritual death or not being able to returne to the presence of God. Life eternal is to know God and his Son and to re-entry his presence. The Church now only emphasizes the highest degree, ignoring the doctrinal that That 2/3 of the Celestial kingdom does NOT require marriage to enter and to that point the edowment covenants have been change– even the definition of chastity was changed. The problem with Church leaders is the want to be the only mediator between man and Christ and in so doing deny the role of the Holy Ghost to testify to personal truth. The ultimate trust in the Lord is to follow your truth as witnessed by the HG. If there had been consistency from the beginning in relation to LGBT individuals then we might think their current position immutable, but Gay marriage has been the law of the land for over 10 years in other countries but obviously only speaks when it becomes the law is the USA– must still be only an American religion and the rest of the world does not matter. The only doctrine that is still accept that was introduced by Brigham Young who was allegedly transfigured to be Joseph is the process of succession—another doctrine passed without the full Quorum I’m attendance. The prophet is suffering in body and mind and I will enjoy witnessing that reel and interaction when it is played back. He in lies the problem for current leaders– by excusing prior practices as not according the Gospel and societal influences mingled with scripture, we are left to question based on their explanation of past now unacceptable behavior, if it is not thesame situation–an expression of biases of current leaders that brought forth the November policy! Having grownup in the Church and followed their guidance, I have learn by my own experience, how wrong they have been in the past! (They now deny they ever taught what the taught– I guess hoping that we who trusted them and were betrayed by their counsel will just die off and they can rewrite their history.) It would have been better to admit we don’t know so seek counsel of the Lord and follow the witness of the HG. Pres. Hinkley when asked by Larry King deferred to others–that was my ah hah moment. If the mouthpiece of God on Earth doesn’t know then either God doesn’t love me despite being the perfect Mormon then maybe, just maybe I should listen for myself and trust my relationship with God. Maybe I am who God intended me to be! That trust has brought me understanding, peace and wholeness. My life can be on of truth to myself and not one of deception and trying to be somebody else’s somebody. The point now is I will stand as a witness of what they said, encouraged and taught and the joy, love, happiness, and lives they have harmed or destroyed–the little children they have offended who are the creation of their loving Father who defines diversity in all his creations as good, who they robbed of hope of joy in this life! What if those who found the old position on blacks unacceptable had opposed the Church adoption of its period of codified predjudice? Are we’re force to repeat the same 100 years of error just because current leaders are not to be questioned? I have long since quit trusting in the arm of Flesh–I will follow Christ as witnessed to me by the second comforter and I do not trust people who mix the philosophy of men with scripture–that was the explanation they give for the prior policy on blacks. I will continue to come to know Christ by loving unconditionally all of God’s children at least that gives me peace and hope, something the Church I was born into has denied me. Who I define as my neighbors is expanding while church leaders Have chosen to send some an eviction notice.
Hi Tim. If the issue of gay people existing and being in the Church, and living full and productive lives were so earth-shattering to morality and the Family, why did He never once take time in His ministry to talk about it? Why? Or why did He never discuss it in the Doctrine and Covenants or the Book of Mormon. Why?
Jeremiah: Because same-sex marriage was never an issue then. No one was agitating for it. It has been a non-starter for 6,000 years. It was a zero issue in 30 A.D. and in 1830 A.D. No one approached Jesus on this.
God could have said to Adam and Eve, “Look, you are a man and a woman, but you are going to have children who will want a same-sex marriage and that’s just fine.” God could have set this in motion at year zero, stopped opposition in its tracks, fostered acceptance, but did not.
The consistent message over 6,000 years is that marriage here and in the next world is between a man and a woman. I get that this is being challenged because conditions in the modern world have changed, but the Church is not being inconsistent.
Thanks Tom for your articles. Your writing always gives me hope.
I recently completed the process of having my name removed from the records of the church because of the the way LGBT members and their children are treated by the church. It was the only meaningful action I could take.
Maybe someday I can return to the church I loved while growing up, but it has to change first.
May God bless you and your family.
My concern is with the Priesthood/Temple ban, it seems church members at all levels in the organization were agitating for change. With how LGBT+ are treated, I don’t see this at church. I see it on blogs and Twitter, but at church I see people thinking like Elder Oaks. And generally those who could help agitate from within are instead, like JR, just leaving.
I was tired of the hurt inflicted on me as a youth and continuing to be inflicted on today youth. It is intolerable to be Mormon and gay.
I may be wrong, but I don’t think MTodd was being critical of those who leave, just expressing that the Oaks-type thinkers then become an even stronger group on the inside, unfortunately making change even less likely. Walking away from a toxic environment and taking your talents and resources (money) with you is a powerful statement in itself and often a wise mental health decision. No explanation or apology is needed.
Totally understandable, your leaving. Church is awful for gay members. I feel most for gay youth whose parents force them to go to Church not realizing the pain this will cause.
And Dot is right. My comment merely spoke to the fact that I don’t see change coming anytime soon. Articles like this give me hope which is then crushed to bits when I go to Church and hear how God will never sanction gay marriage because it would be national suicide (or any of the other specious arguments Mormons make to justify their heteronormative privilege).
Here’s the thing, though: even if every gay person and their families and friends continued to leave the Church, new gay people are born to LDS families every single year, every single generation. And because of that, this issue will continue to pull on the loyalties of their parents, siblings, grandparents, friends, etc. It is impossible for the Brethren to wall the Church off from gay people. Because it’s genetic and/or epigenetic.
Through the varied experience of several gay Mormon friends and through wide reading, I think I have gained some understanding of the difficulties. My understanding mostly aligns with Tom Montgomery’s, Greg Prince’s (despite recent distortions of what David O. McKay and others had in mind with their comments), and Bryce Cook’s. I haven’t left the Church and have no inclination to do so, for a number of reasons, one of which it that I can do more good staying than I could if I left. This, however, is no criticism of those friends and relatives who have left; individuals, wards, and stakes vary too widely to suppose that one path is best for all.