Chapter 9- Can a painful experience with a leader result in good?

• Why am I sharing details of my private conversation with a General Authority?

• What did the General Authority say to us?

• What did I say to the General Authority?

• What did Cheryl say to the General Authority?

• Why did the General Authority’s words hurt so much?

• Does any of this mean that what I taught before on LGBTQ matters is wrong?

• Can parents of gay kids be church leaders?

• How should I feel about my son leaving the church?

• Am I struggling because I was personally offended?

Chapter synopsis: Church doctrine alone is painful for LGBTQ church members and their families, but their pain is often made worse by the statements and actions of other church members. For several reasons listed in this chapter, I think it is actually good for the church that I share the details of a painful experience we had with a General Authority. It hurt when that General Authority discussed my son being gay with harshness, suggested that emotional loyalty to church doctrine should be placed above emotional loyalty to family, and repeatedly warned that I would lose my family if I didn’t believe in the church’s doctrine. That was especially painful because God previously confirmed to us through powerful personal revelation that we could be faithful believers and still be genuinely happy about our son’s decision to step away from the church.

As described in Cheryl’s Facebook post on October 4, 2019 (see Chapter 1), she and I met with two higher-up church leaders here in Massachusetts over the weekend of September 28-29, 2019. These two men hold the ecclesiastical office of Seventy in our church. One of them is referred to as a General Authority and the other is referred to as an Area Authority. Out of respect for them and the love they said they had for my family and me, I have decided not to use their names anywhere in this book. I have simply referred to them by those titles (or together as the Authorities). They were visiting our area to reorganize our regional church leadership (our stake presidency) on behalf of global church headquarters in Salt Lake City. At that point, I had been serving as first counselor in the stake presidency for two years. The visiting Authorities had arrived to go through a process during which they would determine who would continue serving in the stake presidency, because the man to whom I had been a counselor for those two years (the stake president) was moving.

Before I go any further in sharing the experience we had with the General Authority, I want to acknowledge that mine is just one side of the story. I’m sure the General Authority could share a different version that clarified his intentions. But all I can do is share what I perceived. I have tried to do so here with as much objectivity as I can. It would bother me to know that anyone reading this book held negative views of these Authorities just because of what I will share in this chapter. And it would upset me greatly if anyone took steps to contact them. Both Authorities (especially the Area Authority) communicated what I believe were sincere expressions of love toward us. And, as I’ll describe below, the General Authority (who was the only one who said hurtful things) sincerely apologized. I believe he was well-meaning but just not very sensitive to the mindset of parents of a gay child. I can’t blame the General Authority for his insensitivity because (as you can read more about in Chapter 3) I was once quite insensitive to LGBTQ issues as well.

Before I get into telling the story, I feel like it’s important for me to provide some explanation about why I feel it’s actually helpful to the church for me to do so. While ecclesiastical duties of confidentiality only run in one direction (from the presiding church leader to the regular lay congregant), I know some people reading this book might feel like I am betraying the General Authority by sharing publicly some of the things he said to me in private. I can understand those feelings. However, I don’t see any other way to communicate these points, which I think actually help the church, if I don’t share some of the details of our conversations. (For what it’s worth, there are in fact many details I have omitted from the story that I share in this chapter out of respect for the privacy of the General Authority.)

I think sharing the details of our experience with the General Authority is good for the church because:

1. Unfortunately, the experience itself unfolded in a very public way in front of hundreds of people who were aware that something was going on but didn’t know the details. I want to clarify for those people that I was not released from my calling as some sort of punishment. Just a few months before, I had taught publicly in a stake conference that we should be more loving to our LGBTQ siblings in the church, and not judge anyone who hopes for change in the church. As you’ll read in this chapter, the General Authority actually praised that talk after I emailed him a copy of it (which you can read here as well if you’re curious: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1YwAV5rPRmx1bI9CLDhBLgAcueAQ8fH7n ).

2. I want to clarify that the church does not have a policy that prohibits parents of gay kids from serving as leaders in the church. After our experience, many people asked us if that was the case. Many people who haven’t asked us that might falsely continue to believe that the church does have some sort of rule like that, unless I share the circumstances under which I was released from my calling (as I do in this chapter).

3. I think it’s good for people to know that the General Authority apologized to us. Even before Cheryl made her Facebook post, dozens of people expressed to us that they felt bad that we had a negative experience with a General Authority. Our experience was that public in nature; it was impossible to hide from the hundreds of church members who were present the fact that something painful happened to us that weekend. I don’t know how to help those people (many of whom love and respect us) feel kindly toward the General Authority without sharing the details of our conversations with him and his eventual apology. When they or others have a negative experience with a church leader, it may help them to know that sometimes that leader may apologize.

4. To summarize the above three points generally: in situations like ours where misunderstandings exist, I think that full and complete transparency is the best approach to protect the church’s well-being and reputation.

5. I want any other church leaders to have a better idea of what is helpful vs. harmful to say when meeting with LGBTQ church members or their families. I know from various Facebook groups for people seeking support in the crossroads of LGBTQ and church issues, that there are many local church leaders and other church members around the world who are insensitive and say things that are very similar to what the General Authority said to me. And because most leaders in our church are cycled in and out of their positions fairly frequently (every several years), any sensitivity training that the church might conduct now for its leaders in this regard would largely become unknown among their successors fairly quickly. That is what happens with protocol training unless it is published in the church’s General Handbook of instructions. And since there is no passage in the General Handbook that specifically says what sort of statements are hurtful or helpful to LGBTQ church members and their families, I’m hoping any reader who is a current or future leader in the church will remember some of the details I’ll share in this chapter and maybe come back to read them again when dealing with LGBTQ-related situations in the future.

6. I think it’s good for church members to occasionally see the human side of our leaders. For example, I know my testimony and commitment to the church were strengthened when I read the biography Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, written by active church member Richard Bushman. That book relates many stories of the mistakes, frailties, and failings of the prophet. I found it uplifting to know that a great man like Joseph was still human. That gave me hope that, if I just try to be the best person I can be, I might be remembered in a positive light despite my weaknesses too. Today’s General Authorities in the church are also revered by many active church members. So I’m hoping that by sharing our experience, church members can similarly take comfort in knowing that even General Authorities sometimes make missteps – and I hope local church leaders can learn from the example of the General Authority’s gracious apology to us.

7. Finally, I think it’s good for the church to have its members become aware of more people who have experienced church-inflicted pain and yet still decide to stay in the church. Now, that’s not to say that, in writing this book, I’m trying to hold myself out as an austere example of righteousness. Not by any means. But I think my explanations for why I’m staying in the church (see Chapter 10) may be more meaningful – and may help people who are thinking of leaving the church over similar pain they have felt – if the details of the hurtful experience are shared. I respect others for making different choices about their church activity, including members of my own family. My ability to stay engaged with the church while openly discussing my frustrations with its doctrines that affect LGBTQ people does not make me a better person than anyone else. It just means I feel called to something different. I hope anyone who feels similarly called to stay in the church, despite being hurt by it, will find something about my experience that resonates with them.

I hope all of those reasons make sense to church members who might question why I would share specific details of a negative experience with a General Authority. I don’t believe I am speaking evil of him because I know he didn’t mean to cause harm – and he apologized. Besides, I have been in his shoes. I know I messed up on occasion as a local church leader, and if someone I counseled with felt it would benefit the church as a whole to publicly discuss what I did to hurt them, I honestly invite them to go public with my missteps as well, so that I and others can learn to do better. I talked about a few of my mistakes on the LGBTQ front while serving in church leadership in the Preface. In short, I hope no reader imagines anything but benevolent intent as my motivation for sharing my story.

And with that introduction and background, here is what happened from my perspective.

After a preliminary interview on Saturday morning, which was the first day of the Authorities’ visit that weekend, the General Authority asked me to return with Cheryl to meet with him again that afternoon – so he could extend the assignment to me to continue serving as a counselor to the man who would be called as the new stake president.

Near the outset of this second interview that afternoon, the General Authority said he learned from a discussion he had with someone else that day, about Wes’ decisions to leave his mission and to step away from the church because he is gay. Instead of simply attending to the business of extending the calling to me, it was clear he wanted to explore this topic with me. Over the course of our conversation, I told the General Authority I was comfortable with Wes’ decision to leave the church because I thought it was best for his mental health and emotional well-being. I told him that I privately hoped for the church to change its position on gay marriage but that I never advocated for that publicly, and that I tried to always be careful to only teach authorized church positions in my capacity as a leader in the church.

Here are some of the views the General Authority shared in response to my sentiments (each of which was communicated in a cordial manner; I believe we were both trying to express our feelings in as kind and loving a way as possible):

• He said I shouldn’t be happy that Wes decided to leave the church – because sin of any kind is not justified. Basically, sinning is sinning. I told him I felt, as Wes’ father who knows him well and am aware of what he’s gone through over the past few years, like Wes had the choice to either stay in the church and be depressed (possibly suicidal) or leave the church and be mentally healthy. The General Authority said he didn’t believe those were the only options – because other gay people have chosen to be lifelong celibates and are happy as such in the church. I told him that solution didn’t work for most gay people since the vast majority of them leave the church and feel traumatized by church teachings. Regardless of whether it worked for others, it wasn’t working for Wes.

• He drew an analogy between the feelings a parent can have when a child leaves the church to commit crimes and the feelings he imagined I might be having because Wes had left the church to date other men. I think he was trying to help me understand that many parents have kids who leave the church for a variety of reasons. When I said (as politely as I could) that the difference between those two situations was that gay relationships didn’t cause harm to any third parties, he said that wasn’t always the case because gay couples can cause harm by raising children in their homes. I told him that studies showed no meaningful difference in the well-being of children raised by gay parents vs. those raised by straight parents (and no greater likelihood to be LGBTQ than other kids either). He said he knew of studies that showed otherwise, so it was an open question.

• When I asked if it was possible that God directed Wes through personal revelation to pursue his own path, as a unique exception to the church’s prohibition against gay marriage, he said he doubted Wes received such direction because people can often feel as if they have received divine revelation for whatever they want, if they want it badly enough. He also said he didn’t believe Wes could have received direction like that because God doesn’t give conflicting commandments. I questioned that rationale by discussing examples of God giving conflicting commandments to various people in the scriptures (I specifically mentioned Nephi and Laban, but was also thinking of Adam and Eve, Abraham and Isaac, etc.). He wouldn’t admit the possibility of an exception – but he did concede that there are times when God allows circumstances that only He can understand.

• He postulated that God may not condemn some gay people for choosing to be in gay relationships because they may not have complete control over their behavior – and speculated that they could have diminished individual agency, similar to a long-time abuse victim who may have instinctive physical defense responses they can’t control when placed in triggering situations. He acknowledged that was not a perfect analogy because gay sexual orientation isn’t a mental illness or a result of abuse, but he thought it was still helpful to explain that only God can know someone’s capacity to live in a certain way – and that we therefore need to just have hope that the Savior will work everything out somehow.

• He said many times over the course of our conversation that the law of chastity (i.e., the church’s rule that sex is only allowed within straight, monogamous marriage) won’t ever change, and that church leaders can’t change it because it is of God. I asked him what he thought about prior changes in the law of chastity in the church, from monogamy to polygamy and back to monogamy. He said that line of thought (that the law of chastity changed before and so could change again) was the argument of the LGBTQ rights movement as the “opposition,” used to confuse people. I told him I didn’t like saying “opposition” in reference to the LGBTQ rights movement.

• He randomly mentioned at one point that the church is expecting to be pressured by the government and other forces to do gay marriages in temples and to allow gay couples to show affection on church property. He said the church will spend resources to fight legal battles to prevent all of that. I didn’t vocally respond to that statement as I was surprised he would mention something like that to me, as a tithe-paying father of a gay son. It seemed like a provocative and challenging thing to say to me, not a loving one – something that had nothing to do with me.

• I asked him if it was okay that I hoped for a change in the church’s position on gay marriage, even though I didn’t agitate for it and even though I always stayed within bounds when teaching publicly or speaking with anyone in the capacity of my calling. I told him that the Savior may have provided an example of it being okay to ask if suffering can be avoided, by asking if the cup could pass from Him so His suffering didn’t have to happen. So I asked if maybe I don’t need to feel guilty for asking if it’s possible that a change occur in our doctrine so the suffering of LGBTQ church members can stop, sometime before God just “works it all out” after they’re dead. I asked if it was okay for me to hope and pray that such a change will come quickly so people’s suffering can stop sooner, IF it’s God’s will, that is. He told me it was better to just have hope that the Savior will work things out somehow on a case-by-case basis after this life, not to hope that the church will ever change.

• I mentioned I was always very careful about how and what I taught on the LGBTQ topic. I said I didn’t want to be prideful and damage my spirit by trying to get out ahead of the Lord’s will for all the church collectively, which I recognized was only given through the topmost church leaders. I said I wasn’t authorized to know when the appropriate number of church members were ready for a change in doctrine to occur. He said Cheryl and I were perhaps called by God to be Wes’ parents because we are strong enough to handle the dichotomy of believing while still loving him without reservation. But other people may not be as strong. So I needed to be careful about how I talk about things, so I don’t give anyone any reason to doubt the church.

• He promised me very intensely at least four times at various points during our conversation (scooting forward in his chair and staring into my eyes, inches away) that I would lose Cheryl as my wife and that my family would fall apart in this life if I “lost my faith.” He later explained in a follow-up meeting that he said this would happen because he thought if I left the church I would become a greater target for Satan than other people are, because I have made temple covenants and served as a leader in the church. After one of the times he gave me that warning, he said that people who leave the church aren’t happy. They say they are (and feel relief and happiness initially) but most of them eventually end up breaking major commandments that bring them misery. I told him I felt at times like, rather than lose my family because of lack of faith in the church, it seemed like the opposite was happening to me. I had to struggle harder to keep my family united because of the dichotomy for each of us between loving Wes and our respective decisions whether to stay in the church. Even though Wes has never asked any of us to leave the church, it still sometimes feels like a betrayal of our love for him to keep attending. I told the General Authority that hope for change sometimes seemed like the only thing I could offer to my other kids to keep them in the church because they loved their brother so much.

• At the end of the interview when we were standing, he shook my hand and stated, looking me in the eyes, that everything he told me in our conversation was said by him as a “special witness for Christ,” which is one of the titles for someone in his position.

As we ended the interview, he said he felt good about still issuing me the calling, because he felt comfortable that I would “protect” the doctrine of the church. And I felt okay about continuing to serve in the calling while continuing to support Wes’ decisions – because while the General Authority clearly thought my feelings weren’t ideal, he didn’t insist I change my mind to be able to keep serving in the calling. He just warned that I would lose Cheryl if I didn’t have proper faith, which I knew would not ever happen, no matter what I did or did not believe. I knew this from prior discussions with her and multiple strong experiences of personal revelation. As long as I still kept my feelings private, he seemed fine with me continuing to serve (even though he clearly thought I needed to change how I felt, in order to be a more faithful church member).

Per church practice, the next official step to formally receiving a calling like the one I was being given was to make sure Cheryl was supportive. That is what happened two years before when a different General Authority first called me into the stake presidency: he met with me first and then he met with both Cheryl and me together.

So Cheryl was then asked to join the General Authority and me. At this point, she had been waiting in the hall to meet with us for around 70 minutes. This was extremely worrying for her because it was normal to expect my interview to last only a few minutes before she would be invited to join. It was also worrying because halfway into my conversation with the General Authority, a separate leadership meeting had already started where the General Authority and I were supposed to be giving talks to over 100 people that Saturday afternoon. It was very odd for the two of us to be announced as speakers in that meeting and then for us to just not go into it. So when Cheryl joined us, she naturally asked what took so long. When she found out it was because we were talking about Wes, she started crying and asked why Wes needed to be discussed at all - that she didn’t think it was fair we were being treated differently just because we had a son who was born gay and is doing what he needs to for his mental health and overall well-being.

The General Authority didn’t stay in the room to discuss Cheryl’s concerns. Because he saw that this would take some time and that he needed to get to the other meeting, he left after Cheryl had only been in the room for a minute or so. As he was leaving, he asked me if I thought it would be best if I spoke with Cheryl first to “calm her down” and relay what he and I had discussed – and then he would finish extending the calling to us after the afternoon meeting ended and he could return. He said he felt like he was sent to Massachusetts to minister to us and our family, even more than to reorganize the stake presidency.

When he left, we were in no shape to join the meeting. Cheryl said I looked upset when she had first come into the room. I am so grateful for how well Cheryl knows me – because I was very hurt and upset, but I was trying to bury my feelings and convince myself that they didn’t matter, so I could continue being a voice for increased love in the church in an official capacity as a leader. I knew that, like it or not, most church members give more credence to things church leaders say than what other people in the church say. And I wanted to continue to serve as a church leader to be able to help more people feel the need to love unconditionally.

I discussed with Cheryl the things the General Authority had said, and told her I really didn’t like how he had warned me as a witness for Christ that I would lose my family if I didn’t hold to certain beliefs. Cheryl then said she couldn’t continue to feel that her unhindered love for Wes and what we know is best for him had to be so carefully expressed (almost like it had to be hidden) all the time. She didn’t want to talk to the General Authority about anything further because she was upset and didn’t want to say anything she’d regret. So we decided to leave the church building and go home to process things.

Right when we got outside, even before we made it to our car to drive home, Cheryl broke down crying harder than I have ever seen her cry in my life. She was sobbing and almost couldn’t stand up. She asked if she was condemning our family because she loved and supported Wes in his decision to leave the church. I told her she wasn’t condemning us and that I KNEW we were fine in the Lord’s eyes – because I had felt His Spirit confirm that to me. I said I knew she felt exactly how God wanted her to feel – and that I thought we were just ahead of our time in the church. I say this with no sense of pride, just echoing Paul’s words, “as of one born out of due time” (1 Corinthians 15:8). We then went home, and I wrote down my memories of my conversation with the General Authority while they were still fresh.

After being home with Cheryl for an hour or so, I felt like I needed to further express my feelings to the General Authority. So, with Cheryl’s encouragement (because she recognized it’s a rare opportunity for anyone to be able to sit with a General Authority of the church, let alone someone like me who wanted to explain why the church’s doctrine was painful to us), I drove back to the church building that night. The evening session of a few hundred people had ended by that point. Again I was noticeably absent as I was supposed to be sitting on the stand in front of the congregation. When the General Authority and the Area Authority came out of that meeting, they stayed with me to talk until late in the evening.

I started that new conversation with the Authorities by telling them that I had never seen Cheryl weep so hard in my life. I told them of the strong connection that Cheryl and I had – that she made me happier than anything else in my life. And I was very upset she was hurt. I told them I came back to talk further because I needed them to understand the pain that families like ours feel from the doctrine of the church on LGBTQ matters. Interestingly, now that the General Authority was not alone with me, his demeanor and the tone of the discussion was very different. Instead of the feeling being ominous and challenging like before, there was a feeling of sorrow and compassion I felt from both Authorities. I attribute this to something the General Authority said at the beginning of this new meeting: that he had had an opportunity to think things over and discuss our prior conversation with the Area Authority.

So I asked them in this new conversation if I should feel bad about being happy for Wes, or guilty for hoping for change in the church. They said I didn’t need to feel bad – because any loving dad would think like that – but that it would be better if I didn’t hope for change (I’m still not sure how to reconcile their words).

I then discussed with them, at a high level, the fact that no scripture or proclamation of the church actually prohibits gay marriage (see Chapter 5) and some of the other possibilities I have wondered about for doctrinal change (like how gay temple marriage could fit into our theology – see Chapter 6). I also discussed with them what science now knows about how sexual orientation is determined (see Chapter 3).

I told them more about Wes’ personal revelation on his mission about what to do with his life (as I describe below in this chapter). I told them how religious Wes is and how converted he is to the Savior – about how he was studying the Bible intensely now. In fact, since Wes had a new hobby of writing a series of novels himself, he was examining Jesus as a character and concluded that no author or group of authors could have made Him up because His responses and teachings are always so perfect. I discussed how Wes is visiting different churches now to try to find a Christian denomination or congregation that he liked and that allowed gay marriage so he could be more fully involved in church (rather than just listen from the pews) if he finds a man to marry.

At the end of our conversation, they informed me that they felt it necessary to extend the counselor calling to someone else instead – because Cheryl and I had left the church building that afternoon. Early the following morning they asked to meet with another man and his wife to extend the calling to him (who, I should say, is an amazing guy - I’m very happy he’s the person who was chosen).

Before I left, we discussed whether Cheryl would want to meet with them as well the next day. I said I would ask her. When I got home that night, she said that would be fine. So we woke up the next morning (after getting very little sleep) and went to the general Sunday morning meeting.

Several hundred people were in attendance. Since I was part of the outgoing stake presidency, I was allocated a few minutes to share some thoughts and feelings. I took that opportunity to publicly apologize for missing the conference meetings the day before (citing “personal family reasons”), thank everyone with whom I had served, explain that Wes came home from his mission a bit early a few months previously because he is gay (something Wes was fine with me publicly announcing like that at this point in his journey), encourage everyone to love better those who are marginalized in our church, and declare that I loved, and that I knew that God loved, Wes exactly as he was. I closed my brief remarks with these words from a text earlier that morning from a friend who was concerned about me (because he, like many other people, suspected I missed the public meetings the day before due to a clash with the General Authority relating to my support for LGTBQ people). I said, “In the words of a text I got from a friend this morning: “Unconditional love, man. That’s the Savior’s way. Full stop.”

Following that general meeting, on Sunday afternoon, Cheryl and I met with both visiting Authorities together. I asked for both the outgoing and incoming stake presidents to also be present during this meeting, so that everyone could be familiar first-hand with our story, for any future ecclesiastical interactions with us after the Authorities left. Before we went into this next meeting, Cheryl prayed with me privately and asked God for strength to help her appropriately represent each person we knew of from our local congregation who was LGBTQ. She mentioned all of them (mostly youth) by name in her prayer.

We then went into the room for the meeting and Cheryl started the conversation. She told everyone present for almost 40 straight minutes how she felt. She was awesome. The Authorities courteously and intently listened.

Cheryl talked about how much it hurt to have the church treat our family differently just because we have a gay son – and how that was especially painful given all we’ve sacrificed in the name of church service over the years (which I describe a bit further in Chapter 10). She discussed how there is a double standard because other leaders of the church in our area have straight children who are not living according to church standards, but they don’t get spoken to in the same way I did when they are being interviewed for church callings.

She told them (without sharing any names) about the many LGBTQ church members we know just in our local congregation alone and how that percentage (around 8% of the active members) is almost definitely similar stake-wide and church-wide globally (because studies estimate that around 2-10% of the population at large is somewhere on the LGBTQ spectrum). She said she heard questions about LGBTQ issues from gay kids AND straight kids almost every week in the early morning scripture study class she taught before school every day. She said all the General Authorities need to get on the same page about being more loving and accepting on LGBTQ issues or the vast majority of the rising generation will leave the church. We talked about how much different our experiences and interviews had been before with other General Authorities of the church – that they seemed more compassionate about LGBTQ issues.

She asked all of us men in the room to consider how we would feel if we were told that the physical desires we have for our wives were not allowed to be expressed, and that we instead were only allowed to be intimate with a man.

She talked about how Wes is incredibly spiritual – how she begged him not to go on a mission (because she was worried for his mental health), but he wanted to go anyway. She discussed how we worried every week during the 19 months he was on his mission and hoped he wasn’t having suicidal thoughts like he had had in high school. He had a kind mission president but many other people on his mission said horrific things to him.

Cheryl talked about how most of her family (after years of similar sacrificing for the church as well) had stepped away from the church over this issue. We discussed how Cheryl’s sister, who no longer attends church, is donating her time and resources to help with the Toronto chapter of Affirmation (a support organization for LGBTQ Latter -day Saints and their allies). We said that she’s a living example that many people aren’t leaving the church over this issue because they no longer want to serve others or because they want to “sin,” but because they don’t feel love in the church at all on this front, and that’s not how Jesus teaches us to be.

I won’t share publicly here the many other things we discussed in this meeting and in the other conversations I had with the Authorities the day before. We want to respect at least a certain amount of privacy. But Cheryl and I feel it is important to share what I have described here because we suspect many of the General Authority’s statements to us represent sentiments that other church leaders might be inclined to echo, as they counsel with LGBTQ individuals and their loved ones. By openly talking about how his words hurt us, we are risking the ire of many of our friends and loved ones in the church, who feel it is bad to ever say anything negative in public like this about a General Authority. We do so because we want to make clear to any other church leaders that the statements he made were not helpful to us. We had already figured out how to love Wes completely while still showing respect for the church’s doctrines about LGBTQ issues publicly. We had figured out how to balance that dichotomy. We were ready and willing to continue serving in the church for years to come. But the inappropriate analogies, insensitive arguments, and harsh warnings from the General Authority made us feel despair and anger in a way we hadn’t anticipated.

To his credit, the General Authority apologized after listening to everything Cheryl had to say. He said he regretted how he had spoken to me the day before. And he said he had suffered a mostly sleepless night because he was worrying about how things transpired the day before. He told us he messed up, saying he should not have been so ominous or harsh. He said he admired us as parents. He discussed how his not having an LGBTQ child made it impossible for him to know how we felt (and I do expect some of his insensitivity stemmed from his lack of experience as a parent in our situation). And he said we should focus any anger or frustration about what was said on him, not on the church.

The General Authority’s personal apology was sincere, and I do not have any hard feelings toward him now. However, I will admit that, in a way, his apology ironically has since caused me more pain – because it wasn’t accompanied by any action by him to remedy the pain he caused to my family and me – even though he said he felt God sent him to Massachusetts to minister to us more than any other official reason he was there. There has been no ministering or outreach by him to my family or me since. Other church leaders have contacted us and have gone to great lengths to minister to us, but we haven’t heard from that particular General Authority by way of follow-up since. But that doesn’t really matter - I’m not too bothered about the lack of follow-up. Maybe he thinks we would be upset if he contacted us again? I also realize that he is a busy man with many responsibilities. Regardless, for me, going to church is about connecting with God and helping others – so I have never viewed just being offended by someone as a good reason to stop attending church.

Our initial reaction to this whole experience was that it felt like the General Authority wanted us to choose between being happy for Wes and his choices vs. being truly faithful in the gospel. And that felt like an impossible choice for us to make as parents. We know Wes was born gay and that he is doing what is needed for his mental health and emotional well-being – so it’s impossible for us to be sad about that. But the multiple warnings he gave made us feel like we were being told we weren’t good parents in God’s eyes because we supported Wes in our hearts – and that everything we had done to serve in the church and raise our family in the gospel was now at risk, just because we loved our son and were pleased he was finally healthy and happy.

It was all very confusing though – because the General Authority had said he was fine still proceeding with me serving in the stake presidency calling even though he knew my private views. At the time, I suspected he was ready to still proceed because I had convinced him that his views vs. mine came down mostly to just a matter of semantics and feelings, not actions. I didn’t tell him I would love or support Wes any differently. I just truthfully and genuinely told him that, notwithstanding my feelings, I would be very careful not to cross any lines in performing the responsibilities of my calling, where I might be seen by others to endorse teachings that were unauthorized by the church. It seemed like the General Authority was trying to make sure I understood that I needed to seem sad in public about Wes’ decision to leave the church, even if I privately believed it was the best thing for him. And that implicit expectation hurt.

I also still feel pain from the experience stemming from how Cheryl was treated in all of it. I have come to deeply regret not inviting her into our interview earlier. In the context of extending a calling to someone, it is standard protocol for a church leader to meet with the person alone first, to assess their worthiness, and then, assuming they are worthy, to invite their spouse to join the meeting when actually asking them to serve in the calling. So those dynamics of our interview made me feel like I couldn’t invite Cheryl to participate – because I personally was being assessed for my worthiness. But when we started discussing Wes, I regret not insisting that she join us. At that point, a typical worthiness interview was no longer being conducted and I believe it would have been more appropriate to have Wes’ mother be a part of our discussion, especially since we both were planning on Cheryl joining us next anyway. Both the General Authority and I were very experienced with interviews and personal counseling, so I have come to wonder how we could have we left Cheryl out in the hall worrying for so long. I assume the General Authority just didn’t realize she would be upset. But I was worried about what Cheryl would think when our lengthy interview finally ended – especially once she found out what we had been discussing. So I blame myself for not having the presence of mind to ask that she join our conversation.

I can’t help but think the General Authority felt stuck with me in the calling, uneasy about my circumstance, and relieved to have Cheryl’s reaction as an excuse to not have me continue to serve. Those thoughts come to my mind in part because when I was first asked to serve in the stake presidency two years before, I was told I would likely be in the assignment for a period of 9 years. That is a customary expectation throughout the church for time of service for someone in a stake presidency, and I had only served 2 years. So I’m sure the General Authority was not surprised when the new stake president asked for me to continue to serve as one of his counselors (especially since I was the only member of the outgoing stake presidency who was not moving out of state). I can’t help but wonder sometimes if the General Authority was relieved to have an excuse to overrule the new stake president’s preference for me to keep serving. I try not to focus on that thought though, as I want to be charitable to the General Authority.

I think this may have been the first time or two that the relatively new General Authority had ever been in charge of re-organizing a stake presidency. So I can imagine he was trying to be super cautious – that maybe he just didn’t want to take a risk on anyone who had any “issues” to continue serving in a prominent leadership position. But, again, I try not to focus on that line of thought too much though – because I want to be charitable toward the General Authority and give him the benefit of the doubt. I want to accept him at his word and believe what he said when he apologized to us: that he simply messed up.

I find it easy to accept that explanation for what happened when I remember that, while church leaders are called of God, they’re still just normal people. They make mistakes just like all the rest of us do. Church leadership callings that are higher up in the ecclesiastical hierarchy are not a reward for superior righteousness. And callings to look after toddlers on Sunday are not a punishment. So going into that weekend, Cheryl and I were trying to be ready for any outcome or calling. I didn’t want to feel entitled to continue to serve in the stake presidency, even though it seemed like a logical choice that I would do so for purposes of continuity and even though I felt called (and still feel called) to be a voice for marginalized people in the church.

I have noticed that logical choices are not always the ones the Lord wants made. And that’s fine. Love should be the focus of the church, and love is not always logical. No matter where any of us serve (whether in an official calling or not), we are all just trying to do our best to love and help one another. Without a leadership calling, I actually feel more free now to discuss my views on love. And I’m sure the General Authority aims to have love as the focus of his service as well. Just like church doctrine must be revealed through fallible leaders, God can only administer His church through imperfect people, whose human side can sometimes get in the way of everything being done perfectly, even though the best of intentions might underly our efforts.

A few days after the General Authority had left Massachusetts, at his prior request, I emailed him a copy of a talk I had given several months earlier in our last stake conference, in which I discussed LGBTQ acceptance and inclusion at length. I told him it represented the most LGBTQ-friendly statements I had ever made in the capacity of my calling in the stake presidency. A few days later, he responded with a message that praised the love he felt from the talk and he said I was “valiant” in my service to the Lord. (A copy of my talk can be found here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1YwAV5rPRmx1bI9CLDhBLgAcueAQ8fH7n ).

Now, I don’t share any of that to boast or anything like that. Rather, I feel it’s important to clarify that I wasn’t relieved of my calling because of anything I had taught previously about all of us needing to love, accept, and include LGBTQ individuals better. Unfortunately, I know some people have assumed that I got “fired” because I did something wrong, and that they are therefore justified in maintaining LGBTQ views that are less-than-kind. And I don’t want any progress that I perhaps helped facilitate in softening anyone’s heart to go to waste. So please understand that what I taught in my calling about how we need to show more compassion toward LGBTQ people has been approved of by a General Authority of the church – so there’s no “excuse” to disagree with what I taught. ☺

That’s actually the main reason I am sharing these details about our experience with the General Authority – because I don’t want church members in our area (or anywhere else in the church) to think it is bad to talk about how we need to love LGBTQ individuals better. Unless I share these details of our experience, I fear many people may make the false assumption that it is not good to talk about showing more love to our LGBTQ siblings. So hopefully readers here can view my sharing of our experience with the General Authority as a positive thing for the church, which is what I intend.

To be fair in my telling of this whole experience, I also want to clarify once more that, despite what happened to us, Latter-day Saint parents who have gay kids are not automatically disqualified from serving in leadership positions in the church. One of the highest-up leaders in our church (one of our apostles) has a gay son (see the mention of his son in the latter half of this article: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2018/06/29/mormon-churchs-newest/ ). And we were told by the visiting Authorities that other general and regional leaders throughout the church have LGBTQ kids too.

Now, I don’t know how the church’s position on LGBTQ matters affects other leaders’ kids personally. That might depend on where their kids fall on the spectrum of sexual orientation and gender identity, or how traumatic church teachings are to their kids. I also don’t know if those other parents have ever felt like a General Authority wanted them to view as sin something they knew was necessary for their child’s mental health and emotional well-being. If so, I can’t help but wonder if those other parents are just better suited to deal with that sort of cognitive dissonance than Cheryl and I are. (That ironically hurts to think about too – because it makes me wonder if I’m not as faithful as those other parents because I can’t hold those conflicting thoughts and emotions in my head and heart at the same time as well as they can.) I simply don’t know. But I did get the feeling in my interview with the General Authority that anyone holding a prominent church leadership position that has a gay child who has left the church should feel an obligation to demonstrate both a sufficient level of disappointment about them having left and complete comfort in the current doctrine of the church.

Upon subsequent reflection, I think that’s what made me feel most uncomfortable with the General Authority’s words: the implication that it would be best, from a gospel devotion perspective, for me to change or sacrifice (or at least hide) my feelings of support for my son. In hindsight, maybe I shouldn’t have been surprised by that perceived expectation, because Joseph Smith taught that “a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has the power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation.” Some related church teachings say that when someone is committed enough in their heart to sacrifice everything for God, then they can know here and now that their eternal salvation is assured:

“When faith is sufficient to sacrifice all earthly things, even life itself if necessary, it is possible for a person to know that he is accepted of the Lord for what he has done, and with this strong faith he may eventually receive eternal life.” (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1976/07/accepted-of-the-lord-the-doctrine-of-making-your-calling-and-election-sure )

So maybe I should have been more prepared for the possibility that a time would come in my church experience where it might be suggested I should make a sacrifice like that, rather than merely promise that I would be willing to do so in the future. I guess I just didn’t anticipate that such a high bar was required for simply serving in a stake presidency, especially one I would already been serving in for two years. And it’s one thing to consider sacrificing my own life; it’s another to think that I might be encouraged to sacrifice my adult son’s life (through hammering him with doctrine that encourages his suicide).

I never expected that any such required sacrifice would involve me distancing myself emotionally from my son over a choice he made to seek some of the same things in his life that have brought me joy in mine: spousal love and healthy family life. I know Luke 12:53 teaches that because of the gospel, “the father shall be divided against the son; the mother against the daughter,” etc. But given my lived experience of seeing Wes diligently strive for righteousness and his desire to be a father who is a stable and regular presence in his future kids’ lives (rather than just being around every other weekend if a marriage to a woman didn’t work out – which happens with the vast majority of marriages between a gay person and a straight person), it feels like the church, not the gospel, is what wants me to be divided from my son. It would be different if Wes were choosing something that was selfish or unkind. Then the gospel could be expected to divide us. But he’s not. He’s just choosing family. So I don’t think that scripture applies to our situation. I don’t believe God wants me to be sad about Wes’ decision to date men to hopefully find a husband who loves him and with whom he can build a family.

As his father, I have prayed and felt God’s Spirit confirm to me that Wes trying to always be alone or trying to make a marriage to a woman work are not good options for him. His particular biological makeup means he wouldn’t be able to have natural attraction toward a woman. (Current church teachings say that without genuine attraction, a gay person should not marry a straight person: see Chapter 3.) So marriage to a woman will not work, and is not advisable, for him.

And affirmatively striving to be alone forever is not good for him either. Many gay church members talk about feeling deep despair because they think something about their personal makeup goes against God’s eternal plan for all of us. And even those gay church members who are able to see past that falsehood and affirm their infinite value in God’s eyes, often still feel pain at being “pitied” by their fellow church members. It breaks my heart to know that Wes ever thought something was wrong with him – and it frustrates me that church teachings result in many church members feeling sorry for my amazing son – all just because of how his body is naturally wired for intimacy and love.

I’m also not sad about Wes’ decision to leave the church because he got an answer to his prayers. After many years (years!) of sincere and repeated petitions, he felt that God did not want him to spend his life trying to avoid falling in love and having a family. When he told me about his answer, I was comfortable with it, because I had seen the process Wes had gone through to get it. He was humble, willing to do whatever might be required of him. He was patient, always willing to wait until God deemed fit to answer questions on His timeline. Wes had counseled with Cheryl and me, some close friends, and church leaders extensively. The answer to his prayer came as he was finally, truly ready to offer up lifelong celibacy to God, knowing how hard that would be for him, if that was what God wanted. This was not a case of someone praying and wanting something so badly that they fooled themselves into getting an answer they preferred. I accepted that Wes had received divine personal revelation for his life. I was glad his personal answer was consistent with the scripture that says “it is not good that…man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18). But I also recognized that his answer was unique to him. And Wes recognized that too. Not everyone in a situation similar to his will get the same divine direction (although over 70% of same-gender attracted church members do feel it necessary to leave the church: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gay-mormon-men-marriage_n_6464848 ). God deals with each of us individually and many personal facts and circumstances can result in different answers for different people. Some church members who feel gay sexual desires feel prompted by God to stay in the church and remain celibate. While that is a hard and lonely road that often results in depression and mental health struggles, I still respect their stated inspiration and admire their desires to be obedient. But that wasn’t what God told Wes to do – and I equally respect his inspiration and admire his desire to be obedient to God’s clear will for him as well.

For my fellow Latter-day Saints reading this who are perplexed at how God could give Wes direction that contradicts what the church teaches is a commandment from God, it might be helpful for us all to remember that there are examples in our scriptures where prophets were commanded by God to do things that would normally be considered sins but that God still wanted them to do because a higher cause was to be served. One example of this is the story with Nephi and Laban in the Book of Mormon – but I don’t love that one because that involved a sin that causes actual harm – killing; I prefer instead the example of Adam choosing to partake of the forbidden fruit in Eden so he could obey the commandment to have a family with Eve. Now, yes, I will admit Wes is not a prophet (in the sense in which we most frequently use that term in the church anyway). ☺ But, regardless, he is still entitled to receive personal revelation as to the affairs of his own life, as we all are. So when Wes told me he finally got his answer, I soon felt from my own subsequent personal prayers that even if the church says gay marriage is a sin, Wes is still on the path God wants for him, and God wants me to support him. Given the wholesome goals that Wes has (to find lifelong monogamous marriage, continue worshipping Christ, and serving others), I think his path is right alongside the covenant path that the church offers, and represents his own covenant path that is as equally valid as the unique covenant path any other church member walks. But the visiting General Authority seemed to want to reprimand me for having that perspective.

Regardless, at this point, I’m no longer offended and am absolutely fine not being in the stake presidency. In fact, since my release I have received inspired feelings, confirming for me that things happened exactly as they did for a special reason: so I can relate just a tiny bit better to Wes and catch a fleeting glimpse into what he felt, in needing to choose between church loyalty vs. family loyalty. I wrote the following to a friend to describe that impression, just a few days following the experience with the General Authority:

I’m glad this experience happened because I think I can now better empathize with Wes, even if just slightly; so I could understand a little bit better how painful it was for him to have to choose between having a stable future family vs. having full fellowship in the church. In the moment I had this epiphany, I felt comfort and I seemed to catch a glimpse of the empathy that Christ must have for Wes - and of His ability to love and console him so much more than I can. And I saw how important it is for me to always try to show that same type of pure love, without mixed emotions or qualifications, to my family.

I’m so thankful God blessed me with a gay son. My understanding of the comforting power of Christ’s Atonement and of His matchless love and empathy have been deeply enriched because of the challenges Wes has faced. Because of his belief in Christ, he has forgiven so many people who have said hurtful things to him. The Atonement has similarly helped me forgive the General Authority who met with me. I have accepted his apology completely. I know his words aren’t reflective of the Savior’s views (or even of the views of some other General Authorities I have spoken with, to be honest). And I’m eternally thankful for the Atonement’s ability to alleviate my pain and to teach me how to best support Wes by loving him as Christ loves me.

So in a way, I’m grateful for the General Authority and how he helped me come to relate to Wes a tiny bit better. Yes, I was offended at the time by what the General Authority said and how he said it. But I am over that now. I know some people reading this may not believe that. But, seriously, I am no longer upset or offended by what happened that weekend in late September 2019 with the General Authority.

Any enduring pain I feel relating to the church has nothing to do with a personal affront or conflict of personalities. Rather, it has only to do with the doctrine of the church regarding gender, marriage, sexuality, and family and the harm (sometimes fatal harm) that it causes in the lives of LGBTQ church members and their families. In any event, I love the people in my local congregation and wouldn’t want to separate myself from them just because of a bad experience with someone from church headquarters.

But I know there is a strong tendency in our church culture to assume that people struggle with the church simply because they were offended. So I hope all the doctrinal analysis and opinion in this book will help get that notion out of the way. I am committed to frequent church attendance going forward, so I hope it is clear that I am not just stuck brooding over how his words and actions were painful. I have moved on from the experience and am trying to now focus on the informal calling I feel God wants me to do: that of being a vocal ally within the church to our LGBTQ siblings, naming their pain without hesitation and emphasizing the Christ-like hope for change and full equality that I see possible for them within the scriptures and church doctrine.

Strong messages deeply embedded in our theology and new teachings from our highest-up global church leaders have made it even harder than ever to endure the emotional and spiritual dichotomy that families like mine already experience. I hope you will understand why my family’s hope was hanging on by just a thread for years - and why I feel like that thread was cut over the course of a few weeks in September and October 2019 – and how hard it is going to be to try to reestablish the same type of commitment to the church in a mentally healthy way going forward. But I am committed to re-weaving that thread, staying active in the church, and trying to find a way to serve and love others with the lessons I have learned.