Chapter 4- Can new doubling down on the doctrine crush hope?

• Have recent prophetic statements further entrenched anti-LGBTQ doctrine?

• Is it fair for us to expect LGBTQ church members to just trust in the Lord to work things out?

• What can our feelings tell us about doctrine?

• Can we keep Christ’s two great commandments and still hope for doctrinal marriage equality?

• Why are church teachings inconsistent about gender and post-mortal sexual orientation?

• Can gay sexual orientation in nature provide hope for heaven?

Chapter synopsis: The fall of 2019 brought my despair to its lowest point as the church’s position against church-authorized marriage equality became more firmly entrenched than ever. Two monumental sermons against marriage equality in the church were delivered by our two topmost church leaders in September and October 2019 (the week before and the week after my in-person meeting with the General Authority discussed in Chapter 9).

BYU policy aside, the news of the reversal of the church’s 2015 Exclusion Policy for children with gay parents gave me fresh hope. I now wonder though if it might have ironically been one of the worst things to have ever happened for gay church members and their allies. I say that because just a few months after the reversal, it seems like an unprecedented doubling down in doctrinal opposition to marriage equality occurred in new teachings over the pulpit discussed below, coming straight from our prophet and one of his counselors. I can’t help but wonder if they were trying again to prevent support for doctrinal marriage equality from rising up within the church – but this time, they were doing it by preaching more forceful doctrinal messages, rather than by implementing what turned out to be an unworkable policy. Or maybe their aim was to establish a stronger doctrinal position on this issue to bolster the church’s legal claims in court battles over religious liberty (e.g., so that the church or any of its affiliated companies or schools can maintain the right to fire employees if they enter into a marriage with someone of their same gender – because religious groups are likely to succeed more in court if their opposition to marriage equality is solidly entrenched doctrinally). Who knows why it’s happening? But it is clear that in the fall of 2019, the doctrine opposing marriage equality in the church became more entrenched than ever before.

The first instance of this new doctrinal doubling down against marriage equality in the church happened on September 17, 2019 when our current prophet, President Russell M. Nelson, gave an address at BYU (https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/russell-m-nelson/love-laws-god/ ). In his remarks, he explained why the Exclusion Policy was modified several months earlier – basically because of compassion and at God’s direction. I liked that part of his address. But then he also said prophets and apostles could not change the church’s standard that gay sexual behavior is sinful because “truth is truth” and the law of chastity (meaning that sexual relations should only happen between one man and one woman who are legally married) was a divine law. He explained that divine laws are “incontrovertible” and can be compared to unchanging laws of nature, like gravity. While prior church leaders had said before that gay marriage would never be allowed, it was the first time I had heard anyone currently serving as the prophet during the LGBTQ rights era be so blunt. And, he went further than any other prophet had before on the topic by comparing the law of chastity to the unvarying laws of nature. He added, “God has not changed His definition of marriage.” 

Now, it was significant to me to hear him say all those things because prior prophets taught repeatedly that God’s ideal definition of marriage was polygamy (see Chapter 6). But then subsequent prophets after 1890 taught that polygamy is a sin so severe it is deserving of loss of church membership, which is still the doctrine of the church today.

“If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. … More than a century ago God clearly revealed unto His prophet Wilford Woodruff that the practice of plural marriage should be discontinued, which means that it is now against the law of God. Even in countries where civil or religious law allows polygamy, the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage” (“What Are People Asking about Us?” Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71–72; https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1998/10/what-are-people-asking-about-us?lang=eng).

So God’s definition of marriage has in fact clearly changed at least once already (I’ll explain in Chapter 6 how it has actually changed a few times). The church has changed other doctrines (stated to have been revealed by, or even spoken in the very voice of, God) many times before. The scriptures teach us that God reveals truth to us “precept upon precept; line upon line...here a little, and there a little” (Isaiah 28:10). I think God gives us further light and knowledge when we are ready for it, but not before. Every doctrine of the church has come to us in that manner: 

“If [church members] take the time to read their own history, they will understand that not a single, significant LDS doctrine has gone unchanged throughout the entire history of the church.” (Gregory A. Prince, 2017: https://affirmation.org/science-vs- dogma-biology-challenges-the-lds-paradigm/ ). 

Given that history, I don’t see any doctrine as being “off the table” when it comes to the possibility for change, which is why the prophet’s remarks hurt so much. They seemed inconsistent with the following statements, and many others like them, made by prior church leaders:

“The canon of scripture is still open; many lines, many precepts, are yet to be added; revelation, surpassing in importance and glorious fullness any that has been recorded, is yet to be given to the Church and declared to the world.” (James E. Talmage, Apostle, Articles of Faith, page 311, 1899; https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual-2018/the-articles-of-faith/articles-of-faith-1-5-13 ) 

“We need not be surprised if we sometimes find them [our religious predecessors] mistaken in their own conceptions and deductions; just as the generations who succeed us in unfolding in a larger way some of the yet unlearned truths of the Gospel, will find that we have had some misconceptions and made some wrong deductions in our day and time. The book of knowledge is never a sealed book. It is never 'completed and forever closed;' rather it is an eternally open book, in which one may go on constantly discovering new truths and modifying our knowledge of old ones.” (B.H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God: The Book of Mormon, pg 503-504, 1909; https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1986/03/b-h-roberts-seeker-after-truth?lang=eng ). 

“The last word has not been spoken on any subject. Streams of living water shall yet flow from the Eternal Spring who is the source of all truth. There are more things we do not know about the doctrines of salvation than there are things we do know.” (Bruce R. McConkie, “A New Commandment: Save Thyself and Thy Kindred!” Ensign, 1976; https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/23-restoration ) 

But despite the gloom and dread I felt upon hearing the prophet’s comments, I was able to interpret them in a way to still keep alive my hope for a change that would eventually allow the church to adopt marriage equality in our doctrine. I wrote these thoughts in my journal shortly after President Nelson’s address: 

Maybe the prophet was just saying that God was the source of change, not church leaders – maybe it was just his way of saying “don’t shoot the messenger; God hasn’t told us to change anything, so we just can’t do it on our own.” So maybe I could consider the prophet’s “truth is truth” teaching to mean that “truth” is just whatever God says it is – period – and, therefore, since I know God has said different things at various times over the centuries, maybe today’s “truth” doesn’t have to be tomorrow’s “truth.” Maybe, like Jesus defied gravity when He walked on water, and we learned how to defy gravity with planes, God will reveal in the future something to allow the church to defy or expand the current law of chastity? Can even the prophet limit God from expanding upon His truth with us in the future? Teachings from prophets in the scriptures and in our modern era have been reversed later on important stuff. The prophet isn’t omniscient, even though God is, so maybe I can still keep hoping? 

Then, a little over a week later, we had an experience with a General Authority here in Massachusetts (see Chapter 9). In our interview together, the General Authority said repeatedly and forcefully that the law of chastity would never change. The strength with which he talked about that suggests to me that there may be a renewed, unified message from top church leadership on that point (or perhaps General Authorities are taking their cues from President Nelson’s talk). While other General Authorities with whom I have spoken in the past have never said the law of chastity was something that could change, they also have never shut down the possibility of change in any area of the church. To the contrary, my discussions with them about ongoing change in other areas in the church, and about how we all need to be sensitive about LGBTQ issues, had left me feeling hopeful before. But after speaking with the General Authority on September 28, 2019 I felt chastised for hoping. Because the prophet spoke at BYU with stronger words than any prior prophet on the unchanging definition of the law of chastity, many General Authorities may now be feeling a need to strongly condemn any hope for doctrinal change regarding marriage equality – and I wouldn’t doubt if they have been given specific instruction to do so. 

My reaction to President Nelson’s 2019 talk at BYU might strike some church members as one that is inappropriate – because I ended up still hoping for a change in the law of chastity notwithstanding his suggestion that change is not possible. In fact, several people have told me that hoping for change in our doctrine is not what God wants us to do. Instead, they recommend I simply trust in Christ – that through His mercy, everything will be worked out so that LGBTQ people will be happy in the afterlife. I can understand that thinking. In fact, in many situations, I think it is comforting that a simple trust-in-the-Lord approach to resolve difficult questions is a mainstream teaching of the church: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2019/10/17oaks . But when the doctrine of the church itself is what is causing pain, as it is in the LGBTQ context, trusting that God will just somehow work things out, without anguished church members also being allowed to freely hope for a change in the harmful doctrine, makes that notion seem very unkind to me. 

To understand better why I say that, I need to explain a bit about our religion’s belief in the afterlife (for any readers who might not be Latter-day Saints). We believe that all good people will go to heaven. But after final judgement, there will actually be three degrees, or levels, of heaven. To get to the highest degree possible, where the most joy can be found, heterosexual marriage in the temple is required. It is speculated that only heterosexual couples will be allowed in that highest degree because spiritual procreation, where family life and parenting continue forever, will be a fundamental part of eternal life there. Unless there is a change in doctrine that allows for the possibility that gay couples could spiritually procreate too (see Chapter 6 for a discussion of that concept), the church-approved version of the trust-in-the-Lord notion inevitably results in the vast majority of gay people needing to believe that they will be happy having a core part of their identity get stripped away and reversed in heaven (or, if their sexual orientation isn’t changed in heaven, they need to believe they will be happy not feeling romantic love toward their spouse for eternity). 

Some people say that’s okay because everyone will be changed in remarkable ways in that highest degree of heaven. For most of us, that just means envisioning a sort of eternal self- improvement process. But it’s different for gay people. A fundamental part of that highest heavenly life is presumably predicated on being in a type of relationship that, for the vast majority of them, feels opposite to their very nature and causes psychological trauma. Their vision of that afterlife is accordingly very bleak. And yet, the way our church leaders are currently teaching the trust-in-the-Lord doctrine requires that gay church members find a way to believe that they will nevertheless be happy in that traumatic vision of heaven. That can make them view their sexuality as something that is fundamentally at odds with heavenly joy. It can make them think they were born defective, which studies have shown frequently results in suicidal ideation (see Chapter 8). Unless church leaders allow the trust-in-the-Lord notion to at least imagine ambiguity about gay couples being in the highest degree of heaven, it unavoidably results in a degrading view of a gay person’s state in this life. 

The harm caused by applying the current trust-in-the-Lord teaching of the church to gay people became clearest to me when I applied it to my own situation as a father of a gay son and a happily married straight man. It causes anguish to my soul to think about Wes having to always strive to be alone in this life, constantly struggling to avoid thoughts that he might be better off dead – because then he at least wouldn’t be broken. And it hurts to think of him potentially finding a husband with whom he builds a lifelong, committed love, just to have that joy ripped away from him in heaven. 

I can’t imagine heaven as a happy place without picturing Cheryl there with me as my wife. So I find it impossible to hope in any teaching that means Wes will have to view himself as a defective human being in this life or stop being with his future husband in heaven – all so he can instead be with a woman for eternity – someone to whom he was never attracted, and whom he never loved, in this life. With teachings about heaven that are so dismal, even under the trust-in- the-Lord notion, I don’t blame Wes for needing to distance himself from the church. 

Think about that – especially those of us in happy, heterosexual/uniform-orientation marriages – please stop for a minute and really think about that. Would you be able to devote your life to the church if it taught that you needed to find joy in a rigid, traumatic prospect of heaven? How would you feel about attending, supporting, and serving in a church that taught you that, in the best case scenario for you, inheriting the highest degree of heaven meant you had to end your marriage, switch (or at least ignore) the way you naturally have craved intimate human connection, and then be with a new same-sex spouse for the rest of eternity? I don’t know of anyone who would feel good about that - even if they believe that they’ll understand things differently and feel differently when they’re in the next life. No matter what, most happily married straight folks still have gut feelings of fear, worry and despair over separating from their spouses and then being married forever instead to someone of the same sex. I think that is because, when we straight folks are really honest with ourselves, we realize how much of our personal identity relates to how we are wired to love. 

Plus, I don’t believe any of us will just feel and think completely differently about ourselves or our loved ones in the afterlife anyway. Our scriptures teach that the “same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory” (Doctrine & Covenants 130:2). Now, I don’t know if that “same sociality” concept means sexual intimacy will be part of an exalted heterosexual relationship in the highest degree of heaven. To my knowledge, the church has no formal doctrinal position on that. While we do have scriptural passages that discuss marriage being essential to enter the highest degree of heaven (Doctrine & Covenants 131:2 and 132:14-15), there are no verses that discuss exactly what type of intimacy will exist between spouses there – or how spiritual procreation technically occurs. Because our resurrected bodies will have only spirit, not blood, it is hard to imagine procreation occurring in the same way there as it does here. But to me the “same sociality” at least means that the nature of our relationships with people here, and how we ideally should feel about them, won’t change in heaven. That concept of the nature of family relationships staying the same is consistent with church teachings and thoughts of church scholars: 

“Latter-day Saints believe [becoming heirs of God] includes eternal family relationships. Latter-day Saint scripture teaches that the ‘same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there [in eternity], only it will be coupled with eternal glory’ (Doctrine & Covenants 130:2). The promise of growing to become more like God and ultimately returning to His presence with our families motivates Latter-day Saints to do their best to live according to the teachings of Jesus Christ.” (https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/heaven ) 

“[Joseph] Smith wrote in a canonized revelation that ‘that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy.’...Another way of saying this is that for Mormons, heaven is relational, not situational. It is not where you are but in what kind of relationship you find yourself that determines the degree of blessedness or perdition.” (Terryl L. Givens, Feeding the Flock: The Foundations of Mormon Thought: Church and Praxis, 2017) 

All of that leads me to think there at least has to be some form of special intimacy that would exist between spouses in eternity – because a unique kind of intimacy that is not found in any other personal relationship is what defines the nature of the spousal relationship in this life. 

Without some sort of spousal intimacy, the marriage relationship in heaven wouldn’t seem much different from a relationship between two really close friends here (who might also happen to be parents together – like a divorced couple who remain close to make co-parenting easier). 

No matter what type of intimacy spouses in heaven might share, happily-married straight church members benefit from believing their feeling of closeness to their spouses will last forever. In happy marriages, physical intimacy is almost always an important part of that sense of closeness (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797617691361 ). So I have found it surprising when some people have told me they believe gay church members should have faith in a trust-in-the-Lord approach, because Christ-like love will permeate eternal marriage, compensating for any lack of marital intimacy between people who are required to be in mixed- orientation marriages there. Or they believe all exalted spouses, including straight ones, will only have Christ-like love in their marriages, not romantic love. I think those lines of thought are inconsistent with church teachings about the importance of romantic love: 

“You [young adults] are old enough now to fall in love – not the puppy love of elementary years, not the confused love of the teens, but the full-blown love of eligible men and women, newly matured, ready for life. I mean romantic love, with all the full intense meaning of the word, with all of the power and turbulence and frustration, the yearning, the restraining, and all of the peace and beauty and sublimity of love. No experience can be more beautiful, no power more compelling, more exquisite. Or, if misused, no suffering is more excruciating than that connected with love.” (Boyd K. Packer, Apostle, Eternal Love, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1973, p. 6; https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1982/10/the-gospel-and-romantic-love?lang=eng ) 

Church teachings also maintain that marital sex is a sacred act that increases our ability to love our spouse in a unique way (https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/jeffrey-r-holland/souls-symbols-sacraments/). Physical intimacy seems to have the potential to elevate the love between spouses to a special type of love that is uniquely different from any other sort of selfless and pure love we can experience. So I don’t think it’s fair for gay church members to be expected to trust that heaven will be a happy place for them if marital intimacy there requires a mixed-orientation marriage, or simply not experienced at all. Both of those situational dynamics result in trauma for most gay church members in this life, so we shouldn’t expect them to trust that somehow the Lord will make it so such circumstances will bring completely opposite feelings to them in heaven. That seems to contradict the idea that the same sociality we have here will exist there. 

In any event, asking gay people to just trust in the Lord and the power of the Atonement to make everything good for them in the afterlife seems, at first glance, like a hopeful, compassionate doctrinal loophole. But it ironically turns into in a demeaning and cruel sentiment when the implications are fully considered. Under our current doctrine, those unavoidable implications mean, even in the most merciful scenario possible, that they’re being asked to believe joy will come for them by having the very way they love and connect intimately be changed or ignored forever. In short, without at least admitting that a trust-in-the-Lord approach might mean God could exalt gay couples too, it will ironically remain a teaching that dehumanizes gay sexual orientation and therefore harms gay church members in this life. And that needs to change if we desire to be a church of Christ’s love. As inspiring church scholar and poet, Carol Lynn Pearson, has said:

“God wants us to be happy in the afterlife, but surely God also wants us to be happy here. If we see something terrible going on here, it’s not our task to say ‘Well, that’s too bad, but it’s going to be all for the best in the afterlife.’ We are here on earth to make things better.” (https://religionnews.com/2016/07/20/mormon-women-fear-eternal-polygamy-study-shows/ ) 

I hope the church can make things better in this life by, at the very least, allowing for doctrinal ambiguity about whether gay couples can exist in heaven. That would allow a trust-in-the-Lord fallback approach to at least not be harmful. 

But my hope doesn’t stop there. Because of what I have learned about Christ-like love through having a gay son, my vision of an ideal heaven has expanded beyond the monochromatic heteronormative version of it that is taught by the church. I think that’s the power of diversity: to help us learn to love more purely. So I sure hope diversity will continue to exist in ALL its colors and variety in heaven for everyone’s sake there. Otherwise, I will mourn the lack of love for others who are different from me (assuming I make it there). 

When I think of the psychological harm caused to LGBTQ church members by our doctrines on marriage, gender, and family, and when I think of church teachings that exclude loving couples from heaven just because they’re loving each other in a way that’s consistent with how God created them, I feel sadness, darkness, and hopelessness. In our religion, we place a ton of emphasis on trusting the feelings of God’s spirit to tell us what is true (Moroni 10:4-5). We know that God’s spirit is one of truth (John 15:26). We also know that the fruit of that spirit is love, joy, peace, gentleness, and goodness (Galatians 5:22).

I have found that God’s spirit fills my heart the most when I am focused on loving others. Perhaps that is because simply loving others helps us become less sinful and more like God: “And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins” (1 Peter 4:8). It feels right to me to think of the wide range/multitude of sin as simply anything we do that hurts someone else, because that places us in disharmony with Christ’s principal commandment to love one another (John 15:12):

“The experience of sin is not an unalterable state we inhabit; it is a felt disharmony. The unhappiness of sin is nothing more than our spirit rebelling against a condition alien to its true nature. We have fallen out of alignment with God. The separation from God is not punishment inflicted by God, but the consequence of an existential reality of our own making.” (Fiona Givens, The God Who Weeps, https://ldsquotations.com/author/terryl-and-fiona-givens/, 2012)

The essence of God is love (1 John 4:8). So as His offspring, we go against our divine nature when we fail to love. That is sin. And it’s why, if we’re humble enough to be aware of being unloving, we usually feel bad about it. I regret how I viewed gay marriage before my heart was softened and my perspective on the issue changed – in other words: before I repented of my hurtful thinking. Now, when I imagine Wes finding the love of his life and being in a fulfilling marital relationship with a man he loves, like how I love his mother, I have joyful feelings that seem in harmony with God’s love. But when I think of a loving spousal relationship like that not being allowed to continue in heaven, the feelings of the Spirit are absent. It feels wrong to think I might enjoy the continuation of my marital bliss with Cheryl after this life, but that same joy is not possible for any gay couples.

And so, a simple trust-in-the-Lord approach to solving everything for LGBTQ people without also hoping for a change to our current doctrine produces feelings for me that are the opposite of God’s spirit. I cannot believe that God wants me to have faith in the status quo. To truly believe Christ will work things out, I have to believe that His true doctrine has yet to be revealed – and that when it is shown, it will provide a way for a gay person to have the same degree of happiness in heaven as a straight person without switching the natural “sociality” they have had their whole mortal lives. Otherwise, our concept of heaven is downright scary for around 2-10% of the earth’s population (which is the estimated number of LGBTQ people, depending on the study – see Chapter 1). And it would mean God treats us all differently just based on our biological makeups – which contradicts many scriptures, such as: 

“Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him” (Acts 10:34-35). 

“[God] inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God.” (2 Nephi 26:33). 

So, because I don’t see any other way to believe that Christ will be fair and loving, I still held onto my hope for change, even after I heard President Nelson’s BYU address. I guess I’m a determined optimist and really take God at His word when he says that faith, hope, and love are enduring attributes and that love is paramount (1 Corinthians 13:13). I was so persistent in my optimism that I was emotionally still ready to go back to church without missing a week, even following our family’s in-person ordeal with the General Authority that happened the week after President Nelson gave his talk at BYU (see Chapter 9). 

Since that negative experience, my optimism increases as I study more in depth about what the scriptures teach on the subject of equality. I love how my heart feels when I read the following commentary on the above Book of Mormon verse that states “all are alike unto God…male and female:”

“There is no social category of life circumstance that prevents a person from being worthy to sit down at God's table. God invites all. There is no price. No one is excluded…with no strings attached. Biblical scholars point to the use of merism in the story of the creation. Merism is a rhetorical device in which two ends of the spectrum are named as a way to encompass the entire spectrum in between. In Genesis, this means that God created the light and the dark, but also every point of dawn and dusk in between. God created the earth and the firmament, but also every place between the seas and the stars. God created males and females, but also every person who identifies as bi, trans, non-binary, or queer. The two points encompass the spectrum, they don't exclude it. Merism seems to be employed here [2 Nephi 26:33]. God welcomes not just black and white people, but also every shade of pink and brown skin in between. Every social division of Jacob’s society is disrupted by God embracing the spectrum of human life. If modern-day readers were to create their own list of categories used to divide people…we would probably add heterosexual/homosexual, transgender/cis-gender, and immigrant/citizen, among others. Regardless of which groups are named, the message is the same: All are alike unto God.” Rev. Dr. Fatimah Salleh and Margaret Olsen Hemming, The Book of Mormon for the Least of These, Volume 1, 89-90, https://www.amazon.com/Book-Mormon-Least-These/dp/1948218232/ref=tmm_pap_s ).

My optimism and hope for change were diminished greatly just six days after that experience with the General Authority when, on October 5, 2019, I listened to President Oaks deliver a sermon regarding LGBTQ issues in General Conference that church members around the world are encouraged to watch (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2019/10/35oaks ). In his talk “Two Great Commandments,” (italics in the original) he spoke about what Jesus taught were the two greatest commandments, which are: 1) to love God with full devotion; and 2) to love others as ourselves (Matthew 22:37-39). He said that, when we’re trying to show love to others, we should be careful not to forget the importance of everyone still needing to show their love for God by obeying all other commandments as well. He seemed to indicate that the two great commandments can conflict with one another or that there is a ranking, or order of importance, between them. He said: 

“[O]ur zeal to keep [the] second commandment must not cause us to forget the first, to love God with all our heart, soul, and mind. We show that love by keeping His commandments.” (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2019/10/35oaks ) 

President Oaks then referenced teachings from President Nelson’s BYU talk mentioned above addressing LGBTQ issues, and said that the commandments of the law of chastity and the law of marriage apply with particular significance to LGBTQ individuals specifically. While I don’t like how President Oaks singled out LGBTQ people as being more prone to sin than other people, I was grateful to at least hear him use the term LGBT instead of same-sex attracted. Even though I was nervous about where President Oaks was heading in his talk by ranking the two great commandments as he had, I remember appreciating that shift in terminology in the moment I was listening to his words. I recalled he was not always willing to respect the terms gay and lesbian as personal identifiers in the past: 

“We should note that the words homosexual, lesbian, and gay are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior.” (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng , 1995) 

Given that past teaching from President Oaks, when I heard him use LGBT in his General Conference talk, I started to wonder if that shift might indicate his views on LGBTQ matters in general were also changing. I have since thought that, at the very least, the shift in terminology shows that his prior teaching (that we should refrain from using those terms) was not founded in any sort of divine revelation. 

As I continued listening to President Oaks speak, I quickly learned that his views on LGBTQ matters remained mostly unchanged. I was disappointed when I heard him next state that a temple marriage (which, as discussed, the church denies to gay people) was required for the highest degree of heaven, and that “[e]ternal life [there] includes the creative powers inherent in the combination of male and female.” While the part about temple marriage being required was not new or disappointing, the line about male and female creative powers was upsetting to me, because I can find no scriptural support for that assertion. Even the scriptures cited in the written version of his talk in support of the combination of male and female eternal procreative powers (Doctrine & Covenants 131:1-4 and 1 Corinthians 11:11) do not talk about the specifics of how spiritual procreation actually occurs at all. 

While I was bothered by those comments from President Oaks about only straight marriages being allowed in heaven, I became even more discouraged as he continued in his remarks, stating how great it is that God loves everyone so much that even people who don’t obey the laws of chastity and marriage can still end up happy in one of the two lower kingdoms of heaven. 

“But there are many we love, including some who have the restored gospel, who do not believe in or choose not to follow God’s commandments about marriage and the law of chastity. What about them? God’s doctrine shows that all of us are His children and that He has created us to have joy. Modern revelation teaches that God has provided a plan for a mortal experience in which all can choose obedience to seek His highest blessings or make choices that lead to one of the less glorious kingdoms. Because of God’s great love for all of His children, those lesser kingdoms are still more wonderful than mortals can comprehend.” (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2019/10/35oaks ) 

To my ear, President Oaks had basically just taught that we don’t need to worry if church doctrine causes mental health issues and emotional turmoil for LGBTQ individuals who try to follow it, because they have the option to disobey and still inherit a happy place in one of the lower kingdoms of heaven anyway. That seemed like a cold and uncharitable teaching to me because it implies many gay people will be satisfactorily happy in heaven even though they won’t remain married to their same-sex spouses and even though they will have less joy than people in the highest degree of heaven – all simply because they chose to follow a path that would provide them sound mental health in this life. It sounded to me like President Oaks was viewing the decision of those individuals to maintain good mental health in this temporary, mortal life as a fair trade-off for them having less joy throughout all of eternity. 

Besides, one of the lesser kingdoms of happiness will be populated by “honorable men of the earth” (Doctrine & Covenants 76:76). Why the church’s extensive missionary effort if not to try to make ALL God’s blessings available to ALL God’s children? Why not just assume that all those honorable people will likewise be just fine inheriting a lesser kingdom, without our missionary-minded interference? 

As I listened to President Oaks’ talk, I wondered how his teachings would affect the emotional well-being of my family as we hear those teachings taught repeatedly over the next who-knows- how-long until the church’s position against doctrinal marriage equality hopefully changes. General Conference talks are taught as part of Sunday classes or in sermons, so President Oaks’ talk will presumably be discussed by people in the church for many years to come. That is hard to consider, as his talk teaches that we can feel justified and derive comfort in thinking that LGBTQ people who aren’t obeying church standards will be just fine inheriting a lesser kingdom of glory in heaven. When I think about how such “disobedient” LGBTQ people have almost universally had to choose between maintaining good mental health or following church rules, the notion that we should feel comfortable with them being relegated to a lesser kingdom seems incredibly harsh. 

President Oaks did say toward the end of his talk that everyone should be kind and civil toward LGBTQ people, even if they disagree with them. And he ended by praising women for their efforts in helping build up the church. 

Those parts of his talk - about being kind and praising women - I liked. But, as noted, many of his other remarks were disturbing to me. Every time a church leader teaches concepts that treat LGBTQ people differently from other people, it’s like poking an open wound – a reminder that my son isn’t treated fairly in the church, and neither are other gay people I know and love. But I thought President Oaks’ words were even more demeaning of gay people than messages on LGBTQ matters that I have heard him or other church leaders deliver before. To my view, he basically had just relieved straight church members from feeling true compassion and empathy, giving them license to feel like they are being adequately loving by just teaching obedience. Sure, he talked about love and civility toward others. But he seemed to qualify that tremendously. 

It seemed like President Oaks was giving church members instructions for loving LGBTQ individuals in a way that seems passive-aggressive, certainly not unconditional love. He didn’t include much by way of specifics about how to actually show compassion (i.e., his words did not clarify or redact the prior comments he’s made about why families might want to treat their adult gay kids and their partners differently on family occasions and not introduce them to their friends, etc.: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction ). While he talked about being kind and respectful, he also said “Our walk. . . denies support to any who lead people away from the Lord.” In my opinion, that is a line that some may use to justify treating LGBTQ people differently from others – if, for example, parents think their gay kid being around the family along with their partner or spouse is leading younger siblings away from the church. I have heard of many examples of parents who have that sort of mentality – who think that just by being themselves and living a “gay lifestyle,” their kid is trying to lead others astray. 

Since President Oaks’ talk, I have seen social media reports of church members using the talk’s rationale (that obeying God is more important than loving others) to condemn and distance themselves from LGBTQ family members and friends. And it seems clear that other General Authorities are embracing the construct of a hierarchy that exists between the two great commandments as well. This first became apparent to me two months later, on December 6, 2019. During a news conference to discuss a proposed bill in the U.S. Congress (the Fairness for All Act), which tries to balance religious liberty concerns with LGBTQ rights, Elder Jack N. Gerard said the following: 

“[The Church is supportive of this bill] because it’s consistent with the teachings of the Savior. ... We aspire to live the two great commandments: to love the Lord by keeping His commandments and secondarily to love our neighbor as ourselves.” (Jack N. Gerard, General Authority Seventy, with Ronald A. Rasband, Apostle, present and presiding at the conference, https://twitter.com/ChurchNewsroom/status/1204232675222908928 , 2019)

When I first saw that statement, I was sad to see another General Authority embrace the notion that the first great commandment is superior to the second, rather than that the two commandments are equal and interconnected. I even looked up the definition of “secondarily” to see if perhaps it could just mean “second” – i.e., to simply denote that there is more than one (like how Jesus seemed to use the word “second” when He taught that there are two great commandments, not just one). But to my chagrin, the dictionary says the word “secondarily” only means a “secondary or less important factor” or a “subsequent consequence,” not just “more than one.” 

Four months later, on February 11, 2020, Elder Terence M. Vinson gave an address at BYU that further underscored the influence that President Oaks’ talk seems to be having among other General Authorities. In his remarks, Elder Vinson said: 

“The order and emphasis given by the Savior is critical. We cannot supplant the first commandment — the great commandment — with the second...And we cannot disregard the first commandment while purporting to live the second. We must live both, but we must never allow our love for others to work against our love for God and our desire to keep His commandments...Some interpret a desire to love others with a need to embrace their life choices. There are many today who believe that to love someone means that we cannot disagree with their life choices. This belief is false! ... Our first responsibility is to God and to His teachings of absolute truth, and to His commandments.” (Terence M. Vinson, General Authority Seventy, https://speeches.byu.edu/speakers/terence-m-vinson/ , 2020) 

I am truly saddened that these three leaders of our church seem to now teach that the two great commandments should be ranked in importance, or can even be at odds with one another, instead of beautifully completing one another equally. As I’ll describe below, I wonder if that is a misinterpretation of the New Testament, which shows how the two great commandments are functionally intertwined: we can’t obey one without doing the other. 

That being said, two months later, on May 1, 2020, Sister Sandra Rogers, international vice president at BYU and former Relief Society general board member (2012 – 2017), spoke at the general session of the BYU Women's Conference, cosponsored by the Relief Society (https://womensconference.byu.edu/sites/womensconference.ce.byu.edu/files/sandra_rogers_0.pdf ). Sister Rogers said, “When we are fully obedient to the first commandment, we cannot help but obey the second.” She hinted at no prioritization between the two great commandments, contrary to President Oaks and Elders Gerard and Vinson. Her talk was appropriately titled “Gather All Safely in Christ.” 

President Oaks’ talk makes me wonder if he actually thinks that the best way to love LGBTQ people is for us to just tell them they need to keep the law of chastity. But I have to be honest: so long as that means Wes has to always be striving to remain alone or live in a mixed-orientation marriage, my parental instincts can’t support that hope. My only hope in order to balance my love for my son with my desire that he can be in full fellowship with me in my religion again someday, is a hope that my church will one day change its doctrine. 

President Oaks’ talk also cut deep wounds in my faith because what he taught about the relationship between the two great commandments is the opposite of what I have been teaching in my home and in my church callings for years. I have taught many times that obedience to church rules (i.e., showing our love for God by obeying His commandments) was important because of the way that can remind us to be more kind and loving to others each day – because charity is the most important thing we can learn in the gospel. Faithfulness without charity is nothing (1 Corinthians 13:1-2). But President Oaks basically said being loving toward others can run the risk of making us forget to love God. So the whole framework of his talk was the opposite of what I had felt the Spirit tell me was true many times before over the years – that we love God the most when we view church rules as a way to help us remember to always be kind and charitable. 

President Oaks’ talk has honestly made me wonder whether he and I believe differently about the nature of God’s divine attributes. The God represented in the framework of his talk seems to worry that too much love and acceptance can be dangerous. But I have long believed that God prefers that if we are going to make a mistake in how we love, that we err on the side of loving others too much, not too little. And I don’t believe that the two great commandments somehow conflict with one another. In fact, other scriptures teach that when we are in the service of others, that is exactly how we serve God (Mosiah 2:17). And when Christ said that we show our love for God by keeping His commandments (John 14:15), I suspect the two great commandments were the ones He mostly had in mind. That creates a beautiful circular construct that all points back to loving others as the most important thing we can do. That is, if we love God by keeping His commandments, and the only “great” commandment that doesn’t also deal with loving God itself says we should love other people, then that means to me that the most important way we can actually love God is by simply loving other people. I believe any rules God has for us can all be viewed as ways to help us avoid causing harm to others, or inspiring us to help them. In other words, they all relate to loving others, because that is what God cares most about – and that we learn to become perfectly loving like Him. 

I have found it comforting to see online that many LGBTQ people and families have had similar reactions to President Oaks’ talk. I thought the following comment made a good point (included anonymously to protect privacy): 

“Because Christ said ‘The second is like unto it’, I am comfortable not treating the second commandment as a subsidiary, especially because Jesus was asked for THE great commandment. He was specifically asked which ONE commandment was most important and He easily could have just said to love God, but He didn’t because ‘the second is like unto it’.” 

I think it is very important to remember that “like unto it” is a phrase that denotes equality, not an order or ranking of importance. The idea that the commandment to love God is intertwined with, not superior to, the commandment to love others, is powerfully found elsewhere in the New Testament: 

“Those who say, ‘I love God,’ and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen.” (1 John 4:20) 

“Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” (Matthew 25:40) 

It seems clear to me that by loving our neighbors we in turn love God. That’s the construct under which the two great commandments work best (which is interestingly, also the order in which they are presented in Moses 7:33). And it makes sense that Jesus linked them together equally; otherwise, I imagine the Pharisees would have thought that loving God meant keeping all their Mosaic Law rules with the exactness and hollowness they had become accustomed to, rather than seeing beyond their empty rules to view loving others as the true way we love God. 

I believe we can best learn what Christ means when he taught how to identify His disciples: 

“A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” (John 13:34-35) 

Bottom line is, when the Savior’s teachings about commandment-keeping are all read together, it seems clear to me that He wanted to remove any sort of order or ranking between the two great commandments. When we show love to others, we are loving God – and to really show love to God, we should be loving others. The two commandments complete each other perfectly without any need for ranking between them. 

This is further evidenced by the teachings of the apostles after the Savior’s death as well: 

“For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” (Galatians 5:14) 

“If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well.” (James 2:8) 

In neither of these scriptures is the first great commandment mentioned. Only the second commandment is discussed even though a description of the fullness of law is being described. 

So for me, President Oaks’ talk felt like the last straw with respect to me staying quiet in public about the harm I feel the church’s teachings about gay sexual orientation are causing. It seemed to me that his talk inadvertently weaponized the Savior’s teachings so that intolerant people could use them against LGBTQ people. Because I no longer had a calling as a leader in the church, as of a week before President Oaks delivered his talk (see Chapter 9), I felt more free to finally speak up when I personally felt pain from his talk. Before, I had only tried to mitigate the harm caused by the church’s teachings about gay sexual orientation by preaching unconditional love and charity as often as I could. But President Oaks’ talk compelled me to do more than just that – because his talk seems to give church members a rationale for stopping their efforts to love at just being kind and civil to LGBTQ individuals who aren’t living by church standards. Christ never suggested such a restriction when he taught us how to love the marginalized, no matter how they were living. He didn’t say “Go thy way and sin no more – oh, and also, don’t expect me to introduce you to my friends if you still keep sinning” (John 8:11). 

But President Oaks’ talk further justifies that sort of thinking in many people’s minds by suggesting that LGBTQ-friendly church members can love LGBTQ individuals too much. As I mentioned in Chapter 3, parents shouldn’t have to worry about whether their local bishop or stake president will take away their temple recommends because he thinks they’re loving their LGBTQ child too much by supporting their life decisions (and so crossing into the realm of promoting or supporting the “gay lifestyle,” which the church opposes). But President Oaks’ talk allows church leaders to use the first great commandment to love God as a weapon against people who are just trying to keep Christ’s “new commandment” to “love one another” (John 13:34). 

I think it’s a shame President Oaks hasn’t specifically denounced his prior statements about it being okay to exclude gay adult children in family events or not introduce them in public (which statements, by the way, are still easily found on the church’s newsroom website by just entering the search term “homosexuality;” in fact, at the time of this writing, the interview in which such statements were made is listed as the second result there). And I think it’s a tragedy that he uses his opportunities at the pulpit to further entrench sentiments along those lines rather than talk about love in a manner that is consistent with all of Christ’s teachings, and has apparently inspired other General Authorities to use their public speaking opportunities in the same way. 

All in all, our family took tough hits three weeks in a row: President Nelson’s talk at BYU, our experience with the General Authority, and then President Oaks’ General Conference talk. It was a lot to swallow in three weeks’ time. 

The teachings in President Oaks’ talk were not the only declarations that he made in connection with the October 2019 General Conference that caused heartache among the LGBTQ community. In a leadership meeting prior to the conference, he stated that “binary creation is essential to the plan of salvation” and that the church’s formal position on the term “gender,” including in the church’s landmark 1995 document, The Family: A Proclamation to the World, is “biological sex at birth” (https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/10/02/dark-day-transgender/ ). That was a very significant declaration because the family proclamation says “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose” (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world ). So President Oaks had just declared, on behalf of the church, that, as a matter of doctrine, everyone’s biological sex at birth was what their gender was as a spirit before being born and what it would continue to be forever after death as well. 

I was disappointed when I heard about that new teaching. Not because it directly affects Wes. He is not transgender; he does not experience gender dysphoria. But rather, I was troubled because I thought it failed to address science, by: (i) ignoring the clear scientific evidence that shows that biological sex is not a simple binary construct in humans (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/ ; https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kT0HJkr1jj4&feature=youtu.be ); and (ii) excluding the 1 in every 1,500 babies who are born “so noticeably atypical in terms of genitalia that a specialist in sex differentiation is called in” (https://isna.org/faq/frequency/ ) or the 1 in 60 babies born with perhaps less visible, but still significant, biological characteristics of both sexes (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/%28SICI%291520- 6300%28200003/04%2912%3A2%3C151%3A%3AAID-AJHB1%3E3.0.CO%3B2-F) (which rate of occurrence, by the way, means there are many, many more intersex people alive on earth than there are members of the church!). Since intersex individuals have biological characteristics of both sexes at birth, what is their eternal gender? 

Also, I continued to wonder about something I have pondered for years, namely, how to reconcile the church’s teaching that gender is eternal for everyone (since 1995 when the family proclamation was published), with what Joseph Fielding Smith (former prophet and President of the church) taught in a book published a few years after he passed away in 1972, namely, that no one in the lower two degrees of heaven will have any gender at all: 

“In the terrestrial and in the telestial kingdoms there will be no marriage. Those who enter there will remain ‘separately and singly’ forever. Some of the functions in the celestial body will not appear in the terrestrial body, neither in the telestial body, and the power of procreation will be removed. I take it that men and women will, in these kingdoms, be just what the so-called Christian world expects us all to be — neither man nor woman, merely immortal.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Prophet, Doctrines of Salvation, Volume 2, https://archive.org/stream/Doctrines-of-Salvation-volume-2-joseph-fielding-smith/JFSDoctrinesofSalvationv2_djvu.txt , 1972) 

I have always considered this teaching from Joseph Fielding Smith (that people will be genderless in the lower degrees of heaven) to be an oddity to which I didn’t need to pay much attention. But I remembered it when President Oaks declared the church’s new position on eternal gender being defined by someone’s biological sex at birth. And I thought, rather than take a position that seems to both defy science and that continues to conflict with a prior prophet’s teaching, I wondered how much more compassionate, loving and consistent it would have been for the church to have simply said we don’t always know what someone’s eternal gender is or the role that it will play in the afterlife - that sometimes a happenstance of mortal biology might result in someone being born with a biological sex that didn’t match their eternal gender – that we just need to look at each situation case-by-case and let God work things out in the afterlife when we can’t know for sure. That would have been an approach that is still consistent with the family proclamation’s language asserting that “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” 

Also, I thought about how inconsistent the church’s new position on eternal gender seems to be with the official church teaching that gays and lesbians will have their intimate “socialities” (the orientations of their desires for intimate connection) switched, or at least turned off, after this life. To explore that official church teaching further, see “Multiple LDS leaders have taught that same-sex attraction and homosexual desire will not persist beyond death” at this link: https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_gender_issues/Same-sex_attraction . Some authoritative quotes from those listed at that link are: 

“As we follow Heavenly Father’s plan, our bodies, feelings, and desires will be perfected in the next life so that every one of God’s children may find joy in a family consisting of a husband, a wife, and children.” (from an official church publication “God Loveth His Children,” 2007, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/god-loveth-his-children/god-loveth-his-children?lang=eng/ ). 

“I do know that this will not be a post-mortal condition. It will not be a post-mortal difficulty. I have a niece who cannot bear children. That is the sorrow and the tragedy of her life. She who was born to give birth will never give birth, and I cry with her. ... I just say to her what I say to people struggling with gender identity: ‘Hang on, and hope on, and pray on, and this will be resolved in eternity.’ These conditions will not exist post- mortality. I want that to be of some hope to some.” (Jeffrey R. Holland, Apostle, https://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html , 2012) 

“There is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband, a wife, and posterity. Further, men are that they might have joy. In the eternal perspective, same-gender activity will only bring sorrow and grief and the loss of eternal opportunities.” (Dallin H. Oaks, Apostle, https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction , 2006). 

Those teachings about sexual orientation being changed in the eternities confuse me in light of the church’s new position on eternal gender identity. If biological sex at birth is indicative of eternal gender, why isn’t biological sexual orientation also eternal? I know the church’s answer to that is basically that it’s just because God says so - but there aren’t any scriptures that actually support that point of view (I’ll delve more into the scriptural arguments surrounding gay sexual orientation in Chapter 5). Yes, there are scriptures that talk about how heterosexual marriage is necessary to get to the highest degree of heaven and about how men and women complete each other. But such scriptures don’t preclude something extra existing there too. 

There does not seem to be any logical consistency between the church’s positions on gender identity and sexual orientation. The church says mortal biology reflects an eternal characteristic in the former but not the latter. I recognize that the reverse can be said of the position that many people in the LGBTQ community want the church to take instead: that biological sex at birth is not necessarily eternal but that biological sexual orientation can be. So I wonder if a resolution to what appears to be an unsolvable dilemma for both sides, logically at least, might be for everyone to simply admit that no one knows exactly what things will look like in the eternities, focus on fully equal treatment and love for everyone here and now, and just leave it up to God to sort out the afterlife aspects later. (We already do that in numerous other contexts, including ones involving sealing things here on earth that presumably God will have to unseal later, as I’ll describe further in Chapter 6.) But unless the church starts teaching that something besides just hetero-sociality might exist between two loving spouses in the highest degree of heaven, that resolution seems impossible because the church isn’t allowing God that sort of flexibility.

Could we look at nature for an example of how greater flexibility and diversity might actually be beneficial to everyone, even in the afterlife? In nature, heterosexuality is clearly essential for the survival of any given species. But, for some reason, nature also allows gay sexual orientation, generation after generation. There are many behaviors in the natural world that are not a good model for heaven, like violence, cannibalism, parasitism, etc. However, I think anything in nature that strengthens, expands, protects, or comforts is something that we can understand as a model for eternal goodness.

There are various theories that ongoing scientific research is exploring that seem to identify gay sexual orientation as something that is good in nature. For example, it may play a crucial role in ensuring genetic diversity to help a species thrive: https://psmag.com/environment/why-are-there-gay-people ; https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486 . Or, because sexuality/mating/bonding in general originated in the earliest evolutionary stages of life among cellular creatures that didn’t have binary genders, both heterosexuality and homosexuality may persist as simply natural expressions of mating/bonding/intimacy desires: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/26/science/same-sex-behavior-animals.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR02IcaFSsNayOmcjcwdaaSat2RE_xSqaTEU7uALxBvmg1sALw_zUBibvA8 ). Or, as a BYU microbiology professor concluded, based on multiple studies conducted by other scientists, male gay children apparently produce a higher likelihood for mothers to have more children:

“How can a trait that tends to lower reproduction maintain itself in the population? [Well,] there’s a pretty good answer now, and it is that in the maternal line of gay men, the mothers, and the grandmothers, and the great-grandmothers have more children.” (Dr. William Bradshaw, BYU Professor, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8IHw9DVI3hE (starting at 41:00), 2010)

I have always thought of heaven as an unimaginably improved version of the majesty and goodness we see in nature here on earth. And if the same sociality that we have here will exist there, wouldn’t it make sense that the way nature works to provide joy here will also be reflected there – but in a more glorified and perfected state? I think most members of the church accept the notion that God follows the laws of science and nature, as opposed to just creating rules randomly. So, just like nature allows for gay sexual orientation for some apparent natural benefit, does God want people to be LGBTQ here in mortality to make us all be more open-minded and accepting, like Christ was? Does God know of a spiritual benefit for all of us in having gay couples around in heaven too?

Maybe God knows that perfection isn’t everyone being the same - rather, it’s pure love and understanding existing among people who are different, right? So maybe exalted beings in heaven need that variety amongst themselves to experience perfection too. Maybe living among exalted gay couples can help everyone else in the highest degree of heaven somehow? And if gay couples are not able to procreate spiritually there, maybe they’ll play a different, but important role instead (maybe something similar to the role the Holy Ghost plays as a member of the Godhead; He is not our parent and yet He presumably experiences as much joy as the Father and the Son in eternity. Maybe there are some other roles like that for people to play in exaltation that just haven’t been revealed to us yet)? Those are all pretty deep theological and cosmic questions. And I have no idea what the actual truth is about heavenly details like those. But I do wonder whether our collective prejudice is preventing the prophet from sincerely believing God is ready to reveal more knowledge to us about it.

While I don’t presume to have the authority to give any answers to questions like those, it makes sense to me that gay couples provide something “extra” that is unique, special, and essential in a different way from what opposite-sex couples provide. Diversity helps enable adaptability, creativity, and compassion, among many other things. Such attributes could be helpful in the job of eternal parenting and of creating spirits that have diversity among themselves as well. And it feels good to me to think that life in the highest degree of heaven may include LGBTQ loved ones and the same-gender spouses that they have come to love deeply here in mortality. Given the negative feelings that I have when I think about someone’s intimate “sociality” changing in the afterlife, and about the eradication of spousal gay-sociality entirely in heaven, isn’t it reasonable to question whether current church doctrine on this point is of God?

Well, I have found a new way to keep my faith (see Chapter 10). It basically just consists of:

1. never letting the words or actions of anyone (and I mean anyone, even our highest church leaders) diminish my hope for change in the church in any area where I see that church teachings are causing pain to others; and

2. never keeping quiet about my pain and my hope for change ever again.