Latest revision as of 22:13, 9 May 2024

FAIR Answers—back to home page

1 Mormonism and same-sex attraction
2 Is the document "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" official doctrine?
- 2.1 Church leaders have repeatedly taught that the Proclamation is official doctrine
3 Official doctrine
4 Statements by apostles and prophets about the Proclamation
5 Other leaders on the Proclamation
6 Duty to teach and support the Proclamation
7 Have the doctrines in the document "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" long been taught in the Church?
8 Has the family Proclamation been taught frequently?
- 8.1 Yes. This is an important point for judging the importance that Church leaders attach to it
9 Repeated Publication of the Proclamation
10 Reference to the Proclamation as event of historical significance
11 Teaching
12 Educational series (also ran in Ensign)
13 Since there are people that are born intersex, experience gender dysphoria, or identify as transgender, does this invalidate the Latter-day Saint doctrine of eternal gender?
14 Is The Family: A Proclamation to the World against feminism?
15 What does the Family Proclamation mean when it says fathers "preside" over their families?
16 Was "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" drafted by lawyers in Hawaii in response to legal concerns the Church had over the legalization of gay marriage?
17 What sort of scriptural support is there for the doctrines of The Family: A Proclamation to the World?
18 Is gender a social construct?
19 What is the scriptural basis for the restriction on homosexual sexual behavior in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Mormonism and same-sex attraction

Jump to Subtopic:

Ensign, "Why We Do Some of the Things We Do"

Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, (Nov 1999)

I emphasize this, I wish to say that our opposition to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage should never be interpreted as justification for hatred, intolerance, or abuse of those who profess homosexual tendencies, either individually or as a group. As I said from this pulpit one year ago, our hearts reach out to those who refer to themselves as gays and lesbians. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God. They are welcome in the Church. It is expected, however, that they follow the same God-given rules of conduct that apply to everyone else, whether single or married.

Click here to view the complete article

Ensign, "Same-Gender Attraction"

Dallin H. Oaks, Ensign, (Oct 1995)

[W]e should always distinguish between sinful acts and inappropriate feelings or potentially dangerous susceptibilities. We should reach out lovingly to those who are struggling to resist temptation. The First Presidency did this in their 14 November 1991 letter. After reaffirming the sinful nature of “fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior,” the Presidency added: “Individuals and their families desiring help with these matters should seek counsel from their bishop, branch president, stake or district president. We encourage Church leaders and members to reach out with love and understanding to those struggling with these issues. Many will respond to Christlike love and inspired counsel as they receive an invitation to come back and apply the atoning and healing power of the Savior.

Click here to view the complete article

Joshua Johanson, "Navigating the Labyrinth Surrounding Homosexual Desire"

Joshua Johanson, Proceedings of the 2012 FAIR Conference, (August 2012)

There is a labyrinth surrounding homosexuality that is becoming increasingly difficult to navigate. More and more it seems the two sides are talking past each other. I chose the title of Navigating the Labyrinth Surrounding Homosexual Desire because I think understanding the difference between having same-sex attractions and having homosexual desires is key to understanding how to navigate this labyrinth.

Click here to view the complete article

Question: Can a person identify as gay or lesbian and still be a member of the Church in good standing?

The Church does not reject those who experience same-sex attraction. It is possible to experience same-sex attraction and be a faithful member in full fellowship. If those feelings take the form of an intimate physical relationship, then this is considered a sin in the same manner as when heterosexual feelings take the form of an intimate physical relationship outside of marriage.

In 1998, President Hinckley said:

"People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are."

In 1999, President Hinckley taught:

"As I said from this pulpit one year ago, our hearts reach out to those who refer to themselves as gays and lesbians. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God. They are welcome in the Church."

While President Hinckley avoided directly labeling anyone as gay or lesbian, he was directing his welcome to those who did make use of the label. In no case did he say that only people who shun the label can go forward as all other members, but specifically said that those who considered themselves to be gay could go on as all other members. There was no request for them to hide their identity or to change their vocabulary.

In general, Church leaders recommend against labeling anyone, including yourself. Labels detract from our divine nature as children of God.

In 2010, Bishop Keith B. McMullin taught:

When I was a youngster, my mother discouraged me from using common language when speaking of sacred or special things. For example, instead of referring to an expectant mother as being pregnant, she encouraged me to say “she is expecting a baby.” In Mother’s view, the latter description was more respectful and reverential, the former more clinical and common. Her teachings have had a salient effect upon me. The older I become, the more meaningful is her wisdom. The more we see and speak of intimate things as mere biology, the less likely we are to view and understand them in the context of exalting theology.

This counsel can also apply to using the label "straight" or "gay" to refer to children of God. In 1995, Elder Oaks taught:

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. ^[1]

Teachings of Church leaders

Church leaders have, therefore, consistently emphasized that such temptations and desires do not form a core or irreducible part of our nature.

In 1978, Elder Boyd K. Packer said:

And so, now to the subject. To introduce it I must use a word. I will use it one time only. Please notice that I use it as an adjective, not as a noun; I reject it as a noun. I speak to those few, those very few, who may be subject to homosexual temptations. I repeat, I accept that word as an adjective to describe a temporary condition. I reject it as a noun naming a permanent one. ^[2]

In 1995, Elder Dallin H. Oaks noted:

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.
Feelings are another matter. Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn. Others are traceable to mortal experiences. Still other feelings seem to be acquired from a complex interaction of “nature and nurture.” All of us have some feelings we did not choose, but the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us that we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed) and to assure that they do not lead us to entertain inappropriate thoughts or to engage in sinful behavior. ^[3]

SSA only refers to having same-sex attraction. Homosexual may be referring to attractions, identity or behavior. Also, same-sex attraction does not preclude the presence of opposite-sex attractions. A person who is attracted to both genders may identify as bisexual, but they still have same-sex attractions.

Definition of sexual orientation

The American Psychological Association gives the following definition for sexual orientation:

"Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions." ^[4]

The term sexual orientation in and of itself is ambiguous. There are many members of the Church who are primarily attracted to the same sex, but their sense of identity and community is more closely connected to a heterosexual lifestyle. Depending on which definition of sexual orientation that being used, the same person may have a homosexual or a heterosexual orientation.

Definition of homosexuality, homosexual, and gay

In regards to the terms homosexual, lesbian and gay, Elder Oaks stated:

We should note that the words homosexual, lesbian, and gay are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors.

In regards to the term homosexuality, Elder Oaks stated:

"Thus, the First Presidency's letters condemning homosexuality are, by their explicit terms, directed at the practices of homosexuality."

How does this compare with the dictionary? The American Heritage Dictionary defines homosexual as someone exhibiting homosexuality. It defines homosexuality as:

Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
Sexual activity with another of the same sex. ^[5]

Both the dictionary and Elder Oaks show ambiguity between using homosexual to refer to thoughts or behaviors. Interpreting condemnations of homosexuality as condemnation of homosexual behavior rather than condemning a person is also inline with modern definitions. The usage of terminology within the church is standard English.

Avoiding using gay as a noun

With regards to using gay as a noun, Elder Oaks said:

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.

The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style gives a similar warning against using gay as a noun:

Gay is often considered objectionable when used as a noun to refer to particular individuals, as in "There were two gays on the panel"; here phrasing such as "Two members of the panel were gay" should be used instead. ^[6]

According to the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) Media reference guide, many newspapers have also advised their newspaper writers to avoid using gay as a noun. ^[7] They cite the following examples:

New York Times:

Do not use gay as a singular noun. Gays, a plural noun, may be used only as a last resort, ordinarily in a hard-to-fit headline.

Washington Post:

When it is necessary to mention it, gay may be used as an adjective but not as a noun, except as a plural: gay man, gay woman, gay people, gays. Not a gay...
Often, simply reporting the facts obviates the need for labels. Describing a slaying, for instance, should suffice without referring to it as a homosexual slaying. Ask yourself if you would use the term heterosexual slaying. In a recent story, a man "charged" that his former wife "was a lesbian" as if it were a slur, when simply alleging an affair between the ex-wife and the other woman would suffice.
Be wary of using homosexual as a noun. In certain contexts, it can be seen as a slur.

Question: If same-sex attraction is something that occurs naturally, why can't God and the Church accept it by allowing sealings of LGBT couples?

Introduction to Question

Some have brought up the sensitive question of why gay marriage and other LGBT relationships can't be accepted by God and the Church if the characteristic is innate. Some struggle to find a purpose in the command to not engage in homosexual behavior. Some secularist critics and even members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who support same-sex marriage co-opt this issue as a means of openly and directly challenging the Church's opposition to same-sex relationships and marriages. This article examines that sensitive question/criticism.

It must be understood that some people are very sincere when asking these questions and that the questions deserve to be treated as such when sincerity is sensed. Others simply want to emotionally manipulate people into faith crisis over this issue. Great discernment is needed to know whether one is the former or latter in any given situation.

Response to Question

Feelings are Not Being

It is important to remember that just because something occurs naturally, that doesn't mean that it is therefore a good thing. This is what is known as the Is-Ought Fallacy in philosophy. There are plenty of things that occur naturally that we don't consider good such as depression, anxiety, and so forth. Many animals kill each other after mating.^[8]

Brigham Young University professor Ty Mansfield pointed out something important in regard to feelings not forming identity:

“Being gay” is not a scientific idea, but rather a cultural and philosophical one, addressing the subjective and largely existential phenomenon of identity. From a social constructionist/constructivist perspective, our sense of identity is something we negotiate with our environment. Environment can include biological environment, but our biology is still environment. From an LDS perspective, the essential spiritual person within us exists independent of our mortal biology, so our biology, our body is something that we relate to and negotiate our identity with, rather than something that inherently or essentially defines us. Also, while there has likely been homoerotic attraction, desire, behavior, and even relationships, among humans as long as there have been humans, the narratives through which sexuality is understood and incorporated into one’s sense of self and identity is subjective and culturally influenced. The “gay” person or personality didn’t exist prior to the mid-20th century.
In an LDS context, people often express concern about words that are used—whether they be “same-sex attraction,” which some feel denies the realities of the gay experience, or “gay,” “lesbian,” or “LGBT,” which some feels speaks more to specific lifestyle choices. What’s important to understand, however, is that identity isn’t just about the words we use but the paradigms and worldviews and perceptions of or beliefs about the “self” and “self-hood” through which we interpret and integrate our various experiences into a sense of personal identity, sexual or otherwise. And identity is highly fluid and subject to modification with change in personal values or socio-cultural context. The terms “gay,” “lesbian,” and “bisexual” aren’t uniformly understood or experienced in the same way by everyone who may use or adopt those terms, so it’s the way those terms or labels are incorporated into self-hood that accounts for identity. One person might identify as “gay” simply as shorthand for the mouthful “son or daughter of God who happens to experience romantic, sexual or other desire for persons of the same sex for causes unknown and for the short duration of mortality,” while another person experiences themselves as “gay” as a sort of eternal identity and state of being.
An important philosophical thread in the overall experience of identity, is the experience of “selfhood”—what it means to have a self, and what it means to “be true to” that self. The question of what it means to be “true to ourselves” is a philosophical rather than a scientific one. In her book Multiplicity: The New Science of Personality, Identity, and the Self, award-winning science and medical writer Rita Carter explores the plurality of “selves” who live in each one of us and how each of those varied and sometimes conflicting senses of self inform various aspects of our identity(ies). This sense seems to be universal. In the movie The Incredibles, there’s a scene in which IncrediBoy says to Mr. Incredible, “You always, always say, ‘Be true to yourself,’ but you never say which part of yourself to be true to!”^[9]

Thus, there is big difference between feelings and the meaning or labels that we assign to feelings. Thank goodness that feelings are not being. Couldn't we imagine a time where someone would want to change feelings that they didn't feel described their identity such as impulses for pornography, drugs, or violence? This does not mean that the author is comparing sexual orientation to bad impulses, this is simply to point out that feelings do not inherently control identity. We assign identity to feelings.

The Latter-day Saint Argument for Marriage

We should turn to Latter-day Saint scripture to figure out why the Church values marriage as much as it does and why is refuses to acknowledge same-gender sexual behavior and romantic relationships.

In 1831, Joseph Smith gave a revelation to the Shakers living in Ohio regarding some of their beliefs. As part of their religious system, they forbade people to marry and made them celibate. This revelation reissues the Lord's definition of marriage to the Shakers:

15 And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.

16 Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation;

17 And that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made.

This revelation makes several crucial points about the Latter-day Saint position on marriage:

Marriage is ordained of God
Marriage is defined as being between one man and woman
We were designed by God to be married this way.
Our design is not shown in the sexual orientation we have but our biological gender.
We were designed in the pre-mortal existence to be married man and woman.

We might ask why this marriage arrangement is the ideal one? We believe that it is because the Lord endorses the conjugal view of marriage. What is the conjugal view of marriage? Another website explains:

The conjugal view holds that marriage is a union between a man and a woman who share a domestic life oriented towards child-bearing and child-rearing. In other words, procreation (creating new human life) is the unifying good of a marriage relationship. A “unifying good” is that activity that most completely unites the partners in the relationship — the purpose towards which they coordinate their joint activities.

Let’s illustrate what this means: Consider a boyfriend and a girlfriend who share a deep emotional connection and enjoy spending time with each other. They have no particular plans for the future, and have made no commitments to each other. They may be united by many things, including mutual enjoyment, or whatever shared hobbies they pursue. Imagine that the girlfriend suddenly becomes pregnant. At that moment, their futures change completely — a whole host of duties suddenly arise that fundamentally changes their relationship.
They are now united by something more than just mutual enjoyment and emotional connection — they are united by an innocent human person, who physically embodies their union. While their relationship may still involve love and a deep emotional connection, raising the child becomes that thing that most completely unites them. This is what it means to say that child-raising is the unifying good of the relationship. They will probably consider getting married, because that is what marriage is about. In fact, if they don’t get officially married, but continue to live together and raise their kids together, many governments will still consider them married anyway (in what is called “common law marriage”).
The change that occurred in their relation strikes at the heart of marriage, from the conjugal view. Marriage is when a man and a woman say to each other, in essence, “Let us extend our emotional union into something more permanent, by starting a family together.” That is, a married couple arranges their lives and joins their families in anticipation of child-birth and child-raising. A pregnancy may be an unexpected interruption to a boyfriend and girlfriend, which fundamentally changes their relationship. However, as much as a child might change the lives of a married couple, she does not change the nature of their relationship. Marriage creates that difference from the get-go (before children are ever conceived), by enwrapping the relationship in norms (expectations) of permanence and fidelity. This is because marriage is oriented towards procreation. It points couples that direction.^[10]

There are some objections that people have raised to this that we address below.

Latter-day Saint scripture also provides some evidence that the union of man and woman creates the spirits people in the next life (D&C 132:63).

Objections to Church Standard

The Argument from Personal Revelation

There are often claims from members of the Church who identify as LGBTQAIP+ and other members of the Church who support same-sex marriage that they have received personal revelation that the Church is wrong about this issue and that it will eventually accept LGBT sealings, relationships, and so on in the future. Since this is a topic that involves the ontological makeup of the entire human family as well as their eternal destiny, this type of revelation does not lie within the stewardship of those that identify as LGBT or those that support same-sex marriage, but with the prophet of God (Doctrine and Covenants 28:2-4; 42:53-60; 112:20). The Savior told us that the one way we could protect ourselves against deception is to hold to his word (JS-Matthew 1:37) and he announces himself as the source of the revelation declaring that our telos as men and women is to be united maritally and sexually (Doctrine and Covenants 49:28). Thus, it is likely that these individuals, if they have indeed felt revelation occur, have been deceived by false Spirits (Doctrine and Covenants 50:1-2) and their testimonies should be disregarded. If someone were to receive a revelation like this, it would be given to them for their own comfort and instruction. They would also be placed under strict commandment to not disseminate their revelation until it accords with the revelation of the prophets, God's authorized priesthood channels (Alma 12:9).

Main article: Question: How does official teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints view those that receive revelation that contradicts that of the Prophet?

The Argument from Priesthood Restriction

As an additional means of justifying opposition to the Church's position on same sex marriage, some point to the pre-1978 restrictions on people of African descent from holding the Church's priesthood or officiating in temple ordinances, including the Church's disavowed explanations for the restrictions. If the Church was wrong about their explanations for that, could it be wrong about this issue? This has been examined in another article on the FairMormon wiki.

Main article: Question: Isn't the Mormon opposition to same-sex marriage hypocritical, considering that they used to ban black from holding the priesthood until 1978?

Conclusion

Many LGBT members of The Church of Jesus Christ do not need to hear the points listed in this article. Many understand these points clearly but may simply need someone to love and empathize with their struggle. Members of the Church are placed under covenant at baptism to mourn with those who mourn and comfort those who stand in need of comfort (Mosiah 18:8-9) and should be open to helping these good men and women when they need it most.

Alternatively, there may be some that begin to debate against the Church's position out of sincere frustration and sadness or simple spite. First, those who wish to help these individuals will need to dig deep and find out why these individuals are debating against the Church's position. Some may still need to simply have someone love them and empathize with them. Others may be past that and be debating, as mentioned, out of simple spite and emotional manipulation. In these instances, members of the Church should follow the other part of their baptismal covenant as outlined in Mosiah 18:8-9 and "stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in[.]"

As a final word which we wish to emphasize:

FairMormon joins The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in unequivocally condemning the discrimination of any of God's children based upon gender (or gender identity), race, sexual identity and/or orientation, and/or religious affiliation..

See also: Question: Since there are people that are born intersex, experience gender dysphoria, or identify as transgender, does this invalidate the Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") doctrine of eternal male and/or female gender?

Question: Do Mormon teachings against homosexual acts lead to bullying of gay youth or unchristian treatment of members or non-members with same-sex attraction?

Some members have, through ignorance or malice, doubtless used the sinful nature of homosexual acts to justify their decision to disparage, neglect, or mistreat those who are tempted toward such acts

Like members of all faiths, all Latter-day Saints do not live up to their ideals and principles perfectly. Some members have, through ignorance or malice, doubtless used the sinful nature of homosexual acts to justify their decision to disparage, neglect, or mistreat those who are tempted toward such acts. Such behavior is sinful, and requires repentance.

In this, as in all else, the example of Jesus is paramount

In this, as in all else, the example of Jesus is paramount. When brought a woman taken in adultery, Jesus refused to stone her:

7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. (John 8:7-11)

It is important to recognize, however, that it is no cruelty to teach that homosexual acts are sins—just as the adulterous woman would not have been well served if Jesus had winked at her sin. The Church and its members will continue to teach that homosexual acts are not worthy of those who are children of God. As the Church observed, "Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not 'tolerating' transgression."^[11]

See also: Boyd K Packer talk on defending oneself against sexual harassment or aggression

The Church has consistently taught that all people are children of God, and ought to be treated with love, dignity, and respect. This includes those with same-sex attraction, or those who commit homosexual sins.

1980s

In 1987, President Gordon B. Hinckley said of the AIDS/HIV epidemic:

There is a plague of fearsome dimensions moving across the world. Public health officials are greatly concerned, and everyone else should be. The Surgeon General of the United States has forecast an AIDS death toll of 170,000 Americans in just four years. The situation is even more serious in some other areas of the world.
AIDS is a commonly fatal malady caused primarily from sexually transmitted disease and secondarily from drug abuse. Unfortunately, as in any epidemic, innocent people also become victims.
We, with others, hope that discoveries will make possible both prevention and healing from this dread affliction. But regardless of such discoveries, the observance of one clearly understandable and divinely given rule would do more than all else to check this epidemic. That is chastity before marriage and total fidelity after marriage....
Having said this, I desire now to say with emphasis that our concern for the bitter fruit of sin is coupled with Christlike sympathy for its victims, innocent or culpable. We advocate the example of the Lord, who condemned the sin, yet loved the sinner. We should reach out with kindness and comfort to the afflicted, ministering to their needs and assisting them with their problems.^[12]

1990s

In discussing this issue, Elder Dallin H. Oaks quoted the First Presidency:

“We are asked to be kinder with one another, more gentle and forgiving. We are asked to be slower to anger and more prompt to help. We are asked to extend the hand of friendship and resist the hand of retribution. We are called upon to be true disciples of Christ, to love one another with genuine compassion, for that is the way Christ loved us.”^[13]

He then said:

Kindness, compassion, and love are powerful instruments in strengthening us to carry heavy burdens imposed without any fault of our own and to do what we know to be right.^[14]

Elder Oaks also taught:

Our doctrines obviously condemn those who engage in so-called “gay bashing”—physical or verbal attacks on persons thought to be involved in homosexual or lesbian behavior....
Despite such invitations and assurances, the Church and its members continue to experience misunderstandings about our positions on these matters....
A recent letter is illustrative:

“Another concern we have is the way in which our sons and daughters are classified as people who practice deviant and lascivious behavior. Perhaps some do, but most do not. These young men and women want only to survive, have a spiritual life, and stay close to their families and the Church. It is especially damaging when these negative references are spoken from the pulpit. We believe such talks only create more depression and a tremendous amount of guilt, shame, and lack of self-worth, which they have endured throughout their entire lives. There is sometimes a real lack of the pure love of Christ expressed to help them through their ordeals. We will all appreciate anything you can do to help with the plight of these much misunderstood children of our Father in Heaven. If some of the General Authorities could express more sensitivity to this problem, it would surely help to avoid suicides and schisms that are caused within families. Many simply cannot tolerate the fact that Church members judge them as ‘evil people,’ and they, therefore, find solace in gay-oriented lifestyles.”

These communications surely show the need for improvement in our communications with brothers and sisters who are struggling with problems—all types of problems. Each member of Christ’s church has a clear-cut doctrinal responsibility to show forth love and to extend help and understanding. Sinners, as well as those who are struggling to resist inappropriate feelings, are not people to be cast out but people to be loved and helped (see 3 Nephi 18꞉22–23,30,32). At the same time, Church leaders and members cannot avoid their responsibility to teach correct principles and righteous behavior (on all subjects), even if this causes discomfort to some.^[15]

President Hinckley taught: "Nevertheless, and I emphasize this, I wish to say that our opposition to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage should never be interpreted as justification for hatred, intolerance, or abuse of those who profess homosexual tendencies, either individually or as a group."^[16]

Each holder of the priesthood also watches to "see that there is no iniquity in the church, neither hardness with each other, neither lying, backbiting, nor evil speaking." (D&C 20꞉54).

2000s

In October 2000 conference, while speaking about people in same-sex relationships, President Boyd K. Packer taught:

We understand why some feel we reject them. That is not true. We do not reject you, only immoral behavior. We cannot reject you, for you are the sons and daughters of God. We will not reject you, because we love you (see Heb. 12:6–9; Rom. 3:19; Hel. 15:3; D&C 95:1).
You may even feel that we do not love you. That also is not true. Parents know, and one day you will know, that there are times when parents and we who lead the Church must extend tough love when failing to teach and to warn and to discipline is to destroy.

Elder Jeffry R. Holland reiterated the need for a warm and supportive atmosphere at Church toward those with SSA:

Someone said that if we plant a garden with good seed, there will not be so much need of the hoe. Likewise, if we fill our lives with spiritual nourishment, we can more easily gain control over inclinations. This means creating a positive environment in our homes in which the Spirit is abundantly evident. A positive environment includes consistent private and public worship, prayer, fasting, scripture reading, service, and exposure to uplifting conversation, music, literature, and other media.
This same environment extends to experiences at church. Some with same-gender attractions have unresolved fears and are offended at church when no offense is intended. On the other hand, some members exclude from their circle of fellowship those who are different. When our actions or words discourage someone from taking full advantage of Church membership, we fail them—and the Lord. The Church is made stronger as we include every member and strengthen one another in service and love (see D&C 84꞉110).^[17]

A booklet prepared by the Church in 2007 noted the need for improved kindness from Church members:

Some people with same-gender attraction have felt rejected because members of the Church did not always show love. No member of the Church should ever be intolerant. As you show love and kindness to others, you give them an opportunity to change their attitudes and follow Christ more fully.^[18]

In 2009, Elder Bruce C. Hafen spoke on this subject, and his address was placed on the Church's official website:

Remember President Hinckley’s confidence in you: “Our hearts reach out to [you]. We remember you before the Lord, we sympathize with you, we regard you as our brothers and sisters.” And President Packer has echoed, “We do not reject you… We cannot reject you… We will not reject you, because we love you.” With that kind of leadership, I pray that all Church members are learning to be more compassionate and understanding.^[19]

The Church also endorses and supports the principle that all citizens are equal before the law. The Church has endorsed, for example, non-discrimination ordinances in housing and employment.

For a detailed response, see: Church support of non-discrimination ordinances

2010s

In 2010, the Church issued an official statement:

...we have all witnessed tragic deaths across the country as a result of bullying or intimidation of gay young men. We join our voice with others in unreserved condemnation of acts of cruelty or attempts to belittle or mock any group or individual that is different – whether those differences arise from race, religion, mental challenges, social status, sexual orientation or for any other reason. Such actions simply have no place in our society.
This Church has felt the bitter sting of persecution and marginalization early in our history, when we were too few in numbers to adequately protect ourselves and when society’s leaders often seemed disinclined to help. Our parents, young adults, teens and children should therefore, of all people, be especially sensitive to the vulnerable in society and be willing to speak out against bullying or intimidation whenever it occurs, including unkindness toward those who are attracted to others of the same sex. This is particularly so in our own Latter-day Saint congregations. Each Latter-day Saint family and individual should carefully consider whether their attitudes and actions toward others properly reflect Jesus Christ’s second great commandment - to love one another.
As a church, our doctrinal position is clear: any sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong, and we define marriage as between a man and a woman. However, that should never, ever be used as justification for unkindness. Jesus Christ, whom we follow, was clear in His condemnation of sexual immorality, but never cruel. His interest was always to lift the individual, never to tear down.
Further, while the Church is strongly on the record as opposing same-sex marriage, it has openly supported other rights for gays and lesbians such as protections in housing or employment.^[20]

In October 2012 general conference, Elder Dallin H. Oaks said:

When we consider the dangers from which children should be protected, we should also include psychological abuse. Parents or other caregivers or teachers or peers who demean, bully, or humiliate children or youth can inflict harm more permanent than physical injury. Making a child or youth feel worthless, unloved, or unwanted can inflict serious and long-lasting injury on his or her emotional well-being and development.9 Young people struggling with any exceptional condition, including same-gender attraction, are particularly vulnerable and need loving understanding—not bullying or ostracism.^[21]

Question: Are Mormon family members taught to reject their LGBT children, thereby forcing many of them to become homeless?

Homelessness among LGBT youth in America is considered “an epidemic"

Reports have appeared in the American media stating that large portions of the homeless youth in Utah are gay. Critics imply that the substantial LDS population in this area explains these high numbers of homeless youth. It’s inferred that LDS families force children with non-heterosexual orientations out of their homes.

Homelessness among LGBT youth in America is considered “an epidemic.” LGBT youth are homeless more often than straight youth all over the country, not just in Utah. A recent survey of LGBT youth in America found that while feeling more disconnected from peers and communities than youth across the country, LGBT youth in Utah actually enjoyed better and more supportive and accepting connections to family than youth nationwide. No statistics have ever been generated to show causal links between LDS affiliation and homelessness among LGBT youth.

Parents have a duty to love and take care of their children

Furthermore, believing in a moral code does not automatically result in the rejection of those who struggle with the code or who break the code. Parents have a duty to love and take care of their children. However, some parents may ignore the counsel of Church leaders and the scriptures and force LGBT children out of their homes. The Church is clear that this is not in harmony with the gospel, and that such parents are not worthy to hold temple recommends. The teachings of the Church help family members love and respect their children, regardless of sexual orientation or behavior. This love and respect leads to an increase of the child's mental and physical health.^[22] (See also Mormonism and culture/Wayward family members)

There are several problems with the assertion that LDS families in Utah reject and expelled LGBT children from their homes:

1) Rates of homelessness among gay youth in Utah are similar to those found in other areas of the US. The high incidence is not limited to states with large LDS communities.

2) A national survey of LGBT youth in America found that youth in Utah actually enjoy better support from adults and family members than national averages. However, the youth reported more problems with peers and larger social structures and the media focused on these negative statistics. So far, the media have ignored the positive numbers on family support.

3) A causal connection between homelessness among gay youth and the LDS Church has never been substantiated with data. It remains merely an assertion and an expression of prejudice.

4) Church leaders and scriptures explicitly teach that children have claim on their parents for support. In addition to this responsibility, parents and other family members are instructed to extend unconditional love regardless of individual behaviors.

While reports of homelessness among gay youth are sad and startling, they aren’t out of line with other data collected in other US states

Statistics on sexual orientation among homeless youth in Utah are typically derived from a survey given to youth ages 15 to 22 who access services for the homeless in Utah. It’s a written survey administered by Volunteers of America Utah. VOAU regularly surveys homeless youth using their facilities, inquiring about many factors including sexual orientation, the reasons for homelessness, and family background. In news items from 2012, a VOAU vice-president is quoted saying a recent survey revealed 42% of homeless youth using VOAU services self-identified as LGBT.^[23]

While reports of homelessness among gay youth collected by VOAU are sad and startling, they aren’t out of line with other data collected in other US states.

The percentage of homeless youth throughout all of the US who self-identify as LGBT moves between 20 and 40 percent.^[24] Most of the time, Utah posts rates of homeless gay youth at around one third, in the middle of the national range.^[25] The finding of 42% is a high point. All gay youth, not just those in states with large LDS populations, experience homelessness at rates disproportionate to the rest of the population. Nationwide, the problem has been called “an epidemic.” ^[26] This doesn’t diminish the tragedy of the Utah figures but it does strengthen the notion that the Utah findings are typical of American society and are not aberrations arising from subcultures like the LDS Church.

In 2008, the homeless rate for LGBT youth in Utah rose above the national average

In 2008, the homeless rate for LGBT youth in Utah rose above the national average. When questioned about the 2008 numbers, one manager of a program for homeless youth suggested it might have resulted from a change in the way youth were asked about their sexuality. Instead of asking them to identify themselves as straight, gay, lesbian, or transgendered, respondents were allowed to choose “other than heterosexual.” ^[27] It’s an option respondents might have been more comfortable with since many of them feel they’re still forming their identities and resist narrower definitions.

Family Support for LGBT Youth in Utah

In 2012, the Washington D.C. based Human Rights Campaign released the partial results of an online survey of LGBT youth from across America. The survey recruited respondents through online social media and at places described as “LGBT youth centers.” ^[28] 10,030 LGBT youth between the ages of 13 and 17 responded and their data were compared to those of 510 “straight” youth who were already members of online panels used in market research. HRC acknowledges issues with sampling place limitations on the survey data. The report on the survey explains, “Traditional measures of margin of error do not apply and the results here may not be representative of this population as a whole.” ^[29]

Setting aside concerns with the methodology, the survey does yield some interesting results. When the survey first appeared in the media, emphasis was placed on differences between national averages and averages of youth in Utah. Most repeated were figures showing Utah youth were more likely to be verbally harassed and feel like they didn’t “fit in” in their communities.

However, the media seem to have ignored data showing LGBT youth in Utah were better connected to support from adults and family members than national averages.

Utah youth replied that they were “happy” 38% of the time while the national number, though close, is slightly lower at 37%.

When asked if they had “no adult to turn to” 29% of LGBT youth nationwide agreed while only 24% of Utah youth agreed. In Utah, LGBT youth are more likely to have an adult they can rely on involved in their lives.

LGBT youth inside Utah and across the country reported being “out” to immediate family at similar level with Utah youth being slightly more open at 58% instead of the national average of 56%. However, Utah youth were more open with their extended families. 34% of Utah youth were “out” with their extended families while on the national level only 25% of youth were “out” with their extended families.

When asked if they had an adult they could go to when worried or sad, 59% of Utah youth said “yes.” That’s far more than the 49% of youth across the country who report having access to this kind of emotional support from adults.

It’s possible that these supportive adults could be social workers or other non-family members. However, two factors point away from this possibility. The first is that Utah youths report greater than average feelings of animosity between themselves and the local and state governments that would be funding and supporting social agencies. The second factor is that, when asked if their families were “not accepting” of their LGBT identity, youth in Utah were less likely (29%) to say they were not accepted than their peers in the rest of the US (33%).^[30]

Utah youth tend to feel more accepted in their families than other LGBT American youth

According to the HRC survey data, Utah youth tend to feel more accepted in their families than other LGBT American youth, not less. This finding runs counter to the assumption that LDS homes are more prone to break off ties with non-heterosexual children.

The results of the HRC survey depict Utah as a state where LGBT youth tend to feel more comfortable and connected to adults in general and to their families in particular than other LGBT American youth. Whether reported in the media or not, the data can speak for themselves to defy critics’ assertions and prejudices.

Failing to report on areas where Utah performs better in caring for LGBT youth than the nation as a whole is not the only foul committed by media outlets. They have also mistakenly reported a direct connection between being LGBT and being homeless because of being "kicked out" by intolerant parents. Either due to ignorance or perhaps for more cunning reasons, media covering the story have made statements claiming the 42% of homeless youth in Utah who are LGBT "report experiencing family rejection and being kicked out of their homes." ^[31] This is simply wrong. The 42% figure refers only to the proportion of homeless youth who self-identify as LGBT. It says nothing about the reasons why this 42% are homeless. The youths' reasons for leaving home are as complex and varied as they are. Apart from not being borne out by any data, the idea that such a perfect correlation could exist between any two social factors (including factors like being LGBT and being kicked out of one's home) is highly unlikely.

Nothing yet released in any of the data collected definitively links LDS affiliation with homelessness in LGBT youth

Nothing yet released in any of the data collected by VOAU or HRC definitively links LDS affiliation with homelessness in LGBT youth. When asked about the causes of homelessness in LGBT youth, a VOAU vice-president told the Salt Lake Tribune the reasons for homelessness were mixed. He named economic factors (especially since the recession began), lapses in foster care, and abuse as well as irreconcilable differences between parents and children about sexual orientation.^[32]

Even when sexual orientation was the most commanding issue, it is sometimes the children, not the parents who insist on the separation that makes the child homeless.

And, as always, there are other faith groups in Utah besides the LDS Church. They also have children who identify as LGBT. In the Salt Lake Tribune’s coverage of the story in June 2012, the young woman interviewed about her experience of being kicked out of her home due to her sexual orientation was from a religious background that was not LDS.^[33] It’s just one anecdotal shred of evidence but it does reveal a problem with the assumption that all homeless LGBT youth in Utah are being victimized by the LDS Church.

Should the case arise where an LDS parent did force a child to leave home because of that child's sexuality, the teachings of the Church are quick to denounce the parent's behavior

Should the case arise where an LDS parent did force a child to leave home because of that child's sexuality, the teachings of the Church are quick to denounce the parent's behavior. LDS scripture makes clear that parents have a duty to care for their children regardless of the circumstances. D&C 83꞉4 reads:

All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age.

Luke 17:2 reads:

It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

In 1992, the Church issued a statement to Church leaders saying:

If a person with homosexual problems chooses not to change, family members may have difficulty maintaining feelings of love and acceptance toward the person. Encourage them to continue loving the person and hoping that he or she may repent.^[34]

In 1995, The Family: A Proclamation to the World taught:

Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations... Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.^[35]

In 2007, Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman had an interview in which they were asked what they would do if they had a child who decided to be in a same-sex relationship. Elder Oaks responded:

It seems to me that a Latter-day Saint parent has a responsibility in love and gentleness to affirm the teaching of the Lord through His prophets that the course of action he is about to embark upon is sinful. While affirming our continued love for him, and affirming that the family continues to have its arms open to him, I think it would be well to review with him something like the following, which is a statement of the First Presidency in 1991: “The Lord’s law of moral conduct is abstinence outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife, appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual conduct, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior is sinful. Those who persist in such practices or influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.
My first responsibility as a father is to make sure that he understands that, and then to say to him, “My son, if you choose to deliberately engage in this kind of behavior, you’re still my son. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is powerful enough to reach out and cleanse you if you are repentant and give up your sinful behavior, but I urge you not to embark on that path because repentance is not easy. You’re embarking on a course of action that will weaken you in your ability to repent. It will cloud your perceptions of what is important in life. Finally, it may drag you down so far that you can’t come back. Don’t go that way. But if you choose to go that way, we will always try to help you and get you back on the path of growth...
Surely if we are counseled as a body of Church membership to reach out with love and understanding to those ‘struggling with these issues,’ that obligation rests with particular intensity on parents who have children struggling with these issues... even children who are engaged in sinful behavior associated with these issues.^[36]

In the same interview, Elder Wickman responded:

With all, it needs to be done in the spirit of love and welcoming that, as Elder Oaks mentioned, ‘You’re always my son.’ There’s an old maxim which is really true for every parent and that is, ‘You haven’t failed until you quit trying.’ I think that means both in terms of taking appropriate opportunities to teach one’s children the right way, but at all times making sure they know that over all things you’ll love them...
That is to say we continue to open our homes and our hearts and our arms to our children, but that need not be with approval of their lifestyle. Neither does it mean we need to be constantly telling them that their lifestyle is inappropriate.^[37]

Families with members with same-sex attractions, including those in same-sex relationships, are strengthened through living the principles of love and respect taught by Jesus Christ. The sister of a woman (Leigh) who is involved in a sexual relationship with another woman wrote an "Ensign" article in which she describes how the Church has helped her with her relationship with her sister:

I know the best thing I can do to have a close relationship with my sister is to have a close relationship with Heavenly Father and His Son. Leigh recently commented that it has been through the way our family has loved her that she has felt what she understood to be God’s love." ^[38]

While we are taught to love and treat everyone with kindness, the Church puts particular weight on the way we treat our family members, including those who are attracted to the same sex. In order to enter into the temple, a member must first answer this question:

Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?

If there is anything that is not in harmony with the teachings, they are not worthy to hold a temple recommend.

Further citations which illustrate these same principles include:

Elder Quentin L. Cook in 2009:

It is equally important that we be loving and kind to members of our own faith, regardless of their level of commitment or activity. The Savior has made it clear that we are not to judge each other. This is especially true of members of our own families. Our obligation is to love and teach and never give up. The Lord has made salvation “free for all men” but has “commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance.” ^[39]

Question: Since the Church teaches that homosexual conduct is sinful, does this mean it opposes efforts to protect those who engage in homosexual acts?

The Church has not opposed measures which grant all the civil or secular benefits of marriage to other domestic partnerships

The Church sees the institution of marriage in religious terms. Theologically, the Church cannot accede to a redefinition of marriage.^[40] The Church has not, however, opposed measures which grant all the civil or secular benefits of marriage to other domestic partnerships (see California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5). As the Church indicated during its opposition to the redefinition of marriage in California:

The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.^[41]

The Church sustains the principle that all citizens are equal before the law

The Church sustains the principle that all citizens are equal before the law. Members of the Church are particularly sensitized to this issue because of their long history of persecution at the hands of private citizens and government agents in the nineteenth century. Even though Church members may disagree with the choices made by those who engage in homosexual acts, the Church has endorsed various measures to ensure fair treatment for them and others with same-sex attractions.

For example, Michael Otterson (managing director of the Church Public Affairs department) addressed the Salt Lake City Council meeting on 10 November 2009 and said:

The nondiscrimination ordinances being reviewed by the city council concern important questions for the people of this community.
Like most of America, our community in Salt Lake City is comprised of citizens of different faiths and values, different races and cultures, different political views and divergent demographics. Across America and around the world, diverse communities such as ours are wrestling with complex social and moral questions. People often feel strongly about such issues. Sometimes they feel so strongly that the ways in which they relate to one another seem to strain the fabric of our society, especially where the interests of one group seem to collide with the interests of another.
The issues before you tonight are the right of people to have a roof over their heads and the right to work without being discriminated against. But, importantly, the ordinances also attempt to balance vital issues of religious freedom. In essence, the Church agrees with the approach which Mayor Becker is taking on this matter.
In drafting these ordinances, the city has granted common-sense rights that should be available to everyone, while safeguarding the crucial rights of religious organizations, for example, in their hiring of people whose lives are in harmony with their tenets, or when providing housing for their university students and others that preserve religious requirements.
The Church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage. They are also entirely consistent with the Church’s prior position on these matters. The Church remains unequivocally committed to defending the bedrock foundation of marriage between a man and a woman.
I represent a church that believes in human dignity, in treating others with respect even when we disagree – in fact, especially when we disagree. The Church’s past statements are on the public record for all to see. In these comments and in our actions, we try to follow what Jesus Christ taught. Our language will always be respectful and acknowledge those who differ, but will also be clear on matters that we feel are of great consequence to our society. Thank you.^[42]

See also: Bullying and unkindness

Question: What are some of the unique challenges or difficulties faced by Mormons with same-sex attraction?

A theology that, without question, favors heterosexual relationships over homosexual relationships

Latter-day Saints have long believed that men and women were designed to be together in marriage. The Lord told Joseph Smith in 1831 (D&C 49:15-17) that

15 And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.

16 Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation;

17 And that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made.

Thus, for Latter-day Saints, gender is binary, men and women were designed to be together sexually and maritally, and this design was given to us by God in the pre-existence.

Joseph Smith further revealed (D&C 131:1-2) that

1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; 2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

Those who don’t enter into marriage according to the Lord’s way, “neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory. For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.”^[43]

Church leaders have encouraged members to be particularly kind and compassionate to those struggling with SSA

Elder Bruce C. Hafen in 2009:

During a recent stake conference in Europe, I asked the stake president if Sister Hafen and I might visit one or two of his stake members who could use a little encouragement. As we visited one young man, a single returned missionary, we found that he cared deeply about the Church but was also very troubled. When we asked how he was doing, he began to cry and, with a look of real anguish he said, “I suffer from same-gender attraction.” My heart went out to him. The longer we talked, the more compassion I felt, as I learned that the operative word for him really was “suffer.”^[44]

Question: Do Mormons believe that same-sex attraction will persist in the next life?

Multiple LDS leaders have taught that same-sex attraction and homosexual desire will not persist beyond death

Examples of such teachings include those listed below.

A 2007 official Church publication on same-sex attraction reassured readers that:

While many Latter-day Saints, through individual effort, the exercise of faith, and reliance upon the enabling power of the Atonement, overcome same-gender attraction in mortality, others may not be free of this challenge in this life. However, the perfect plan of our Father in Heaven makes provision for individuals who seek to keep His commandments but who, through no fault of their own, do not have an eternal marriage in mortal life. 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.
Same-gender attractions include deep emotional, social, and physical feelings. All of Heavenly Father’s children desire to love and be loved, including many adults who, for a variety of reasons, remain single. God assures His children, including those currently attracted to persons of the same gender, that their righteous desires will eventually be fully satisfied in God’s own way and according to His timing. ^[45]

The Church's official website quoted Elders Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman telling Church Public Affairs:

ELDER WICKMAN: One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, “Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?”
Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.
The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is this: 1) It is that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season. 2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me. Every blessing — including eternal marriage — is and will be mine in due course.
ELDER OAKS: Let me just add a thought to that. 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. ^[46]

In a 2007 PBS special, Elder Holland said about same-sex attraction:

I do know that this will not be a post-mortal condition. It will not be a post-mortal difficulty. ^[47]

In 2009, the Church's official website published Elder Bruce C. Hafen's remarks. He taught:

If you are faithful, on resurrection morning—and maybe even before then—you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex. Some of you may wonder if that doctrine is too good to be true. But Elder Dallin H. Oaks has said it MUST be true, because “there is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband and wife, and posterity.” And “men (and women) are that they might have joy.” ^[48]

Question: Do Mormon leaders recommend marriage as "therapy" for those with same-sex attraction?

The prophets and general authorities have, in their written statements, long been clear that marriage is not to be seen as a "treatment" for same-sex attraction

It is claimed that Church leaders have advocated that those with same-sex attraction marry those of the opposite sex as part of the "therapy" for overcoming their same-sex desires or inclinations.

Like members of all faiths, all Latter-day Saints do not live up to their ideals and principles perfectly. Some members and leaders have doubtless encouraged some people with same-sex desires to marry someone before they were ready. Such a practice has been discouraged by statements by the Church's highest authorities.

As with all decisions relating to marriage, such matters are ultimately the responsibility of the parties involved.

1970s

President Kimball wrote a pamphlet entitled "Hope for Transgressors", in which he addressed leaders who were helping men who were involved in homosexual behavior. He said:

When you feel he is ready, he should be encouraged to date and move his life towards the normal. It is proper that a girl should be interested in a boy and a boy should be interested in a girl.

While marriage was mentioned as a possibility, it was not presented as a part of the repentance process or a cure. The idea of marriage was to be introduced only when the young man was ready, not as a means to be ready. There have been disastrous marriages that have resulted from people getting married before they were ready, but there are many marriages that have been very successful, especially those who have headed President Kimball's advice to wait until after you are ready before marriage.

1980s

In 1986, Elder Oaks had an interview with CBS. This was the discussion:

CBS: The Church has recommended in the past marriage as a part of repentance, when you're engaging in homosexual...
ELDER OAKS: I don't know whether that has been recommended by individual bishops or priesthood leaders counseling persons in individual circumstances. I just don't know that. Marriage is not usually thought of as an act of repentance.
CBS: As part of repentance from ...there have been several cases cited of when a homosexual who wants to remain within the fold and is fighting his feelings will go to a bishop or will go for counsel and what is recommended is that you repress those feelings and get married and have children and that will set you on a better path. Is that foreign to you? Does that sound...
ELDER OAKS: I don't know whether that has been recommended or not because the counseling sessions you refer to are very confidential counseling sessions and when the bishop comes out of that counseling session he doesn't report to anyone. When the person he's talking to comes out of that session they're free to talk to anyone and say anything without fear of contradiction. So I don't know. I just don't know what has been said in such sessions. ^[49]

In 1987, President Gordon B. Hinckley said:

The Lord has proclaimed that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and is intended to be an eternal relationship bonded by trust and fidelity. Latter-day Saints, of all people, should marry with this sacred objective in mind. Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices, which first should clearly be overcome with a firm and fixed determination never to slip to such practices again. ^[50]

1990s

In Understanding and Helping Those Who Have Homosexual Problems, the Church stated:

Marriage should not be viewed as a way to resolve homosexual problems. The lives of others should not be damaged by entering a marriage where such concerns exist. Encouraging members to cultivate heterosexual feelings as a way to resolve homosexual problems generally leads them to frustration and discouragement. However, some people have reported that once they are freed from homosexual problems, heterosexual feelings have gradually emerged. ^[51]

2006

Elder Oaks said:

We are sometimes asked about whether marriage is a remedy for these feelings that we have been talking about. President Hinckley, faced with the fact that apparently some had believed it to be a remedy, and perhaps that some Church leaders had even counseled marriage as the remedy for these feelings, made this statement: "Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices." To me that means that we are not going to stand still to put at risk daughters of God who would enter into such marriages under false pretenses or under a cloud unknown to them. Persons who have this kind of challenge that they cannot control could not enter marriage in good faith.
On the other hand, persons who have cleansed themselves of any transgression and who have shown their ability to deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background, and feel a great attraction for a daughter of God and therefore desire to enter marriage and have children and enjoy the blessings of eternity - that’s a situation when marriage would be appropriate. ^[52]

2007

Elder Holland said:

For various reasons, marriage and children are not immediately available to all. Perhaps no offer of marriage is forthcoming. Perhaps even after marriage there is an inability to have children. Or perhaps there is no present attraction to the opposite gender... Recognize that marriage is not an all-purpose solution. Same-gender attractions run deep, and trying to force a heterosexual relationship is not likely to change them. ^[53]

See also: Question: How do Mormons view the issue of heterosexual marriage for people with same-sex attraction?

Question: How do Mormons view the issue of heterosexual marriage for people with same-sex attraction?

The Church does not recommend marriage for everyone with same-sex attraction

The Church does not recommend marriage for everyone with same-sex attraction. They recommend being and open and honest before marriage, which correlates with scientific evidence for successful marriages. Even outside the church, people with same-sex attraction are marrying an opposites sex partner at rates higher then those who are committing to a same-sex partner.

The Church encourages all of its members to be open and honest with their spouse

The Church encourages all of its members to be open and honest with their spouse. (See Same-sex attraction/Honesty) In particular, they have discouraged members with same-sex attraction from using marriage as personal therapy or from lying in order to get married. However, they have said marriage can be appropriate in certain situations. Elder Oaks stated:

"We are sometimes asked about whether marriage is a remedy for these feelings that we have been talking about. President Hinckley, faced with the fact that apparently some had believed it to be a remedy, and perhaps that some Church leaders had even counseled marriage as the remedy for these feelings, made this statement: “Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices.” To me that means that we are not going to stand still to put at risk daughters of God who would enter into such marriages under false pretenses or under a cloud unknown to them. Persons who have this kind of challenge that they cannot control could not enter marriage in good faith. (See Same-sex attraction/Marriage as therapy)
On the other hand, persons who have cleansed themselves of any transgression and who have shown their ability to deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background, and feel a great attraction for a daughter of God and therefore desire to enter marriage and have children and enjoy the blessings of eternity — that’s a situation when marriage would be appropriate.
President Hinckley said that marriage is not a therapeutic step to solve problems."[2]

Some critics have argued that by creating a culture which allows people with same-sex attraction to enter a marriage with a member of the opposite sex, the Church sets up its members for failure and heart-ache.

Some people have never had an attraction to the opposite sex, but develop an attraction for their spouse

Some critics have claimed that it is impossible for a man with same-sex attraction to develop a "great attraction" for a daughter of God (or a woman with same-sex attraction to develop a great attraction for a son of God) and therefore marriage is impossible and the Church should stop talking about it.

We know from anecdotal evidence that many people with same-sex attractions have developed an attraction for their spouse. Some people have never had an attraction to the opposite sex, but develop an attraction for their spouse. Other people have always had some level of opposite-sex attraction. (The term same-sex attraction can be applied to anyone who is attracted to the same sex, regardless of intensity or presence of opposite-sex attractions.) Other people have done all they could and have never been able to develop an attraction for the opposite sex. There is a great variety of ways people experience their sexuality, but regardless of the attractions a person experiences now or in the future, everyone can live the gospel, either through marriage or celibacy. To say no one with same-sex attraction can develop an attraction for a potential spouse denies the experience of many people. It would be just as naive as saying everyone with same-sex attraction can develop an attraction for a potential spouse.

Marriages where one spouse is attracted to the same sex are more prone to divorce and dissatisfaction

Marriages where one spouse is attracted to the same sex are more prone to divorce and dissatisfaction. The Church does not recommend marriage in all cases. For example, the Church recommends being open and honest with a spouse before marriage. Research by Buxton found that if a man with same-sex attraction were to enter a marriage without disclosing their attractions, the marriage had a 85% chance of failure within three years after the sexual attractions were discovered.

Most often, the couple choose not to stay together after the disclosure. However, for those who did try to make their marriages work, they found relatively high success rates after being open and honest. The study concluded:

“The significant finding is that about half of those who tried to make their marriages work succeeded, an important figure for couples who are dismayed by the fifteen percent figure to keep in mind. This low figure is based on all marriages where the husband came out.”[3]

On the other hand, research by Kays found that open and honest communication lead to higher rates of stability and satisfaction in marriage. They found that some of the couples "report having a highly satisfying and stable relationship, similar to that of heterosexual marriages."[4]

Prevalence of marriages

According to the Straight Spouse Network, there are two million opposite-sex marriages in the United States where one of the spouses is attracted to the same sex. According to The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States, 3.5% of men married to women and 2.1% of women married to men reported same-sex attraction. Those are people who are actually married. Compare that with US Census Bureau's estimate that there are 646,464 same-sex couples in the United States. This includes both those who consider themselves married and those who do not. While marriage may not work for everyone with same-sex attraction, it seems that even in modern America, more people with same-sex attraction choose committed relationships with people of the opposite sex than with those of the same sex.

It is important to note that these figures include everyone who self-reported having same-sex attraction. It does not include those who did not self report same-sex attraction, nor did it report the degree of same-sex attraction. Same-sex attraction includes both those who only attracted to the same sex as well as those who have attraction to both sexes.

This section is a chronology of statements from primary and secondary sources. Sources may be viewed by following the citation links.

Question: What have past and present Mormon leaders taught about why some people are attracted to the same sex?

The Church does not have an official position on the causes for same-sex attraction

Many Church leaders have indicated that we do not know the cause(s), and that this is a question for science. This is not to be confused with teachings on the practice of homosexuality, which focuses on behavior rather than attractions. Most teachings directed at homosexuality deal with homosexual behavior rather than homosexual attraction. (See Definitions.) For example, some claim President Kimball taught masturbation causes same-sex attraction, when in fact he taught it caused the practice of homosexuality, not same-sex attractions in general. (See Origin/Masturbation).

Many leaders have also indicated that discerning a cause for this (or any other) temptation is, in a sense, immaterial—given that one has such a temptation, what ought one to do about it? Below are collected a variety of quotes; most deal with same-sex attraction specifically, while a few speak in more general terms about weakness, frailties, or other mortal afflictions and could equally be applied to opposite-sex attractions.

1980

President Spencer W. Kimball

The unholy transgression of homosexuality is either rapidly growing or tolerance is giving it wider publicity. If one has such desires and tendencies, he overcomes them the same as if he had the urge toward petting or fornication or adultery. The Lord condemns and forbids this practice with a vigor equal to his condemnation of adultery and other such sex acts. And the Church will excommunicate as readily any unrepentant addict....
Temptations come to all people. The difference between the reprobate and the worthy person is generally that one yielded and the other resisted. It is true that one’s background may make the decision and accomplishment easier or more difficult, but if one is mentally alert, he can still control his future. That is the gospel message—personal responsibility. ^[54]

1987

Boyd K. Packer

Obedience is powerful spiritual medicine. It comes close to being a cure-all…. Some frustrations we must endure without really solving the problem. Some things that ought to be put in order are not put in order because we cannot control them. Things we cannot solve, we must survive. ^[55]

1988

Dallin H. Oaks

Most of us are born with [or develop] thorns in the flesh, some more visible, some more serious than others. We all seem to have susceptibilities to one disorder or another, but whatever our susceptibilities, we have the will and the power to control our thoughts and our actions. This must be so. God has said that he holds us accountable for what we do and what we think, so our thoughts and actions must be controllable by our agency. Once we have reached the age or condition of accountability, the claim ‘I was born that way’ does not excuse actions or thoughts that fail to conform to the commandments of God. We need to learn how to live so that a weakness that is mortal will not prevent us from achieving the goal that is eternal.
God has promised that he will consecrate our afflictions for our gain (see 2 Nephi 2꞉2). The efforts we expend in overcoming any inherited [or developed] weakness build a spiritual strength that will serve us throughout eternity. Thus, when Paul prayed thrice that his ‘thorn in the flesh’ would depart from him, the Lord replied, ‘My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.’ Obedient, Paul concluded:
‘Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
‘Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong’ (2 Corinthians 12:9–10).
Whatever our susceptibilities or tendencies [feelings], they cannot subject us to eternal consequences unless we exercise our free agency to do or think the things forbidden by the commandments of God. For example, a susceptibility to alcoholism impairs its victim’s freedom to partake without addiction, but his free agency allows him to abstain and thus escape the physical debilitation of alcohol and the spiritual deterioration of addiction.
… Beware the argument that because a person has strong drives toward a particular act, he has no power of choice and therefore no responsibility for his actions. This contention runs counter to the most fundamental premises of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Satan would like us to believe that we are not responsible in this life. That is the result he tried to achieve by his contest in the pre-existence. A person who insists that he is not responsible for the exercise of his free agency because he was ‘born that way’ is trying to ignore the outcome of the War in Heaven. We are responsible, and if we argue otherwise, our efforts become part of the propaganda effort of the Adversary.
Individual responsibility is a law of life. It applies in the law of man and the law of God. Society holds people responsible to control their impulses so we can live in a civilized society. God holds his children responsible to control their impulses in order that they can keep his commandments and realize their eternal destiny. The law does not excuse the short-tempered man who surrenders to his impulse to pull a trigger on his tormentor, or the greedy man who surrenders to his impulse to steal, or the pedophile who surrenders to his impulse to satisfy his sexual urges with children. …
There is much we do not know about the extent of freedom we have in view of the various thorns in the flesh that afflict us in mortality. But this much we do know; we all have our free agency and God holds us accountable for the way we use it in thought and deed. That is fundamental. ^[56]

1990

Boyd K. Packer

All of us are subject to feelings and impulses. Some are worthy and some of them are not; some of them are natural and some of them are not. We are to control them, meaning we are to direct them according to the moral law….
We receive letters pleading for help, asking why should some be tormented by desires which lead toward addiction or perversion. They seek desperately for some logical explanation as to why they should have a compelling attraction, even a predisposition, toward things that are destructive and forbidden.
Why, they ask, does this happen to me? It is not fair! They suppose that it is not fair that others are not afflicted with the same temptations. They write that their bishop could not answer the “why,” nor could he nullify their addiction or erase the tendency.
We are sometimes told that leaders in the Church do not really understand these problems. Perhaps we don’t. There are many “whys” for which we just do not have simple answers. But we do understand temptation, each of us, from personal experience. Nobody is free from temptations of one kind or another. That is the test of life. That is part of our mortal probation. Temptation of some kind goes with the territory....
It is not likely that a bishop can tell you what causes these conditions or why you are afflicted, nor can he erase the temptation. But he can tell you what is right and what is wrong. If you know right from wrong, you have a place to begin. That is the point at which individual choice becomes operative. That is the point at which repentance and forgiveness can exert great spiritual power…. ^[57]

1993

Boyd K. Packer

Doctrines teach us how to respond to the compelling natural impulses which too often dominate how we behave…. After the Fall, natural law had far-reaching sovereignty over mortal birth. There are what President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., called “pranks” of nature, which cause a variety of abnormalities, deficiencies, and deformities. However unfair they seem to man’s way of reasoning, they somehow suit the purposes of the Lord in the proving of mankind…. ^[58]

1994

Richard G. Scott

It is important to understand that His healing can mean being cured, or having your burdens eased, or even coming to realize that it is worth it to endure to the end patiently, for God needs brave sons and daughters who are willing to be polished when in His wisdom that is His will.
Recognize that some challenges in life will not be resolved here on earth. Paul pled thrice that “a thorn in the flesh” be removed. The Lord simply answered, “My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.”2 He gave Paul strength to compensate so he could live a most meaningful life. He wants you to learn how to be cured when that is His will and how to obtain strength to live with your challenge when He intends it to be an instrument for growth. In either case the Redeemer will support you.
That is why He said, “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; … For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light….
Don’t say, “No one understands me; I can’t sort it out, or get the help I need.” Those comments are self-defeating. No one can help you without faith and effort on your part.9 Your personal growth requires that. Don’t look for a life virtually free from discomfort, pain, pressure, challenge, or grief, for those are the tools a loving Father uses to stimulate our personal growth and understanding. As the scriptures repeatedly affirm, you will be helped as you exercise faith in Jesus Christ. That faith is demonstrated by a willingness to trust His promises given through His prophets11 and in His scriptures, which contain His own words. ^[59]

1995

Dallin H. Oaks

Feelings are another matter. Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn. Others are traceable to mortal experiences. Still other feelings seem to be acquired from a complex interaction of “nature and nurture.” All of us have some feelings we did not choose, but the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us that we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed) and to assure that they do not lead us to entertain inappropriate thoughts or to engage in sinful behavior.
Different persons have different physical characteristics and different susceptibilities to the various physical and emotional pressures we may encounter in our childhood and adult environments. We did not choose these personal susceptibilities either, but we do choose and will be accountable for the attitudes, priorities, behavior, and “lifestyle” we engraft upon them.
Essential to our doctrinal position on these matters is the difference between our freedom and our agency. Our freedom can be limited by various conditions of mortality, but God’s gift of agency cannot be limited by outside forces, because it is the basis for our accountability to him. The contrast between freedom and agency can be illustrated in the context of a hypothetical progression from feelings to thoughts to behavior to addiction. This progression can be seen on a variety of matters, such as gambling and the use of tobacco and alcohol.
Just as some people have different feelings than others, some people seem to be unusually susceptible to particular actions, reactions, or addictions. Perhaps such susceptibilities are inborn or acquired without personal choice or fault, like the unnamed ailment the Apostle Paul called “a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure” (2 Corinthians 12:7). One person may have feelings that draw him toward gambling, but unlike those who only dabble, he becomes a compulsive gambler. Another person may have a taste for tobacco and a susceptibility to its addiction. Still another may have an unusual attraction to alcohol and the vulnerability to be readily propelled into alcoholism. Other examples may include a hot temper, a contentious manner, a covetous attitude, and so on.
In each case (and in other examples that could be given) the feelings or other characteristics that increase susceptibility to certain behavior may have some relationship to inheritance. But the relationship is probably very complex. The inherited element may be nothing more than an increased likelihood that an individual will acquire certain feelings if he or she encounters particular influences during the developmental years. But regardless of our different susceptibilities or vulnerabilities, which represent only variations on our mortal freedom (in mortality we are only “free according to the flesh” [2 Nephi 2꞉27]), we remain responsible for the exercise of our agency in the thoughts we entertain and the behavior we choose. ^[60]

Richard G. Scott

It is so hard when sincere prayer about something we desire very much is not answered the way we want. It is especially difficult when the Lord answers no to that which is worthy and would give us great joy and happiness. Whether it be overcoming illness or loneliness, recovery of a wayward child, coping with a handicap, or seeking continuing life for a dear one who is slipping away, it seems so reasonable and so consistent with our happiness to have a favorable answer. It is hard to understand why our exercise of deep and sincere faith from an obedient life does not bring the desired result….
When you face adversity, you can be led to ask many questions. Some serve a useful purpose; others do not. To ask, Why does this have to happen to me? Why do I have to suffer this, now? What have I done to cause this? will lead you into blind alleys. It really does no good to ask questions that reflect opposition to the will of God. Rather ask, What am I to do? What am I to learn from this experience? What am I to change? Whom am I to help? How can I remember my many blessings in times of trial? Willing sacrifice of deeply held personal desires in favor of the will of God is very hard to do. Yet, when you pray with real conviction, “Please let me know Thy will” and “May Thy will be done,” you are in the strongest position to receive the maximum help from your loving Father.
This life is an experience in profound trust—trust in Jesus Christ, trust in His teachings, trust in our capacity as led by the Holy Spirit to obey those teachings for happiness now and for a purposeful, supremely happy eternal existence. To trust means to obey willingly without knowing the end from the beginning (see Proverbs 3:5–7). To produce fruit, your trust in the Lord must be more powerful and enduring than your confidence in your own personal feelings and experience….
How grateful I am personally that our Savior taught we should conclude our most urgent, deeply felt prayers, when we ask for that which is of utmost importance to us, with “Thy will be done” (Matthew 26:42). Your willingness to accept the will of the Father will not change what in His wisdom He has chosen to do. However, it will certainly change the effect of those decisions on you personally. That evidence of the proper exercise of agency allows His decisions to produce far greater blessings in your life. I have found that because of our Father’s desire for us to grow, He may give us gentle, almost imperceptible promptings that, if we are willing to accept without complaint, He will enlarge to become a very clear indication of His will. This enlightenment comes because of our faith and our willingness to do what He asks even though we would desire something else….
Please learn that as you wrestle with a challenge and feel sadness because of it, you can simultaneously have peace and rejoicing. Yes, pain, disappointment, frustration, and anguish can be temporary scenes played out on the stage of life. Behind them there can be a background of peace and the positive assurance that a loving Father will keep His promises. You can qualify for those promises by a determination to accept His will, by understanding the plan of happiness, by receiving all of the ordinances, and by keeping the covenants made to assure their fulfillment. ^[61]

1996

Richard G. Scott

You are here on earth for a divine purpose. It is not to be endlessly entertained or to be constantly in full pursuit of pleasure. You are here to be tried, to prove yourself so that you can receive the additional blessings God has for you. The tempering effect of patience is required. Some blessings will be delivered here in this life; others will come beyond the veil. The Lord is intent on your personal growth and development. That progress is accelerated when you willingly allow Him to lead you through every growth experience you encounter, whether initially it be to your individual liking or not. When you trust in the Lord, when you are willing to let your heart and your mind be centered in His will, when you ask to be led by the Spirit to do His will, you are assured of the greatest happiness along the way and the most fulfilling attainment from this mortal experience. If you question everything you are asked to do, or dig in your heels at every unpleasant challenge, you make it harder for the Lord to bless you….
Find the compensatory blessings in your life when, in the wisdom of the Lord, He deprives you of something you very much want. To the sightless or hearing impaired, He sharpens the other senses. To the ill, He gives patience, understanding, and increased appreciation for others’ kindness. With the loss of a dear one, He deepens the bonds of love, enriches memories, and kindles hope in a future reunion. You will discover compensatory blessings when you willingly accept the will of the Lord and exercise faith in Him. ^[62]

Neal A. Maxwell

Of course our genes, circumstances, and environments matter very much, and they shape us significantly. Yet there remains an inner zone in which we are sovereign, unless we abdicate. In this zone lies the essence of our individuality and our personal accountability….
...we become the victims of our own wrong desires. Moreover, we live in an age when many simply refuse to feel responsible for themselves. Thus, a crystal-clear understanding of the doctrines pertaining to desire is so vital because of the spreading effluent oozing out of so many unjustified excuses by so many….
Some seek to brush aside conscience, refusing to hear its voice. But that deflection is, in itself, an act of choice, because we so desired. Even when the light of Christ flickers only faintly in the darkness, it flickers nevertheless. If one averts his gaze therefrom, it is because he so desires….
What we are speaking about is so much more than merely deflecting temptations for which we somehow do not feel responsible. Remember, brothers and sisters, it is our own desires which determine the sizing and the attractiveness of various temptations. We set our thermostats as to temptations. ^[63]

1999

Henry B. Eyring

A second truth about our accountability is to know that we are not the helpless victims of our circumstances. The world tries to tell us that the opposite is true: imperfections in our parents or our faulty genetic inheritance are presented to us as absolving us of personal responsibility. But difficult as circumstances may be, they do not relieve us of accountability for our actions or our inactions. Nephi was right. God gives no commandments to the children of men save He prepares a way for them to obey. However difficult our circumstances, we can repent.
Similarly, the world might be willing to excuse our bad behavior because those around us behave badly. It is not true that the behavior of others removes our responsibility for our own. God’s standards for our behavior are unchanged whether or not others choose to rise to them…. ^[64]

2000

Neal A. Maxwell

Yet there are other fixed limitations in life. For instance, some have allotments including physical, mental, or geographic constraints. There are those who are unmarried, through no fault of their own, or yearning but childless couples. Still others face persistent and unreconciled relationships within their circles of loved ones, including offspring who have “[become] for themselves,” resistant to parental counsel (3 Nephi 1꞉29). In such and similar situations, there are so many prickly and daily reminders.
Being content means acceptance without self-pity. Meekly borne, however, deprivations such as these can end up being like excavations that make room for greatly enlarged souls.
Some undergo searing developments that cut suddenly into mortality’s status quo. Some have trials to pass through, while still others have allotments they are to live with. Paul lived with his “thorn in the flesh” (2 Corinthians 12:7).

Suffice it to say, such mortal allotments will be changed in the world to come. The exception is unrepented sin that shapes our status in the next world. ^[65]

2006

Dallin H. Oaks

A man wrote a General Authority about how the power of the Atonement helped him with his problem of same-gender attraction. He had been excommunicated for serious transgressions that violated his temple covenants and his responsibilities to his children. He had to choose whether to attempt to live the gospel or whether to continue a course contrary to its teachings.

“I knew it would be difficult,” he wrote, “but I didn’t realize what I would have to go through.” His letter describes the emptiness and loneliness and the incredible pain he experienced from deep within his soul as he sought to return. He prayed mightily for forgiveness, sometimes for hours at a time. He was sustained by reading the scriptures, by the companionship of a loving bishop, and by priesthood blessings. But what finally made the difference was the help of the Savior. He explained:
“It [was] only through Him and His Atonement. … I now feel an overwhelming gratitude. My pains have been almost more than I could bear at times, and yet they were so small compared to what He suffered. Where there once was darkness in my life, there is now love and gratitude.”
He continues: “Some profess that change is possible and therapy is the only answer. They are very learned on the subject and have so much to offer those who struggle … , but I worry that they forget to involve Heavenly Father in the process. If change is to happen, it will happen according to the will of God. I also worry that many people focus on the causes of [same-gender attraction]. … There is no need to determine why I have [this challenge]. I don’t know if I was born with it, or if environmental factors contributed to it. The fact of the matter is that I have this struggle in my life and what I do with it from this point forward is what matters” (letter dated Mar. 25, 2006). ^[66]

Discussion with Church Public Affairs by Elders Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: You’re saying the Church doesn’t necessarily have a position on ‘nurture or nature’
ELDER OAKS: That’s where our doctrine comes into play. The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.
ELDER WICKMAN: Whether it is nature or nurture really begs the important question, and a preoccupation with nature or nurture can, it seems to me, lead someone astray from the principles that Elder Oaks has been describing here. Why somebody has a same-gender attraction… who can say? But what matters is the fact that we know we can control how we behave, and it is behavior which is important. ^[67]

2007

Church booklet produced in 2007 notes

Despair is another adverse influence. It often results from a lack of understanding and trust in God’s continuing love as made available through the power of the Atonement. You can find hope in the fact that every blessing contemplated by Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness remains available for each of His children. Despair and doubt may lead to withdrawal, fault-finding, and impatience that all answers and resolutions for life’s problems are not immediately forthcoming. The Spirit of God brings good cheer and happiness. Trust the Lord. Do not blame anyone—not yourself, not your parents, not God—for problems not fully understood in this life. ^[68]

Jeffrey R. Holland

If you are a parent of one with same-gender attraction, don’t assume you are the reason for those feelings. No one, including the one struggling, should try to shoulder blame. Nor should anyone place blame on another-including God.
I too affirm that God loves all His children and acknowledge that many questions, including some related to same-gender attraction, must await a future answer, perhaps in the next life. Unfortunately, some people believe they have all the answers now and declare their opinions far and wide. Fortunately, such people do not speak for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. ^[69]

Question: Do Mormons believe that same-sex attraction is "inborn" or "genetic"?

The Church does not have a stance on the causes of same-sex attraction

The Church does not have a stance on the causes of same-sex attraction. Whether it is genetic, environmental, or some combination of the two does not affect Church doctrine. Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman discussed this in an interview with public affairs:

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: You’re saying the Church doesn’t necessarily have a position on ‘nurture or nature’
ELDER OAKS: That’s where our doctrine comes into play. The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.
ELDER WICKMAN: Whether it is nature or nurture really begs the important question, and a preoccupation with nature or nurture can, it seems to me, lead someone astray from the principles that Elder Oaks has been describing here. Why somebody has a same-gender attraction… who can say? But what matters is the fact that we know we can control how we behave, and it is behavior which is important.^[70]

There has been a lot of contradictory research that has been done to determine the origins of same-sex attraction, but there has not been anything conclusive ever shown. The American Psychological Association has stated:

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.^[71]

Further research will hopefully shed more light on the subject, but whatever reason science gives for same-sex attraction, it does not affect Church doctrine.

What if same-sex attraction is genetic

Let us suppose that it was shown that same-sex attraction is genetic. Would this be a doctrinal problem for the Law of Chastity? Even if same-sex attraction were perfectly natural, the Church still teaches we should overcome the natural man. Elder Oaks gives the following explanation:

Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn. Others are traceable to mortal experiences. Still other feelings seem to be acquired from a complex interaction of “nature and nurture.” All of us have some feelings we did not choose, but the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us that we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed) and to assure that they do not lead us to entertain inappropriate thoughts or to engage in sinful behavior.
Different persons have different physical characteristics and different susceptibilities to the various physical and emotional pressures we may encounter in our childhood and adult environments. We did not choose these personal susceptibilities either, but we do choose and will be accountable for the attitudes, priorities, behavior, and “lifestyle” we engraft upon them.
Essential to our doctrinal position on these matters is the difference between our freedom and our agency. Our freedom can be limited by various conditions of mortality, but God’s gift of agency cannot be limited by outside forces, because it is the basis for our accountability to him. The contrast between freedom and agency can be illustrated in the context of a hypothetical progression from feelings to thoughts to behavior to addiction. This progression can be seen on a variety of matters, such as gambling and the use of tobacco and alcohol.
Just as some people have different feelings than others, some people seem to be unusually susceptible to particular actions, reactions, or addictions. Perhaps such susceptibilities are inborn or acquired without personal choice or fault, like the unnamed ailment the Apostle Paul called “a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure” (2 Cor. 12:7). One person may have feelings that draw him toward gambling, but unlike those who only dabble, he becomes a compulsive gambler. Another person may have a taste for tobacco and a susceptibility to its addiction. Still another may have an unusual attraction to alcohol and the vulnerability to be readily propelled into alcoholism. Other examples may include a hot temper, a contentious manner, a covetous attitude, and so on.
In each case (and in other examples that could be given) the feelings or other characteristics that increase susceptibility to certain behavior may have some relationship to inheritance. But the relationship is probably very complex. The inherited element may be nothing more than an increased likelihood that an individual will acquire certain feelings if he or she encounters particular influences during the developmental years. But regardless of our different susceptibilities or vulnerabilities, which represent only variations on our mortal freedom (in mortality we are only “free according to the flesh” [2 Ne. 2:27]), we remain responsible for the exercise of our agency in the thoughts we entertain and the behavior we choose.
Whatever our susceptibilities or tendencies [feelings], they cannot subject us to eternal consequences unless we exercise our free agency to do or think the things forbidden by the commandments of God. For example, a susceptibility to alcoholism impairs its victim’s freedom to partake without addiction, but his free agency allows him to abstain and thus escape the physical debilitation of alcohol and the spiritual deterioration of addiction.
Beware the argument that because a person has strong drives toward a particular act, he has no power of choice and therefore no responsibility for his actions. This contention runs counter to the most fundamental premises of the gospel of Jesus Christ.^[72]

Many people believe opposite-sex attraction is natural, yet the church still puts restrictions on practicing heterosexuality outside of marriage. Elder Packer spoke of a husband who expressed his heterosexuality by viewing pornography. Elder Packer explains why this expression of heterosexuality can be overcome:

Pornography will always repel the Spirit of Christ and will interrupt the communications between our Heavenly Father and His children and disrupt the tender relationship between husband and wife.
The priesthood holds consummate power. It can protect you from the plague of pornography—and it is a plague—if you are succumbing to its influence. If one is obedient, the priesthood can show how to break a habit and even erase an addiction. Holders of the priesthood have that authority and should employ it to combat evil influences.
We raise an alarm and warn members of the Church to wake up and understand what is going on. Parents, be alert, ever watchful that this wickedness might threaten your family circle.
We teach a standard of moral conduct that will protect us from Satan’s many substitutes or counterfeits for marriage. We must understand that any persuasion to enter into any relationship that is not in harmony with the principles of the gospel must be wrong. From the Book of Mormon we learn that “wickedness never was happiness.” 13
Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father.^[73]

Just as expressing heterosexuality outside of marriage can be overcome, the same is true for expressing homosexuality.

Understanding explanations of homosexuality

To learn more: Terminology: Definition of "homosexuality," "homosexual" and "gay"

In the past, when leaders have spoken about homosexuality or homosexual orientation, they may not have been referring to same-sex attraction. Elder Oaks has stated:

"The First Presidency's letters condemning homosexuality are, by their explicit terms, directed at the practices of homosexuality."

When President Kimball spoke on homosexuality, he often clarified that he was talking about the "sexual act" and said that those attractions would never go away. This usage is consistent with modern definitions. One of the definitions in the modern dictionary of homosexuality is:

Sexual activity with another of the same sex.

Sexual orientation is likewise ambiguous. One of the definitions offered by the American Psychological Association is:

A person's sense of identity based on [sexual] attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions.

Both homosexuality and sexual orientation include a definition accepted by medical communities that is based on chosen behaviors. This is different than same-sex attraction.

There are some members of the church who have taught that the church endorses a particular theory as to the causes of same-sex attraction. Those who do this are misguided. In speaking about the causes of same-sex attraction, Elder Holland said:

Unfortunately, some people believe they have all the answers now and declare their opinions far and wide. Fortunately, such people do not speak for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.^[74]

Question: Is there an "epidemic" of suicide among gay Mormons?

The Church recognizes that both being a member of the church and having same-sex attraction is a difficult circumstance

Critics charge that:

suicide rates are higher for those with same-sex attraction
Church doctrine and teaching causes these higher suicide rates
there is an "epidemic" of suicide among gay Mormons

The Church recognizes that both being a member of the church and having same-sex attraction is a difficult circumstance. There are many instances where such members have heard more emphasis on the doctrine teaching that homosexual behavior is wrong and less emphasis on the doctrine that simply feeling same-sex attraction is only a temptation like many others and that feeling temptation is not a reason to feel guilt, shame, or alienation. There are also instances where family and friends of those with same-sex attraction have unkindly contributed to distress and depression. These things happen despite the church's deliberate work to teach the opposite.

The existence of such events does not prove a link between the church's teaching and suicide

However, the existence of such events does not prove a link between the church's teaching and suicide, especially considering the church's efforts to put in place exactly the factors that have been shown to prevent suicide. If critics are truly worried that church members with same-sex attraction are susceptible to suicide, they should focus on the church's statements of inclusion and compassion, of reaching out with love to all, of open communication and strong family bonds, and of the doctrine that those who suffer temptation need feel no shame or guilt and that those who have violated the standards set by the church are still loved and welcomed. This would help those at risk more, presumably, than does harping on the fictional "hatred" felt by the church toward those with same-sex attraction.

Many critics want most for the church to abandon its stance that homosexual relationships are incompatible with eternal principles of morality. This unsubstantiated and sensationalistic slander--that suicides are the church's fault--will not produce that result.

This is an extremely sensitive topic, and anything said here is not meant to be unkind to the families and friends of those who have been lost to suicide

This is an extremely sensitive topic, and anything said here is not meant to be unkind to the families and friends of those who have been lost to suicide. FairMormon's mission is to defend the church from incorrect accusations, even when that means contradicting those who, quite understandably, wish to comprehend and to change whatever factors led to the suicide of a loved one.

Based on the statistical evidence available, which is probably not as extensive as it will some day be, it may be correct to say that suicide rates are higher for those with same-sex attraction, but the results vary widely among studies.

It is, however, an unsupported leap to say that LDS doctrine, or even religious influence in general, makes suicide more likely for a person with same-sex attraction.

Some factors have been experimentally shown to reduce the likelihood of suicide in teens and young adults, including access to medical and mental health care, conflict resolution skills, lack of access to lethal means, strong ties to family, family acceptance of sexual/gender identity, school and community support, positive role models, and religious or cultural beliefs that discourage suicide. [5]

Of these factors, only the last is explicitly connected to religion, and the LDS religion very definitely counsels against suicide. [6]

Despite the lack of evidence, critics accuse that the church, by teaching the doctrine that homosexual acts are always sinful and that only heterosexual marriage is valid, drives members of the church who have same-sex attraction to depression and suicide. Often, when this accusation is refuted by supporters of the church, they are then accused of not caring about the suffering and lives lost, and of contributing to the climate that drove the person to suicide. Again, FAIR has no wish to cause or increase pain, but it is necessary to point out that the correlation between religious doctrine and suicide, though often assumed by critics, is simply not proven.

In fact, the church clearly provides and teaches that its members should provide several of the above-listed factors which decrease the risk of suicide. The below quotes are only a small sample of the available statements in each category.

LDS church encouragement to seek medical and mental health treatment

"The Church finds situations when the trained (mental health professional) is called in for assistance. There is a proper place for these professionally trained specialists. The Church has an organization for this purpose. It is called LDS Social Services. There are also other faithful Latter-day Saints who are in public or private practice and who can be called upon as a bishop feels the need."[7]

LDS church encouragement to develop conflict resolution skills

“Each of us is an individual. Each of us is different. There must be respect for those differences...We must work harder to build mutual respect, an attitude of forbearance, with tolerance one for another regardless of the doctrines and philosophies which we may espouse. Concerning these you and I may disagree. But we can do so with respect and civility.” (Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley [1997], 661, 665).

LDS church encouragement to develop and maintain strong family ties

Main article: Mormonism_and_gender_issues/Same-sex_attraction/Family_members

1999: "Keep in mind that this is the same person you have always known: a child of God. Be grateful that this individual is willing to share his or her burden with you...Let it be understood that you value him or her and that this difficult journey will not have to be traveled alone."[8]
2007: "I’d begin by recognizing the courage that brought your son, daughter, sibling, or friend to you. I’d recognize the trust that person has extended. Discussing the issue with someone of trust is a healthy first step to dealing with confusing feelings, and it is imperative that these first steps be met with compassion. Above all, keep your lines of communication open. Open communication between parents and children is a clear expression of love, and pure love, generously expressed, can transform family

ties."[9]

LDS church counsel regarding others' behavior toward members with same-sex attraction

Main article: Mormonism_and_gender_issues/Same-sex_attraction/Bullying_and_unkindness

1974: "To “persecute” homosexuals would be wrong, just as it would be wrong for us to persecute anyone. We must try to understand why they have chosen this way of life."[10]
1991 Letter from the First Presidency: "We encourage Church leaders and members to reach out with love and understanding to those struggling with these issues."[11]
1995: "We should reach out lovingly to those who are struggling to resist temptation...[Letters from those with same-sex attraction expressing feelings of isolation and non-acceptance] surely show the need for improvement in our communications with brothers and sisters who are struggling with problems—all types of problems. Each member of Christ’s church has a clear-cut doctrinal responsibility to show forth love and to extend help and understanding."[12]
1998: "We love them as sons and daughters of God...We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties."[13]
2004: "Equal to my fears of going to the bishop were my feelings of unworthiness to be at church with people who were living good lives and had not indulged in the sins I had committed. I was sure the first Sunday I returned to church that everyone would see right into my soul and know what I was guilty of and the feelings I was struggling with. Instead, my anxieties were put to rest when members of the ward welcomed me back with loving fellowship."[14]
2007: "You are a son or daughter of God, and our hearts reach out to you in warmth and affection. Notwithstanding your present same-gender attractions, you can be happy during this life, lead a morally clean life, perform meaningful service in the Church, enjoy full fellowship with your fellow Saints, and ultimately receive all the blessings of eternal life." [15]

Question: Why do Mormons typically refer to homosexual/gay/lesbian issues with such terms as "same-sex attraction"?

LDS doctrine emphasizes that people are not the sum of their desires, temptations, or sins

Why do Mormons typically refer to homosexual/gay/lesbian issues with such terms as "same-sex attraction" and heterosexual/straight issues with such terms as "opposite-sex attraction"?

LDS doctrine emphasizes that people are not the sum of their desires, temptations, or sins. Secular evidence suggests that those who self-identify with their desires in this way are more likely to engage in acts which the gospel of Christ teaches are sinful.

Our choice of terminology should not be construed to deny others the privilege of choosing their own acts or self-labels

Our choice of terminology should not be construed to deny others the privilege of choosing their own acts or self-labels. When labels such as "homosexual," or "heterosexual", and labels such as "gay," "lesbian," or "straight" are used by Mormons, this terminology should be understood to:

reflect the self-understanding of those referred to; or
serve as an adjective (e.g., "gay activists" are those working politically on behalf of those who self-identify as gay or "heterosexual marriage" is a marriage between two people of the opposite sex regardless of sexual orientation).

The language used to describe people or phenomena can influence how we perceive or think about such matters.

LDS doctrine teaches that "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." ^[75] Marriage between a husband and wife, and sealing into eternal family units is the foundation of heaven in LDS theology, and Church leaders have repeatedly taught that no child of God will bear the burden of erotic desire for the opposite sex after death.

Main article: Does attraction to the same sex persist beyond death?

Attraction to members of the same sex, like heterosexual temptation, is not a sin. Sin only occurs when we encourage or seek out such attraction outside of marriage, or act upon it.

<onlyinclude> According to the American Psychological Association: "Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors." ^[76]

Having same-sex attractions, participating in same-sex relationships, and identifying as gay or lesbian are three separate things. A study by the Social Organization of Sexuality found that 60% of men and 68% of women who were attracted to the same gender have never engaged in homosexual behavior. This number differs from those who identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual. For them, only 13% of men and 4% of women have never engaged in homosexual behavior. ^[77] This lead the researchers to conclude that sexual identity (i.e., how people label and conceive of themselves) was a stronger indicator of sexual behavior than sexual orientation (i.e., the feelings or inclinations which people have). </blockquote>

Our true identity

Elder Dallin H. Oaks noted a natural human tendency to use a single facet of our personality or experience as a large part of a self-definition:

I think it is an accurate statement to say that some people consider feelings of same-gender attraction to be the defining fact of their existence. There are also people who consider the defining fact of their existence that they are from Texas or that they were in the United States Marines. Or they are red-headed, or they are the best basketball player that ever played for such-and-such a high school. People can adopt a characteristic as the defining example of their existence and often those characteristics are physical.
We have the agency to choose which characteristics will define us; those choices are not thrust upon us.
The ultimate defining fact for all of us is that we are children of Heavenly Parents, born on this earth for a purpose, and born with a divine destiny. Whenever any of those other notions, whatever they may be, gets in the way of that ultimate defining fact, then it is destructive and it leads us down the wrong path. ^[78]

Some use a self-identity as "homosexual" to imply or argue that acting on homosexual desires is an inevitable or proper outcome, since it is simply "who I am." The Church teaches, rather, that our temptations, unhealthy desires, or sins do not define who we are as children of God.

Question: Are Mormon with same-sex attraction encouraged to be closeted or lie about their attractions?

Honesty, inclusion, and fellowship are core values to the Church

It is claimed that:

Members are encouraged to lie about their sexual orientation
This encourages dishonesty
This isolates them from other members

Honesty, inclusion, and fellowship are core values to the Church. No where is there counsel to hide, lie or isolate yourself from others. Members do not have to make their sexual feelings the subject of unnecessary attention in order to be honest with themselves and with others.

Member with same-sex attractions are not encouraged to lie or hide their sexual attractions or to isolate themselves from others

Member with same-sex attractions are not encouraged to lie or hide their sexual attractions or to isolate themselves from others. All members are encouraged to avoid labels and not to identify themselves primarily by their sexual feelings. ^[79]

However, there is a difference between not identifying yourself primarily by your sexual feelings, and being "closeted". A person can be honest, share their feelings with others and be comfortable with who they are, including their sexuality, while still realizing that they are first and foremost a child of God.

Counsel is always given within a context. Taking individual counsel out of context of other counsel is bound to lead to a misinterpretation of that counsel. It also helpful to look at which counsel is given the most emphasis, prominence and repetition.

Are members encouraged to be closeted about their sexual feelings?

Throughout LDS scriptures, members are given a commandment to be one. D&C 38:27 reads:

I say unto you, be one; and if you are not one ye are not mine.

Isolating yourself interfers with the process of being one.

President Monson taught:

It is important that we eliminate the weakness of one standing alone and substitute for it the strength of people working together. ^[80]

Elder Robert D. Hales taught:

Why is it that some of us fail to learn the very critical point that we did not come to this life to live it alone? You can’t hide your actions from self and others. Polonius’ advice to his son, Laertes:

This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man. Hamlet, I, iii, 78–80

is valid, but must be qualified and expanded to include the concern for how to be true to yourself and your fellowman. The “isolated self” shut off from the Light of Christ makes us become fallible—open to delusion. The balance and perspective which come from caring about others and allowing others to care for us form the essence of life itself. ^[81]

Not only are members counseled to care for others, but to allow others to care for them. Part of being one is mourning with those that mourn, and comforting those that stand in need of comfort.(Mosiah 18:8) This applies equally to those who have struggled with their sexual attractions, regardless of the orientation. Elder Oaks teaches:

All should understand that persons (and their family members) struggling with the burden of same-sex attraction are in special need of the love and encouragement that is a clear responsibility of Church members, who have signified by covenant their willingness “to bear one another’s burdens”

Isolating yourself from others and carrying your burdens by yourself intefers with these other commandments. Not only are members allowed to disclose their sexual feelings to others, they are encouraged to share their feelings with the Bishop if they find these feelings to be a struggle.

Are members encouraged to lie about their sexual feelings?

The counsel not to give sexual feelings undue attention is very different than lying about it or completely ignoring it. There has never been any counsel given to members that they should pretend to lust after a group of people that they are not actually lusting after. There is a difference between being prudent in disclosing sensitive topics, such as struggling with lust for either gender, and being dishonest.

Honesty with others and with oneself has always been taught and encouraged in the church. In D&C 97:8, the Lord says the only ones that are acceptable before Him are those who are honest in heart. The 13th Article of Faith teaches that we believe in being honest and true. President Monson taught:

The oft-repeated adage is ever true: “Honesty [is] the best policy.” A Latter-day Saint young man lives as he teaches and as he believes. He is honest with others. He is honest with himself. He is honest with God. He is honest by habit and as a matter of course. ^[82]

Question: In Mormonism, what are the ramifications from denying a gay identity?

No harm has been demonstrated in not having a homosexual orientation identity

Critics of Mormonism argue that in order to be happy and healthy, a person with same-sex attraction needs to identify as gay and have a same-sex relationship.

No harm has been demonstrated in not having a homosexual orientation identity, and in some cases, it may even prove beneficial. There are, of course, many questions about homosexuality that have not been studied scientifically, but Latter-day Saints nevertheless can be sure about the wisdom of following the example and teaching of the Lord's chosen servants. Not only can members with same-sex attraction be content rejecting a gay identity, but they can gain greater clarity about things and find great joy in preparing themselves for all of the eternal blessings the Lord promises them through His Gospel.

The church encourages members to view themselves as sons and daughters of God

The church encourages members to view themselves as sons and daughters of God, and discourages any identity that interferes with that identity. Members who refer to themselves as straight, gay or lesbian are free to go on as all other members, but are advised not to identify themselves primarily by their sexual feelings.

See also: LGBT identity

Taking on a sexual identity, whether gay or straight, has not been shown to have any benefit over those who choose not to assume a sexual identity. Most of the people with same-sex attractions who have not had a homosexual experience also do not identity as gay.^[83] Critics argue that it is not healthy for homosexual people to reject a gay identity or suppress their homosexual attractions. They argue that the only way to be well-adjusted is to come out as a gay person. Many faithful members of the church as well as other Christians have found peace and joy in rejecting a gay identity. Others have incorporated a gay identity into a lifestyle of celibacy or heterosexual marriage.

Because of the massive opposition to people who want to reject a gay identity, a task force set up by the APA investigated the matter. They found that there is no clear harm in denying a gay identity. They found that for some people, a religious identity was stronger than their sexual identity, and instructed counselors not to preclude the goal of celibacy, but to help clients determine their own goals in therapy, and that together with support groups, the therapy can change a client's sexual orientation identity. Dr. Glassgold, the leader of the taskforce, summarized the findings by saying that there has been little research about the long-term effects of rejecting a gay identity, but there is "no clear evidence of harm" and "some people seem to be content with that path."^[84]

Due to the results of this study, the task force recommended sexual orientation identity exploration for clients with unwanted same-sex attractions. Psychologists are recommended to help clients explore which sexual orientation identity best suits their needs and values. It is then recommended that psychologists help clients transition to their new identity. They list as possible new sexual orientation identities for people with same-sex attractions as:

Heterosexual
LGBT
Disidentify from LGBT (such as ex-gay)
No specific sexual orientation identity^[85]

A person could assume any of these identities and still be a member of the Church in good standing. None of these identities have been found to cause any harm.

Effects of adopting a gay identity

While there is no evidence that the failure to adopt a gay identity is harmful for people with same-sex attractions, there is evidence that adopting a gay identity may lead to undesired results for some people.

There is a strong correlation between identifying as gay or lesbian and having gay sex. This is an important part for members who want to follow the law of chastity. A study by the Social Organization of Sexuality found that 60% of men and 68% of women who were attracted to the same gender have never engaged in homosexual behavior. This number differs from those who identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual. For them, only 13% of men and 4% of women have never engaged in homosexual behavior.^[86] This lead the researchers to conclude that sexual identity (i.e., how people label and conceive of themselves) was a stronger indicator of sexual behavior than sexual orientation (i.e., the feelings or inclinations which people have).

Dr. Gary Remafedi, the director of the Youth and AIDS Projects at the University of Minnesota, did a study on people with same-sex attraction. He found that those who adopted a gay or bisexual identity at an earlier age were more likely to attempt suicide than those that did not.^[87]It is not clear why this is the case. Another study on Norwegian adolescents found that when sexual attraction, identity and behavior were factored together, only homosexual behavior was predictive of suicide.^[88] It may be that those who adopt a gay identity at a younger age are more likely for suicide simply because they are more likely to have gay sex, and not because of their sexual identity in and of itself. Another possible explanation may be because of increased exposure to bullying and intimidation of people who identify as gay, which bullying the Church strongly opposes. Whatever the reason, it seems that youth with same-sex attractions who do not adopt a gay identity may be less prone to suicide.

Research by Schneider found that for some married me with same-sex attraction, a strong homosexual identity was associated with difficulties in marital satisfaction.^[89] Other research by Yarhouse found that the sexual identity of a spouse with same-sex attraction was an important resilient factor in helping marriages succeed.^[90]

Research seems to indicate that adopting a gay identity may have a negative impact on youth and married men.

Question: What have Mormon leaders taught about the distinction between desires, feelings, or inclinations, and sexual acts?

Those who claim that the Church has long condemned those who had homosexual feelings or inclinations regardless of whether they acted upon such feelings have not accurately reflected the long-standing teaching of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles on this matter

What have past and present Church leaders taught about the distinction (if any) between sexual temptations, desires, feelings, or inclinations, and sexual acts?

Those who claim that the Church has long condemned those who had homosexual feelings or inclinations regardless of whether they acted upon such feelings have not accurately reflected the long-standing teaching of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles on this matter. Recent teaching of this doctrine is not a novelty, but merely an emphasis of that which has been long taught.

We are held accountable for things that we can choose. We are not held accountable for things outside of our control

We are held accountable for things that we can choose. We are not held accountable for things outside of our control. This applies equally to sexual actions. Church leaders have always taught that we need to learn to control our sexual actions. Our sexual natures are sacred, and should only be shared between a husband and a wife. But this law is not limited to sexual acts, but includes sexual feelings. The church teaches members to "never do anything outside of marriage to arouse the powerful emotions that must be expressed only in marriage". It is the arousing of sexual feelings that is taught against, not the mere presence of sexual feelings. In all cases, counsel focuses on controllable actions, such as arousing sexual feelings, rather than uncontrollable things like the presence of sexual feelings. This standard applies equally regardless of the genders involved.

D&C

In a revelation given to William E. McLellin, the Lord reveals some of the feelings of McLellin:

Commit not adultery—a temptation with which thou hast been troubled. (D&C 66:10)

Even though he had been troubled with thoughts of adultery (there is no indication whether it was homosexual or heterosexual in nature) the Lord still gave the following praise:

Behold, thus saith the Lord unto my servant William E. McLellin—Blessed are you, inasmuch as you have turned away from your iniquities, and have received my truths, saith the Lord your Redeemer, the Savior of the world, even of as many as believe on my name. (D&C 10:1)

1980

President Spencer W. Kimball, in one of the first extensive treatments of this topic by a President of the Church regarding homosexual acts, was clear about the difference between the temptation and the act. That distinction has persisted in LDS discourse and teaching ever since:

The unholy transgression of homosexuality is either rapidly growing or tolerance is giving it wider publicity. If one has such desires and tendencies, he overcomes them the same as if he had the urge toward petting or fornication or adultery. The Lord condemns and forbids this practice with a vigor equal to his condemnation of adultery and other such sex acts. And the Church will excommunicate as readily any unrepentant addict.

We note that homosexuality is compared to acts such as petting, fornication, or adultery. Those who are excommunicated are those who are unrepentant persist as "addicts": i.e., those who persist in the practice.

Again, contrary to the belief and statement of many people, this sin, like fornication, is overcomable and forgivable, but again, only upon a deep and abiding repentance, which means total abandonment and complete transformation of thought and act. The fact that some governments and some churches and numerous corrupted individuals have tried to reduce such behavior from criminal offense to personal privilege does not change the nature nor the seriousness of the practice. Good men, wise men, God-fearing men everywhere still denounce the practice as being unworthy of sons and daughters of God; and Christ’s church denounces it and condemns it so long as men and women have bodies which Can be defiled.

Again, the "behavior," and "practice" are that which is condemned.

President Kimball continued:

James said: “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. … “Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.
“Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
“But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
“Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
“Do not err, my beloved brethren.” (James 1:8,12–16.)....

Again, one is tempted but it requires temptation and a response to it out of our own lust to "bring...forth sin."

“God made me that way,” some say, as they rationalize and excuse themselves for their perversions. “I can’t help it,” they add. This is blasphemy. Is man not made in the image of God, and does he think God to be “that way”? Man is responsible for his own sins. It is possible that he may rationalize and excuse himself until the groove is so deep he cannot get out without great difficulty, but this he can do. Temptations come to all people. The difference between the reprobate and the worthy person is generally that one yielded and the other resisted. It is true that one’s background may make the decision and accomplishment easier or more difficult, but if one is mentally alert, he can still control his future. That is the gospel message—personal responsibility.
And now, my dear brothers and sisters, I have spoken frankly and boldly against the sins of the day. Even though I dislike such a subject, I believe it necessary to warn the youth against the onslaught of the arch tempter who, with his army of emissaries and all the tools at his command, would destroy all the youth of Zion, largely through deception, misrepresentation, and lies.
“Be wise in the days of your probation,” said Mormon, “strip yourselves of all uncleanness; ask not, that ye may consume it on your lusts, but ask with a firmness unshaken, that ye will yield to no temptation, but that ye will serve the true and living God” (Moron 9꞉28).^[91]

President Kimball emphasizes that some may be more vulnerable or susceptible to this temptation, but emphasizes that one is only unworthy (or sinful) if he yields to temptation.

President Kimball had high hopes that people could overcome the practice of homosexuality, but warned that the feelings would remain and should be constantly kept in check. He said:

In a few months, some have totally mastered themselves... We realize that the cure is no more permanent than the individual makes it so and is like the cure for alcoholism subject to continued vigilance.

1987

President Gordon B. Hinckley:

Prophets of God have repeatedly taught through the ages that practices of homosexual relations, fornication, and adultery are grievous sins..... Mankind has been given agency to choose between right and wrong....Mental control must be stronger than physical appetites or desires of the flesh. As thoughts are brought into complete harmony with revealed truth, actions will then become appropriate.^[92]

1988

In 1988, Elder Dalin H. Oaks said:

Most of us are born with [or develop] thorns in the flesh, some more visible, some more serious than others. We all seem to have susceptibilities to one disorder or another, but whatever our susceptibilities, we have the will and the power to control our thoughts and our actions. This must be so. God has said that he holds us accountable for what we do and what we think, so our thoughts and actions must be controllable by our agency. Once we have reached the age or condition of accountability, the claim ‘I was born that way’ does not excuse actions or thoughts that fail to conform to the commandments of God. We need to learn how to live so that a weakness that is mortal will not prevent us from achieving the goal that is eternal.
God has promised that he will consecrate our afflictions for our gain (see 2 Nephi 2꞉2). The efforts we expend in overcoming any inherited [or developed] weakness build a spiritual strength that will serve us throughout eternity. Thus, when Paul prayed thrice that his ‘thorn in the flesh’ would depart from him, the Lord replied, ‘My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.’ Obedient, Paul concluded:

“ ‘Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
“ ‘Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong’ (2 Cor. 12:9–10).

Whatever our susceptibilities or tendencies [feelings], they cannot subject us to eternal consequences unless we exercise our free agency to do or think the things forbidden by the commandments of God. For example, a susceptibility to alcoholism impairs its victim’s freedom to partake without addiction, but his free agency allows him to abstain and thus escape the physical debilitation of alcohol and the spiritual deterioration of addiction.
… Beware the argument that because a person has strong drives toward a particular act, he has no power of choice and therefore no responsibility for his actions. This contention runs counter to the most fundamental premises of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Satan would like us to believe that we are not responsible in this life. That is the result he tried to achieve by his contest in the pre-existence. A person who insists that he is not responsible for the exercise of his free agency because he was ‘born that way’ is trying to ignore the outcome of the War in Heaven. We are responsible, and if we argue otherwise, our efforts become part of the propaganda effort of the Adversary.
Individual responsibility is a law of life. It applies in the law of man and the law of God. Society holds people responsible to control their impulses so we can live in a civilized society. God holds his children responsible to control their impulses in order that they can keep his commandments and realize their eternal destiny. The law does not excuse the short-tempered man who surrenders to his impulse to pull a trigger on his tormentor, or the greedy man who surrenders to his impulse to steal, or the pedophile who surrenders to his impulse to satisfy his sexual urges with children. …
There is much we do not know about the extent of freedom we have in view of the various thorns in the flesh that afflict us in mortality. But this much we do know; we all have our free agency and God holds us accountable for the way we use it in thought and deed. That is fundamental.”^[93]

1991

The First Presidency wrote in 1991:

There is a distinction between immoral thoughts and feelings and participating in either immoral heterosexual or any homosexual behavior.”^[94]

1994

Elder Richard G. Scott:

Some bad thoughts come by themselves. Others come because we invite them by what we look at and listen to…. The mind can think of only one thing at a time. Use that fact to crowd out ugly thoughts. Above all, don’t feed thoughts by reading or watching things that are wrong. If you don’t control your thoughts, Satan will keep tempting you until you eventually act them out (emphasis added).^[95]

1995

In 1995, Elder Oaks stated:

Applying the First Presidency’s distinction to the question of same-sex relationships, we should distinguish between (1) homosexual (or lesbian) “thoughts and feelings” (which should be resisted and redirected), and (2) “homosexual behavior” (which is a serious sin)....
Persons cannot continue to engage in serious sin and remain members of the Church. And discipline can be given for encouraging sin by others. There is no Church discipline for improper thoughts or feelings (though there is encouragement to improve them), but there are consequences for behavior....
[W]e should always distinguish between sinful acts and inappropriate feelings or potentially dangerous susceptibilities. We should reach out lovingly to those who are struggling to resist temptation. The First Presidency did this in their 14 November 1991 letter. After reaffirming the sinful nature of “fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior,” the Presidency added: “Individuals and their families desiring help with these matters should seek counsel from their bishop, branch president, stake or district president. We encourage Church leaders and members to reach out with love and understanding to those struggling with these issues. Many will respond to Christlike love and inspired counsel as they receive an invitation to come back and apply the atoning and healing power of the Savior.^[96]

Gordon B. Hinckley:

Our hearts reach out to those who struggle with feelings of affinity for the same gender. We remember you before the Lord, we sympathize with you, we regard you as our brothers and our sisters. However, we cannot condone immoral practices on your part any more than we can condone immoral practices on the part of others….^[97]

2000

In 2000, President Boyd K. Packer taught:

That may be a struggle from which you will not be free in this life. If you do not act on temptations, you need feel no guilt. They may be extremely difficult to resist. But that is better than to yield and bring disappointment and unhappiness to you and those who love you.^[98]

2003

In 2003, President Boyd K. Packer taught:

In the Church, one is not condemned for tendencies or temptations. One is held accountable for transgression. (See D&C 101꞉78; A+of+F 1꞉2.) If you do not act on unworthy persuasions, you will neither be condemned nor be subject to Church discipline.^[99]

2006

In 2006, Elder Dallin H. Oaks said:

The distinction between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the other hand, is very clear. It’s no sin to have inclinations that if yielded to would produce behavior that would be a transgression. The sin is in yielding to temptation. Temptation is not unique. Even the Savior was tempted.
The New Testament affirms that God has given us commandments that are difficult to keep. It is in 1 Corinthians chapter 10, verse 13: “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.”^[100]

2007

In October 2007, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland published an article in the Ensign, which read in part:

A pleasant young man in his early 20s sat across from me. He had an engaging smile, although he didn’t smile often during our talk. What drew me in was the pain in his eyes.
“I don’t know if I should remain a member of the Church,” he said. “I don’t think I’m worthy.”
“Why wouldn’t you be worthy?” I asked.
“I’m gay.”
I suppose he thought I would be startled. I wasn’t. “And … ?” I inquired.
A flicker of relief crossed his face as he sensed my continued interest. “I’m not attracted to women. I’m attracted to men. I’ve tried to ignore these feelings or change them, but …”
He sighed. “Why am I this way? The feelings are very real.”
I paused, then said, “I need a little more information before advising you. You see, same-gender attraction is not a sin, but acting on those feelings is—just as it would be with heterosexual feelings. Do you violate the law of chastity?”
He shook his head. “No, I don’t.”
This time I was relieved. “Thank you for wanting to deal with this,” I said. “It takes courage to talk about it, and I honor you for keeping yourself clean.
“As for why you feel as you do, I can’t answer that question. A number of factors may be involved, and they can be as different as people are different. Some things, including the cause of your feelings, we may never know in this life. But knowing why you feel as you do isn’t as important as knowing you have not transgressed. If your life is in harmony with the commandments, then you are worthy to serve in the Church, enjoy full fellowship with the members, attend the temple, and receive all the blessings of the Savior’s Atonement.”
He sat up a little straighter. I continued, “You serve yourself poorly when you identify yourself primarily by your sexual feelings. That isn’t your only characteristic, so don’t give it disproportionate attention. You are first and foremost a son of God, and He loves you.
“What’s more, I love you. My Brethren among the General Authorities love you. I’m reminded of a comment President Boyd K. Packer made in speaking to those with same-gender attraction. ‘We do not reject you,’ he said. ‘… We cannot reject you, for you are the sons and daughters of God. We will not reject you, because we love you.’ ”
We talked for another 30 minutes or so. Knowing I could not be a personal counselor to him, I directed him to his local priesthood leaders. Then we parted. I thought I detected a look of hope in his eyes that had not been there before. Although he yet faced challenges to work through—or simply endure—I had a feeling he would handle them well.^[101]
He went on to emphasize: "[L]et me make it clear that attractions alone, troublesome as they may be, do not make one unworthy....If you do not act on temptations, you have not transgressed."

In a Church booklet published in 2007, the Church taught:

Many people with same-gender attraction respect the sacredness of their bodies and the standards God has set—that sexuality be expressed “only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife” (“The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102). The lives of these individuals are pleasing to our Father in Heaven. Some, however, cross this boundary and indulge in immoral conduct. The desire for physical gratification does not authorize immorality by anyone....
An understanding of eternal truths is a powerful motivation for righteous behavior. You are best served by concentrating on the things you can presently understand and control, not wasting energy or enlarging frustration by worrying about that which God has not yet fully revealed. Focus on living the simple truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Same-gender inclinations may be very powerful, but through faith in the Atonement you can receive the power to resist all improper conduct, keeping your life free from sin (italics added).^[102]

2009

D. Todd Christopherson:

All of us experience temptations. So did the Savior, but He “gave no heed unto them” (D&C 20꞉22). Similarly, we do not have to yield simply because a temptation surfaces. We may want to, but we don’t have to. An incredulous female friend asked a young adult woman, committed to living the law of chastity, how it was possible that she had never “slept with anybody.” “Don’t you want to?” the friend asked. The young woman thought: “The question intrigued me, because it was so utterly beside the point. … Mere wanting is hardly a proper guide for moral conduct.”
In some cases, temptation may have the added force of potential or actual addiction. I am grateful that for an increasing number of people the Church can provide therapeutic help of various kinds to aid them in avoiding or coping with addictions. Even so, while therapy can support a person’s will, it cannot substitute for it. Always and ever, there must be an exercise of discipline—moral discipline founded on faith in God the Father and the Son and what They can achieve with us through the atoning grace of Jesus Christ. In Peter’s words, “The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations” (2 Peter 2:9).^[103]

Bruce C. Hafen:

You may not have consciously chosen to have same-gender attraction, but you are faithfully choosing to deal with it. Sometimes that attraction may make you feel sinful, even though the attraction alone is not a sin if you do not act on it. Sometimes you may feel frustration or anger or simply a deep sadness about yourself. But as hard as same-gender attraction is, your feeling that attraction does not mean that your nature is flawed. Whenever the adversary tries to convince you that you are hopelessly “that way,” so that acting out your feelings is inevitable, he is lying. He is the father of lies....
It’s true that the law of chastity forbids all sexual relations outside the bonds of a married heterosexual relationship. And while same-gender attraction is not a sin, you need to resist cultivating immoral, lustful thoughts toward those of either gender. It’s no sin if a bird lands in your tree, just don’t let him build a nest there....
...if you feel an attraction you didn’t seek and haven’t acted on, you have nothing to repent of.^[104]

2010

On 12 October 2010, Michael Otterson (head of Church Public Affairs) noted:

None of us is limited by our feelings or inclinations. Ultimately, we are free to act for ourselves.
The Church recognizes that those of its members who are attracted to others of the same sex experience deep emotional, social and physical feelings. The Church distinguishes between feelings or inclinations on the one hand and behavior on the other. It’s not a sin to have feelings, only in yielding to temptation.
There is no question that this is difficult, but Church leaders and members are available to help lift, support and encourage fellow members who wish to follow Church doctrine. Their struggle is our struggle.^[105]

The 2010 version of the Church's Handbook of Instructions notes:

Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance.
If members engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth.
While opposing homosexual behavior, the Church reaches out with understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender.
If members feel same-gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinances.^[106]

What does science have to say about this?

According to the American Psychological Association: "Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors."

Having same-sex attractions, participating in same-sex relationships, and identifying as gay or lesbian are three separate things. A study by the Social Organization of Sexuality found that 60% of men and 68% of women who were attracted to the same gender have never engaged in homosexual behavior. This number differs from those who identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual. For them, only 13% of men and 4% of women have never engaged in homosexual behavior.^[107] This lead the researchers to conclude that sexual identity (i.e., how people label and conceive of themselves) was a stronger indicator of sexual behavior than sexual orientation (i.e., the feelings or inclinations which people have).

Not only is there significant differences between a person's sexual orientation and behavior, but it changes over time. The study indicated that of the 4.9% of men and 4.1% of women who have ever had a homosexual experience since the age of 18, only 2.7% of men and 1.3% of women had one in the last year. Some people change their sexual behavior based on religious beliefs. Others reported that they were no longer attracted to the same sex. The American Psychiatric Association has stated "Some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime."^[108] The way this develops varies from person to person. A report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health states that, "For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time."

The Religions Dimension

Many people have testified that through the atonement of Christ, they no longer are attracted to people of the same gender. Others have also had faith in Christ, but still have same-sex attractions. Elder Holland taught: "Through the exercise of faith, individual effort, and reliance upon the power of the Atonement, some may overcome same-gender attraction in mortality and marry. Others, however, may never be free of same-gender attraction in this life."^[109]

Question: Do Mormon leaders teach that people with same-sex attraction should not associate with each other?

No. This is not true

Is it OK to be friends with people who have homosexual feelings? Is it true that the Church teaches people with same-sex attraction should not associate with each other?

It would be more difficult for anyone to live the law of chastity if they choose to focus their time with people who flaunt their tendencies to break the law of chastity. Friends should be carefully selected, and there are many people with same-sex attraction who lead constructive, righteous lives to choose from.

Many members with same-sex attraction associate with each other through Evergreen

Many members with same-sex attraction associate with each other through Evergreen. While the Church is not officially affiliated with Evergreen, it sends a general authority to its annual conference, and many bishops refer their members to Evergreen and attend themselves.

While we are not positive where this accusation comes from, it may be from this portion of the God Loveth His Children pamphlet.

In addition to filling your garden with positive influences, you must also avoid any influence that can harm your spirituality. One of these adverse influences is obsession with or concentration on same-gender thoughts and feelings. It is not helpful to flaunt homosexual tendencies or make them the subject of unnecessary observation or discussion. It is better to choose as friends those who do not publicly display their homosexual feelings. The careful selection of friends and mentors who lead constructive, righteous lives is one of the most important steps to being productive and virtuous. Association with those of the same gender is natural and desirable, so long as you set wise boundaries to avoid improper and unhealthy emotional dependency, which may eventually result in physical and sexual intimacy. There is moral risk in having so close a relationship with one friend of the same gender that it may lead to vices the Lord has condemned. Our most important relationships are with our own families because our ties to them can be eternal.

There are plenty of people with same-sex attraction to associate with who lead constructive, righteous lives and are not inappropriate in their sexual display. This isn't advice not to associate with anyone who has same-sex attraction. In fact it says associating with people who are righteous is important. In a similar fashion, it would not be wise to spend time with someone who is obsessed with or flaunts their tendency towards pornography or promiscuity, especially if you are struggling with those tendencies yourself. There is a difference between associating with people who have a common tendency and who are working on overcoming that tendency, and associating with people who indulge in that tendency. It is like the difference between a person trying to overcome their tendency towards drinking alcohol by going to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting versus a bar. In both places the person will associate with other people who have the tendency to drink alcohol, but in the first group, they are trying to overcome that tendency.

Another thing to keep in mind is that saying it is better to choose friends with similar standards does not mean you cannot ever associate with people who have different standards than you do. We often hear that we are in the world, but not of the world. Even if you have a family member, friend, or coworker who is inappropriate in their sexual display, that does not mean that you cannot ever associate with that person. There is a way to maintain your own integrity while interacting with people who have different standards.

Question: If same-sex attraction is something that occurs naturally, why can't God and the Church accept it by allowing sealings of LGBT couples?

Introduction to Question

Some have brought up the sensitive question of why gay marriage and other LGBT relationships can't be accepted by God and the Church if the characteristic is innate. Some struggle to find a purpose in the command to not engage in homosexual behavior. Some secularist critics and even members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who support same-sex marriage co-opt this issue as a means of openly and directly challenging the Church's opposition to same-sex relationships and marriages. This article examines that sensitive question/criticism.

It must be understood that some people are very sincere when asking these questions and that the questions deserve to be treated as such when sincerity is sensed. Others simply want to emotionally manipulate people into faith crisis over this issue. Great discernment is needed to know whether one is the former or latter in any given situation.

Response to Question

Feelings are Not Being

It is important to remember that just because something occurs naturally, that doesn't mean that it is therefore a good thing. This is what is known as the Is-Ought Fallacy in philosophy. There are plenty of things that occur naturally that we don't consider good such as depression, anxiety, and so forth. Many animals kill each other after mating.^[110]

Brigham Young University professor Ty Mansfield pointed out something important in regard to feelings not forming identity:

“Being gay” is not a scientific idea, but rather a cultural and philosophical one, addressing the subjective and largely existential phenomenon of identity. From a social constructionist/constructivist perspective, our sense of identity is something we negotiate with our environment. Environment can include biological environment, but our biology is still environment. From an LDS perspective, the essential spiritual person within us exists independent of our mortal biology, so our biology, our body is something that we relate to and negotiate our identity with, rather than something that inherently or essentially defines us. Also, while there has likely been homoerotic attraction, desire, behavior, and even relationships, among humans as long as there have been humans, the narratives through which sexuality is understood and incorporated into one’s sense of self and identity is subjective and culturally influenced. The “gay” person or personality didn’t exist prior to the mid-20th century.
In an LDS context, people often express concern about words that are used—whether they be “same-sex attraction,” which some feel denies the realities of the gay experience, or “gay,” “lesbian,” or “LGBT,” which some feels speaks more to specific lifestyle choices. What’s important to understand, however, is that identity isn’t just about the words we use but the paradigms and worldviews and perceptions of or beliefs about the “self” and “self-hood” through which we interpret and integrate our various experiences into a sense of personal identity, sexual or otherwise. And identity is highly fluid and subject to modification with change in personal values or socio-cultural context. The terms “gay,” “lesbian,” and “bisexual” aren’t uniformly understood or experienced in the same way by everyone who may use or adopt those terms, so it’s the way those terms or labels are incorporated into self-hood that accounts for identity. One person might identify as “gay” simply as shorthand for the mouthful “son or daughter of God who happens to experience romantic, sexual or other desire for persons of the same sex for causes unknown and for the short duration of mortality,” while another person experiences themselves as “gay” as a sort of eternal identity and state of being.
An important philosophical thread in the overall experience of identity, is the experience of “selfhood”—what it means to have a self, and what it means to “be true to” that self. The question of what it means to be “true to ourselves” is a philosophical rather than a scientific one. In her book Multiplicity: The New Science of Personality, Identity, and the Self, award-winning science and medical writer Rita Carter explores the plurality of “selves” who live in each one of us and how each of those varied and sometimes conflicting senses of self inform various aspects of our identity(ies). This sense seems to be universal. In the movie The Incredibles, there’s a scene in which IncrediBoy says to Mr. Incredible, “You always, always say, ‘Be true to yourself,’ but you never say which part of yourself to be true to!”^[111]

Thus, there is big difference between feelings and the meaning or labels that we assign to feelings. Thank goodness that feelings are not being. Couldn't we imagine a time where someone would want to change feelings that they didn't feel described their identity such as impulses for pornography, drugs, or violence? This does not mean that the author is comparing sexual orientation to bad impulses, this is simply to point out that feelings do not inherently control identity. We assign identity to feelings.

The Latter-day Saint Argument for Marriage

We should turn to Latter-day Saint scripture to figure out why the Church values marriage as much as it does and why is refuses to acknowledge same-gender sexual behavior and romantic relationships.

In 1831, Joseph Smith gave a revelation to the Shakers living in Ohio regarding some of their beliefs. As part of their religious system, they forbade people to marry and made them celibate. This revelation reissues the Lord's definition of marriage to the Shakers:

15 And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.

16 Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation;

17 And that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made.

This revelation makes several crucial points about the Latter-day Saint position on marriage:

Marriage is ordained of God
Marriage is defined as being between one man and woman
We were designed by God to be married this way.
Our design is not shown in the sexual orientation we have but our biological gender.
We were designed in the pre-mortal existence to be married man and woman.

We might ask why this marriage arrangement is the ideal one? We believe that it is because the Lord endorses the conjugal view of marriage. What is the conjugal view of marriage? Another website explains:

The conjugal view holds that marriage is a union between a man and a woman who share a domestic life oriented towards child-bearing and child-rearing. In other words, procreation (creating new human life) is the unifying good of a marriage relationship. A “unifying good” is that activity that most completely unites the partners in the relationship — the purpose towards which they coordinate their joint activities.

Let’s illustrate what this means: Consider a boyfriend and a girlfriend who share a deep emotional connection and enjoy spending time with each other. They have no particular plans for the future, and have made no commitments to each other. They may be united by many things, including mutual enjoyment, or whatever shared hobbies they pursue. Imagine that the girlfriend suddenly becomes pregnant. At that moment, their futures change completely — a whole host of duties suddenly arise that fundamentally changes their relationship.
They are now united by something more than just mutual enjoyment and emotional connection — they are united by an innocent human person, who physically embodies their union. While their relationship may still involve love and a deep emotional connection, raising the child becomes that thing that most completely unites them. This is what it means to say that child-raising is the unifying good of the relationship. They will probably consider getting married, because that is what marriage is about. In fact, if they don’t get officially married, but continue to live together and raise their kids together, many governments will still consider them married anyway (in what is called “common law marriage”).
The change that occurred in their relation strikes at the heart of marriage, from the conjugal view. Marriage is when a man and a woman say to each other, in essence, “Let us extend our emotional union into something more permanent, by starting a family together.” That is, a married couple arranges their lives and joins their families in anticipation of child-birth and child-raising. A pregnancy may be an unexpected interruption to a boyfriend and girlfriend, which fundamentally changes their relationship. However, as much as a child might change the lives of a married couple, she does not change the nature of their relationship. Marriage creates that difference from the get-go (before children are ever conceived), by enwrapping the relationship in norms (expectations) of permanence and fidelity. This is because marriage is oriented towards procreation. It points couples that direction.^[112]

There are some objections that people have raised to this that we address below.

Latter-day Saint scripture also provides some evidence that the union of man and woman creates the spirits people in the next life (D&C 132:63).

Objections to Church Standard

The Argument from Personal Revelation

There are often claims from members of the Church who identify as LGBTQAIP+ and other members of the Church who support same-sex marriage that they have received personal revelation that the Church is wrong about this issue and that it will eventually accept LGBT sealings, relationships, and so on in the future. Since this is a topic that involves the ontological makeup of the entire human family as well as their eternal destiny, this type of revelation does not lie within the stewardship of those that identify as LGBT or those that support same-sex marriage, but with the prophet of God (Doctrine and Covenants 28:2-4; 42:53-60; 112:20). The Savior told us that the one way we could protect ourselves against deception is to hold to his word (JS-Matthew 1:37) and he announces himself as the source of the revelation declaring that our telos as men and women is to be united maritally and sexually (Doctrine and Covenants 49:28). Thus, it is likely that these individuals, if they have indeed felt revelation occur, have been deceived by false Spirits (Doctrine and Covenants 50:1-2) and their testimonies should be disregarded. If someone were to receive a revelation like this, it would be given to them for their own comfort and instruction. They would also be placed under strict commandment to not disseminate their revelation until it accords with the revelation of the prophets, God's authorized priesthood channels (Alma 12:9).

Main article: Question: How does official teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints view those that receive revelation that contradicts that of the Prophet?

The Argument from Priesthood Restriction

As an additional means of justifying opposition to the Church's position on same sex marriage, some point to the pre-1978 restrictions on people of African descent from holding the Church's priesthood or officiating in temple ordinances, including the Church's disavowed explanations for the restrictions. If the Church was wrong about their explanations for that, could it be wrong about this issue? This has been examined in another article on the FairMormon wiki.

Main article: Question: Isn't the Mormon opposition to same-sex marriage hypocritical, considering that they used to ban black from holding the priesthood until 1978?

Conclusion

Many LGBT members of The Church of Jesus Christ do not need to hear the points listed in this article. Many understand these points clearly but may simply need someone to love and empathize with their struggle. Members of the Church are placed under covenant at baptism to mourn with those who mourn and comfort those who stand in need of comfort (Mosiah 18:8-9) and should be open to helping these good men and women when they need it most.

Alternatively, there may be some that begin to debate against the Church's position out of sincere frustration and sadness or simple spite. First, those who wish to help these individuals will need to dig deep and find out why these individuals are debating against the Church's position. Some may still need to simply have someone love them and empathize with them. Others may be past that and be debating, as mentioned, out of simple spite and emotional manipulation. In these instances, members of the Church should follow the other part of their baptismal covenant as outlined in Mosiah 18:8-9 and "stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in[.]"

As a final word which we wish to emphasize:

FairMormon joins The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in unequivocally condemning the discrimination of any of God's children based upon gender (or gender identity), race, sexual identity and/or orientation, and/or religious affiliation..

See also: Question: Since there are people that are born intersex, experience gender dysphoria, or identify as transgender, does this invalidate the Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") doctrine of eternal male and/or female gender?

Eternal fate of those unmarried?

Summary: In his article in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, James T. Duke explains the LDS doctrine on this subject: "People who live a worthy life but do not marry in the temples, for various reasons beyond their control, which might include not marrying, not having heard the gospel, or not having a temple available so that the marriage could be sealed for eternity, will at some time be given this opportunity. Latter-day Saints believe it is their privilege and duty to perform these sacred ordinances vicariously for deceased progenitors, and for others insofar as possible."

President Boyd K. Packer's October 2010 conference talk

Summary: On October 10, 2010, President Boyd K. Packer of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles spoke during the Church's semi-annual general conference. Portions of President Packer's talk caused a firestorm of protest and, often, misrepresentation. This article examines President Packer's address, and compares it to past talks given by President Packer. As will be seen, President Packer's address has been misunderstood and misrepresented.

- Critics' tactics—
  Brief Summary: Given that same-sex attraction is a charged issue with political overtones, it is not surprising that some sincerely misunderstood President Packer's talk. Just as there are those who could sincerely misunderstand President Packer's talk, there are those who choose, for whatever reason, to purposely misunderstand. (Click here for full article)
  ∗ ∗ ∗

Question: Isn't the Mormon opposition to same-sex marriage hypocritical, considering that they used to ban black from holding the priesthood until 1978?

The Law of Chastity is doctrine with scriptural precedent, whereas the priesthood ban was a practice that was always said to be temporary

President McKay taught:

There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro. We believe that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that's all there is to it. (Sterling M. McMurrin affidavit, March 6, 1979. See David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism by Greg Prince and William Robert Wright. Quoted by Genesis Group)[16]

The priesthood ban was not based on a choice

Just because a black man was denied the priesthood before 1978, does not mean he did anything wrong. It was a practice that was applied to all black men and had nothing to do with the choices of the individual person. Being black was not a choice that he made. Following the law of chastity is a choice. Everyone can follow the law of chastity, regardless of sexual orientation. If someone chooses to have sexual relationships outside of a heterosexual marriage, that is a worthiness issue and is a choice that they are making.

It was prophesied that the priesthood ban would be reversed

It was prophesied that the priesthood ban would be reversed, whereas we are told the law of chastity would always be in place.

For example, in reference to black people, Brigham Young taught:

"The time will come when they will have the privilege of all we have the privilege of and more."^[113]

The prohibition on homosexual behavior has repeatedly been declared as a never-changing standard.

President Hinckley taught:

Prophets of God have repeatedly taught through the ages that practices of homosexual relations, fornication, and adultery are grievous sins.^[114]

A cursory review of the historical record confirms his view:

1983

Likewise, make it clear to your students what the gospel cannot do. Once individuals or nations have departed from the prescribed path, their behavior may be legalized, but it cannot be and will not be legitimized by the Lord. For example, the gospel can cure, but it cannot condone, homosexuality. It can cure mortals from the need to pursue heedless abortion, but once they have left the straight and narrow path, it cannot guide them through the dark thicket of inconsistent alternatives which lie on either side of that path.^[115]

2012

Do not tamper with the life-giving powers in your body alone or with members of either gender. That is the standard of the Church, and it will not change. As you mature, there is a temptation to experiment or explore immoral activities.^[116]

2013

Marriage between a man and a woman is fundamental to the Lord’s doctrine and crucial to God’s eternal plan. Marriage between a man and a woman is God’s pattern for a fulness of life on earth and in heaven. God’s marriage pattern cannot be abused, misunderstood, or misconstrued. Not if you want true joy.....Regardless of what civil legislation may be enacted, the doctrine of the Lord regarding marriage and morality cannot be changed.^[117]

What we do know is that the doctrine of the Church—that sexual activity should only occur between a man and a woman who are married—has not changed and is not changing.^[118]

Outside the bonds of marriage between a man and a woman, all uses of our procreative powers are to one degree or another sinful and contrary to God’s plan for the exaltation of His children…. [L]aws legalizing so-called “same-sex marriage” do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it. We remain under covenant to love God and keep His commandments and to refrain from serving other gods and priorities—even those becoming popular in our particular time and place.^[119]

Central to God’s plan, the doctrine of marriage between a man and woman is an integral teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and will not change." “If it is being suggested that the church’s doctrine on this matter [same sex marriage] is changing, that is incorrect. Marriage between a man and a woman is central to God’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. As such, traditional marriage is a foundational doctrine and cannot change.^[120]

But man’s laws cannot make moral what God has declared immoral. Commitment to our highest priority—to love and serve God—requires that we look to His law for our standard of behavior. For example, we remain under divine command not to commit adultery or fornication even when those acts are no longer crimes under the laws of the states or countries where we reside. Similarly, laws legalizing so-called “same-sex marriage” do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it. We remain under covenant to love God and keep His commandments and to refrain from serving other gods and priorities—even those becoming popular in our particular time and place.^[121]

2015

When pressed on whether he’s leaving any room for movement [on same sex marriage or acts] in the future, Christofferson simply said, "No."^[122]

2016

There is no change in the Church’s position of what is morally right. But what is changing—and what needs to change—is helping Church members respond sensitively and thoughtfully when they encounter same-sex attraction in their own families, among other Church members, or elsewhere.^[123]

Central to God’s plan, the doctrine of marriage between a man and woman is an integral teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and will not change:
As a doctrinal principle, based on the scriptures, the Church affirms that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. The Church also affirms that God’s law defines marriage as the legal and lawful union between a man and a woman.
Only a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife should have sexual relations. Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same sex, are sinful and undermine the divinely created institution of the family.^[124]

2019

These changes [to policies regarding same-sex marriage and children raised in such marriages] do not represent a shift in Church doctrine related to marriage or the commandments of God in regard to chastity and morality. The doctrine of the plan of salvation and the importance of chastity will not change.^[125]

2020

McKay Coppins, a Latter-day Saint writing for The Atlantic, quoted Russell M. Nelson (then president of the Church):

But while some of these changes have been celebrated as signs of progress, Nelson has not budged on key issues. When I asked him what he’d say to LGBTQ people who feel that the Church doesn’t want them, he told me, “God loves all his children, just like you and I do,” and “There’s a place for all who choose to belong to his Church.” But when I asked whether the prohibition on same-sex relationships might someday be lifted, he demurred. “As apostles of the Lord, we cannot change God’s law,” he said. “We teach his laws. He gave them many thousands of years ago, and I don’t expect he’ll change them now.”^[126]

2022

President Dallin H. Oaks:

Those who do not fully understand the Father’s loving plan for His children may consider this Family Proclamation no more than a changeable statement of policy. In contrast, we affirm that the Family Proclamation, founded on unchangeable doctrine, defines the kind of family relationships where the most important part of our eternal development can occur.^[127]

The priesthood ban needed to be reversed so all of God's children could have the blessings of the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, whereas the Law of Chastity, as it stands, already allows all people these blessings.

Scriptural precedence

Jesus Christ taught that marriage is between a man and a woman, whereas He did not teach blacks would not receive the priesthood. (See Christ's teachings on homosexuality)
The Law of Chastity has scriptural precedence, whereas the priesthood ban did not.

It's cruel to create a false expectation that the doctrine will change.

As a final contention, it is cruel to create a false expectation that the doctrine will change. Creating such just fosters more disappointment, depression, possible suicidality, etc. in the person with same-sex attraction each time they hear that the Church's doctrine won't change. It's advisable that we, as members of the Lord's Church, not make promises that can't be kept. We need to "mourn with those who mourn and comfort those who stand in need of comfort." That is true; but we also need to "stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death[.]"^[128] As Elder D. Todd Christofferson has taught, "[t]here’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ."^[129]

Question: Did Christ teach against same-sex relationships during his mortal ministry?

Christ taught a very strict law for sexual morality

As Latter-day Saints, we are blessed to be guided by modern revelation. We do not need to limit our understanding on what has been able to make it through the centuries. However, some critics have asserted that our stance on same-sex relationships are not substantiated by the teachings of Christ during his mortal minstry. This is not the case. Christ taught a very strict law for sexual morality. He taught against sexual relationships outside of marriage and that marriage was between a man and a woman. While he did not specifically teach against the modern concept of same-sex relationships, he was clear about the only legitimate relationships to express your sexuality.

Christ taught against fornication and adultery

The Jewish world in which Jesus lived set a very strict moral standard, especially against the backdrop of the infamous promiscuity of the Greeks and Romans. Sexual relationships were absolutely forbidden outside of marriage. Christ validated these teachings, by teaching against adultery and fornication (Matthew 19:18, Matthew 15:19), and although he taught against judging the woman taken in adultery, he also confirmed that she should "sin no more". (John 8:11)

Adultery and fornication include all sexual relationships outside of marriage. In the Jewish custom, marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman. Jesus confirmed this definition of marriage.

For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Matt 19:5-6)

Jesus was not afraid to go against Jewish custom. He went against the money changers in the temple, against the doctrine of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, and the Jewish doctrine of divorce to name a few. If he disagreed with the Jewish doctrine of marriage being between a man and a woman, or against sex outside of that relationship, he would have gone against it. Instead, he strengthened that concept, teaching that marriage should never be dissolved through divorce, and that even looking upon a woman outside of marriage was a sin. He taught a high level of sexual purity even within a very strict society.

Same-sex relationships are a type of fornication

Fornication is sex with someone you are not married with. It really doesn't matter whether that person is the same sex or not, it is still fornication. Since Jesus defined marriage as being between a man and a woman, there is no way for two men or two women to have sex without fornicating. Jesus did not go through all of the different types of fornication; he simply taught against fornication. Christ never taught against sexting, virtual sex, or internet pornography, because those concepts didn't exist, but the general concept of not lusting can still be applied to those situations. Similarly, Christ never taught against prostitution, orgies, rape, pedophilia, having sex with the milk man, or having sex with your father's wife. (By putting these in a list does not imply these are of equal weight.) These were understood by Jesus' society to be types of fornication. This is evident because the early Christians cited Christ's teachings on fornication to condemn a man who had sex with his father's wife. (1 Corinthians 5:1-5)

It is not surprising that Christ wouldn't specify same-sex relationships. He didn't specify other types of fornication, and the concept of homosexuality as a steady sexual orientation didn't evolve until recently. He taught against fornication, and just because society starts using a word to describe a specific type of fornication, doesn't mean that type is an exception to the rule.

God and Christ reinstated the definition of marriage between a man and a woman in this dispensation in Doctrine and Covenants 49:15-17

Doctrine and Covenants 49:15-17 announces firmly that:

15 And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.

16 Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation;

17 And that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made.

This revelation was given in answer to the Shakers who rejected marriage and believed in being totally celibate for their lives. Therefore what we have here is not simply a temporary definition of marriage, but a full restatement of what marriage is and why. Look at why marriage is ordained of God in these verses: it is because marriage fulfills the end of our creation. What creation? The creation announced in Genesis 1, Moses 3:24, and Abraham 5:18--the creation that made man and woman the ideal partner for each other.

Doctrine and Covenants 131 states:

1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it. (emphasis added)

What is marriage? The union of man and woman so that they can fill the measure of their creation according to D&C 49:15-17. If we believe in Christ and his prophets, then we must accept that marriage is, forever and always, between a man and a woman.

FAIR Answers—back to home page

V

Articles about Social issues and the Church of Jesus Christ

Sexuality and gender	The Family: A Proclamation to the World
Abortion

Is the document "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" official doctrine?

Church leaders have repeatedly taught that the Proclamation is official doctrine

Some do not like the doctrines taught in the Proclamation on the Family, and claim that it is not "scripture" or not "official doctrine." What have Church leaders said on this matter?

Church leaders have repeatedly taught that:

The Proclamation is official doctrine.
It was written and endorsed by all members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.
It does not teach new doctrine, but merely reiterates and emphasizes principles long taught in the Church.
It is an inspired, prophetic, and vital instruction for our day.
Members have a duty to hold it up, teach it, and live its principles.

Those who wish to claim that the Proclamation is not official are either ignorant of these teachings, or are seeking to deceive their audience.

That marvelous document [the Proclamation] brings together the scriptural direction that we have received that has guided the lives of God’s children from the time of Adam and Eve and will continue to guide us until the final winding-up scene.
—Elder David B. Haight^[130]

Official doctrine

Proclamations are unusual

President Henry B. Eyring made the significance of the Proclamation clear, and described the weight which the apostles attach to it:

Since the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ through the Prophet Joseph Smith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has issued a Proclamation only four times. It had been more than 15 years since the previous one, which described the progress the Church had made in 150 years of its history. Thus, we can understand the importance our Heavenly Father places upon the family, the subject of the fifth and most recent proclamation, given on 23 September 1995.^[131]

President Hinckley announced that the Proclamation was a reiteration of doctrine

The Proclamation was first read by President Gordon B. Hinckley at a General Relief Society Meeting on 25 September 1995. Before reading it, he said:

With so much of sophistry that is passed off as truth, with so much of deception concerning standards and values, with so much of allurement and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world, we have felt to warn and forewarn. In furtherance of this we of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles now issue a Proclamation to the Church and to the world as a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history. I now take the opportunity of reading to you this proclamation....^[132]

President Hinckley did not, then, regard the doctrine within the Proclamation as radical or new—it was intended to be a reconfirmation and reiteration of doctrines long taught by "the prophets, seers, and revelators of" the Church.


To learn more:	Proclamation doctrines are longstanding

Origin of the Proclamation

President Boyd K. Packer described the circumstances behind issuing the Proclamation:

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve issued a Proclamation on the family. I can tell you how that came about. They had a world conference on the family sponsored by the United Nations in Beijing, China. We sent representatives. It was not pleasant what they heard. They called another one in Cairo. Some of our people were there. I read the proceedings of that. The word marriage was not mentioned. It was at a conference on the family, but marriage was not even mentioned.
It was then they announced that they were going to have such a conference here in Salt Lake City. Some of us made the recommendation: "They are coming here. We had better proclaim our position."^[133]

The intention, then, was to proclaim the Church's official position on these matters.

Standard for official doctrine

Elder Neal L. Anderson taught:

There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many (emphasis added). Our doctrine is not difficult to find.^[134]


To learn more:	Proclamation on the Family taught frequently since being issued

The Church's official website emphasized:

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four "standard works" of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith (emphasis added).^[135]

Elder D. Todd Christofferson echoed this idea:

The President of the Church may announce or interpret doctrines based on revelation to him. Doctrinal exposition may also come through the combined council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Council deliberations will often include a weighing of canonized scriptures, the teachings of Church leaders, and past practice.^[136]

Thus, statements by the united First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and official proclamations are official Church doctrine. The Proclamation on the Family qualifies on both counts.

To learn more: Official doctrine

All fifteen apostles involved in preparing the Proclamation

President Boyd K. Packer said:

In 1995 that great document "The Family: A Proclamation to the World"9 was prepared by all members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles....
The hope is that Latter-day Saints will recognize the transcendent importance of the family and live in such a spiritually attentive way that the adversary cannot steal into the home and carry away the children....(emphasis added)^[137]

Scripture?

The Proclamation is not canonized scripture—that status applies only to The Holy Bible, The Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price.

The Doctrine and Covenants states:

Search these commandments, for they are true and faithful, and the prophecies and promises which are in them shall all be fulfilled. What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same (D&C 1꞉37-38).

President Henry B. Eyring applied this verse to the Proclamation:

The title of the Proclamation on the family reads: "The Family: A Proclamation to the World—The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
Three things about the title are worth our careful reflection. First, the subject: the family. Second, the audience, which is the whole world. And third, those proclaiming it are those we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators. All this means that the family must be of tremendous importance to us, that whatever the Proclamation says could help anyone in the world, and that the Proclamation fits the Lord’s promise when he said, "Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same" (D&C 1꞉38).^[138]

While not canonized scripture, then, the Proclamation may well meet the criteria for the broader use of the term scripture in LDS thought:

And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation (D&C 68꞉4).

"Significant, major, revelatory, scripturelike"

President Packer told a Worldwide Leadership Training Broadcast:

A Proclamation in the Church is a significant, major announcement. Very few of them have been issued from the beginning of the Church. They are significant; they are revelatory. At that time, the Brethren issued "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." It is scripturelike in its power.
When you wonder why we are the way we are and why we do the things we do and why we will not do some of the things that we will not do, you can find the authority for that in this Proclamation on the family. There are times when we are accused of being intolerant because we won't accept and do the things that are supposed to be the norm in society. Well, the things we won't do, we won't do. And the things we won't do, we can't do, because the standard we follow is given of Him.
As we examine this Proclamation more closely, see if you don't see in it the issues that are foremost in society, in politics, in government, in religion now that are causing the most concern and difficulty. You'll find answers there - and they are the answers of the Church.^[139]

"Marvelous," "Scriptural direction"

Elder David B. Haight said:

I spoke to the audience and to this young mother about the Proclamation that was issued five years ago by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, a Proclamation on the family, and of our responsibility to our children, and the children’s responsibility to their parents, and the parents’ responsibility to each other. That marvelous document brings together the scriptural direction that we have received that has guided the lives of God’s children from the time of Adam and Eve and will continue to guide us until the final winding-up scene.^[140]

"God-given," "scripturally-based doctrines"

Elder M. Russell Ballard:

False prophets and false teachers are also those who attempt to change the God-given and scripturally based doctrines that protect the sanctity of marriage, the divine nature of the family, and the essential doctrine of personal morality. They advocate a redefinition of morality to justify fornication, adultery, and homosexual relationships. Some openly champion the legalization of so-called same-gender marriages. To justify their rejection of God’s immutable laws that protect the family, these false prophets and false teachers even attack the inspired Proclamation on the family issued to the world in 1995 by the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles.^[141]

Statements by apostles and prophets about the Proclamation

"A prophetic document"

Elder M. Russell Ballard said:

Brothers and sisters, this year marks the 10th anniversary of the Proclamation to the world on the family, which was issued by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in 1995 (see "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," Liahona, Oct. 2004, 49; Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102). It was then and is now a clarion call to protect and strengthen families and a stern warning in a world where declining values and misplaced priorities threaten to destroy society by undermining its basic unit.
The Proclamation is a prophetic document, not only because it was issued by prophets but because it was ahead of its time. It warns against many of the very things that have threatened and undermined families during the last decade and calls for the priority and the emphasis families need if they are to survive in an environment that seems ever more toxic to traditional marriage and to parent-child relationships.<ref>M. Russell Ballard, "What Matters Most Is What Lasts Longest," Ensign 35/11 (November 2005). off-site</ref>
Within this context of the preeminent importance of families and the threats families face today, it is not surprising that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles used strong words in the Proclamation to the world on families....^[142]

"An inspired document" "historic"

President Boyd K. Packer:

In "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," an inspired document issued by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, we learn that....^[143]
We have watched the standards of morality sink ever lower until now they are in a free fall. At the same time we have seen an outpouring of inspired guidance for parents and for families.
The whole of the curriculum and all of the activities of the Church have been restructured and correlated with the home:....And then the historic Proclamation on the Family was issued by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles.<ref>Boyd K. Packer, "Parents in Zion," Ensign 28/10 (October 1998). off-site</ref>

Those who attack "the inspired proclamation" are "false prophets and false teachers"

Elder M. Russell Ballard:

False prophets and false teachers are also those who attempt to change the God-given and scripturally based doctrines that protect the sanctity of marriage, the divine nature of the family, and the essential doctrine of personal morality. They advocate a redefinition of morality to justify fornication, adultery, and homosexual relationships. Some openly champion the legalization of so-called same-gender marriages. To justify their rejection of God’s immutable laws that protect the family, these false prophets and false teachers even attack the inspired Proclamation on the family issued to the world in 1995 by the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles.^[144]

"Reiteration" of doctrine

Elder L. Tom Perry said:

The doctrine of the family and the home was recently reiterated with great clarity and forcefulness in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." It declared the eternal nature of families and then explained the connection to temple worship. The Proclamation also declared the law upon which the eternal happiness of families is predicated, namely, "The sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."^[145]

Critical doctrines

Elder Neal A. Maxwell:

In the passing years I have developed much appreciation for the institution of the family. Other institutions simply cannot compensate fully for failing families. If we will hold fast to the Church's Proclamation on the family, we will see that we hold the jewels, as it were, that can enrich so many other things. Let the world go its own way on the family. It appears to be determined to do that. But we do not have that option. Our doctrines and teachings on the family are very, very powerful, and they are full of implications for all the people on this planet.^[146]

President Eyring regarded the Proclamation as describing the things that "matter...most":

Because our Father loves his children, he will not leave us to guess about what matters most in this life concerning where our attention could bring happiness or our indifference could bring sadness. Sometimes he will tell a person such things directly, by inspiration. But he will, in addition, tell us these important matters through his servants. In the words of the prophet Amos, recorded long ago, "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets" (Amos 3꞉7). He does this so that even those who cannot feel inspiration can know, if they will only listen, that they have been told the truth and been warned.^[147]

Important

Elder Robert D. Hales:

To know and keep the commandments, we must know and follow the Savior and the prophets of God. We were all blessed recently to receive an important message from modern prophets, entitled "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" (see Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102). This Proclamation warns us what will happen if we do not strengthen the family unit in our homes, our communities, and our nations. Every priesthood holder and citizen should study the Proclamation carefully.
Prophets must often warn of the consequences of violating God’s laws. They do not preach that which is popular with the world. President Ezra Taft Benson taught that "popularity is never a test of truth" ("Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet," in 1980 Devotional Speeches of the Year [1981], 29).
Why do prophets proclaim unpopular commandments and call society to repentance for rejecting, modifying, and even ignoring the commandments? The reason is very simple. Upon receiving revelation, prophets have no choice but to proclaim and reaffirm that which God has given them to tell the world. Prophets do this knowing full well the price they may have to pay. Some who choose not to live the commandments make every effort to defame the character of the prophets and demean their personal integrity and reputation.^[148]

Revelatory Process Brings About the Family Proclamation

Elder Dallin H. Oaks:

The inspiration identifying the need for a Proclamation on the family came to the leadership of the Church over 23 years ago. It was a surprise to some who thought the doctrinal truths about marriage and the family were well understood without restatement. Nevertheless, we felt the confirmation and we went to work. Subjects were identified and discussed by members of the Quorum of the Twelve for nearly a year. Language was proposed, reviewed, and revised. Prayerfully we continually pleaded with the Lord for His inspiration on what we should say and how we should say it. We all learned "line upon line, precept upon precept," as the Lord has promised (D&C 98꞉12).
During this revelatory process, a proposed text was presented to the First Presidency, who oversee and promulgate Church teachings and doctrine. After the Presidency made further changes, the Proclamation on the family was announced by the President of the Church, Gordon B. Hinckley. In the women’s meeting of September 23, 1995, he introduced the Proclamation with these words: "With so much of sophistry that is passed off as truth, with so much of deception concerning standards and values, with so much of allurement and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world, we have felt to warn and forewarn."
I testify that the Proclamation on the family is a statement of eternal truth, the will of the Lord for His children who seek eternal life. It has been the basis of Church teaching and practice for the last 22 years and will continue so for the future. Consider it as such, teach it, live by it, and you will be blessed as you press forward toward eternal life.
Forty years ago, President Ezra Taft Benson taught that "every generation has its tests and its chance to stand and prove itself." I believe our attitude toward and use of the family Proclamation is one of those tests for this generation. I pray for all Latter-day Saints to stand firm in that test.
I close with President Gordon B. Hinckley’s teachings uttered two years after the family Proclamation was announced. He said: "I see a wonderful future in a very uncertain world. If we will cling to our values, if we will build on our inheritance, if we will walk in obedience before the Lord, if we will simply live the gospel, we will be blessed in a magnificent and wonderful way. We will be looked upon as a peculiar people who have found the key to a peculiar happiness."
I testify of the truth and eternal importance of the family proclamation, revealed by the Lord Jesus Christ to His Apostles for the exaltation of the children of God (see Doctrine and Covenants 131꞉1-4), in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.^[149]

Other leaders on the Proclamation

Elder W. Eugene Hansen:

Again the Proclamation on the family, modern-day revelation....As we ponder these inspired words of modern revelation....I leave you my witness that the Proclamation on the family, which I referred to earlier, is modern-day revelation provided to us by the Lord through His latter-day prophets.^[150]

Elder Eran A. Call:

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, whom we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators, two years ago solemnly proclaimed to the world our beliefs concerning marriage, parents, and the family. I challenge each of you to read, study, and live by this inspired proclamation. May it become the guideline and standard by which we live in our homes and raise our children.^[151]

Elder Claudio R.M. Costa:

The Lord instructed us how to take care of our families when He told us through His prophets in the Proclamation to the world....^[152]

Duty to teach and support the Proclamation

Today I call upon members of the Church and on committed parents, grandparents, and extended family members everywhere to hold fast to this great proclamation, to make it a banner not unlike General Moroni’s "title of liberty," and to commit ourselves to live by its precepts. As we are all part of a family, the Proclamation applies to everyone.
—Elder M. Russell Ballard^[153]

Elder Dallin H. Oaks noted:

This declaration is not politically correct, but it is true, and we are responsible to teach and practice its truth. That obviously sets us against many assumptions and practices in today’s world....(emphasis added)^[154]

Elder M. Russell Ballard:

Brothers and sisters, as we hold up like a banner the Proclamation to the world on the family and as we live and teach the gospel of Jesus Christ, we will fulfill the measure of our creation here on earth. We will find peace and happiness here and in the world to come. We should not need a hurricane or other crisis to remind us of what matters most. The gospel and the Lord’s plan of happiness and salvation should remind us. What matters most is what lasts longest, and our families are for eternity. Of this I testify in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.^[153]

Template:Critical sources box:Mormonism and prophets/Mormonism and The ''Proclamation'' on the Family/Claims is not official doctrine/CriticalSources

Have the doctrines in the document "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" long been taught in the Church?

Yes, the doctrines contained within the "Proclamation" are longstanding doctrines within the Church

President Hinckley observed, on introducing the Proclamation:

With so much of sophistry that is passed off as truth, with so much of deception concerning standards and values, with so much of allurement and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world, we have felt to warn and forewarn. In furtherance of this we of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles now issue a Proclamation to the Church and to the world as a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history. I now take the opportunity of reading to you this proclamation....^[155]

The doctrines taught are, then, longstanding ones in the Church.

This article reviews each line of the Proclamation and presents a sample of past teachings on the same subject.

"marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God"

"Marriage is ordained of God. It is a necessary and delightful condition. It is the only true state, and the failure of many marriages does not change the rightness of marriage."^[156]
"It is my purpose to endorse and to favor, to encourage and defend marriage. Many regard it nowadays as being, at best, semiprecious, and by some it is thought to be worth nothing at all. I have seen and heard, as you have seen and heard, the signals all about us, carefully orchestrated to convince us that marriage is out of date and in the way."^[157]

"the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children."

Many of the social restraints which in the past have helped to reinforce and to shore up the family are dissolving and disappearing. The time will come when only those who believe deeply and actively in the family will be able to preserve their families in the midst of the gathering evil around us....There are those who would define the family in such a nontraditional way that they would define it out of existence....We of all people, brothers and sisters, should not be taken in by the specious arguments that the family unit is somehow tied to a particular phase of development a moral society is going through. We are free to resist those moves which downplay the significance of the family and which play up the significance of selfish individualism. We know the family to be eternal."^[158]

"The work of the adversary may be likened to loading guns in opposition to the work of God. Salvos containing germs of contention are aimed and fired at strategic targets essential to that holy work. These vital targets include—in addition to the individual—the family, leaders of the Church, and divine doctrine."^[159]

"In this marriage relationship comes the greatest of exaltation and the greatest experiences of life. You will come to know that most of what you know that is worth knowing you learn from your children."^[160]

"I desire to emphasize this. I want the young men of Zion to realize that this institution of marriage is not a man-made institution. It is of God. It is honorable, and no man who is of marriageable age is living his religion who remains single. It is not simply devised for the convenience alone of man, to suit his own notions, and his own ideas; to marry and then divorce, to adopt and then to discard, just as he pleases. There are great consequences connected with it, consequences which reach beyond this present time, into all eternity, for thereby souls are begotten into the world, and men and women obtain their being in the world. Marriage is the preserver of the human race. Without it, the purposes of God would be frustrated; virtue would be destroyed to give place to vice and corruption, and the earth would be void and empty."^[161]

"the greatest responsibility and the greatest joys in life are centered in the family, honorable marriage, and rearing a righteous posterity."^[162]

"Alas, it may be true that those who do not believe in God, who is a loving parent and who is the Father of the human family, will also never be able to accept the eternal importance of the institution of the family, except as something that is socially useful—little wonder we arrive at different conclusions or that we have different priorities."^[163]

"All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God."

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" (Genesis 1:27).
"Seest thou that ye are created after mine [Christ's] own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image. Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh (Ether 3꞉15-16).
"And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all" (Moses 1꞉6).
"God instituted marriage in the beginning. He made man in his own image and likeness, male and female, and in their creation it was designed that they should be united together in sacred bonds of marriage, and one is not perfect without the other."^[164]

"Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny."

"We are begotten in the similitude of Christ himself. We dwelt with the Father and with the Son in the beginning, as the sons and daughters of God; and at the time appointed, we came to this earth to take upon ourselves tabernacles, that we might become conformed to the likeness and image of Jesus Christ and become like him; that we might have a tabernacle, that we might pass through death as he has passed through death, that we might rise again from the dead as he has risen from the dead."^[165]
"The gospel teaches us that we are the spirit children of heavenly parents. Before our mortal birth we had "a pre-existent, spiritual personality, as the sons and daughters of the Eternal Father" (statement of the First Presidency, Improvement Era, Mar. 1912, p. 417; also see Jer. 1꞉5). We were placed here on earth to progress toward our destiny of eternal life. These truths give us a unique perspective and different values to guide our decisions from those who doubt the existence of God and believe that life is the result of random processes."^[166]

"Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

"When the frailties and imperfections of mortality are left behind, in the glorified state of the blessed hereafter, husband and wife will administer in their respective stations, seeing and understanding alike, and co–operating to the full in the government of their family kingdom. Then shall woman be recompensed in rich measure for all the injustice that womanhood has endured in mortality. Then shall woman reign by Divine right, a queen in the resplendent realm of her glorified state, even as exalted man shall stand, priest and king unto the Most High God. Mortal eye cannot see nor mind comprehend the beauty, glory, and majesty of a righteous woman made perfect in the celestial kingdom of God."^[167]
"Some people are ignorant or vicious and apparently attempting to destroy the concept of masculinity and femininity. More and more girls dress, groom, and act like men. More and more men dress, groom, and act like women. The high purposes of life are damaged and destroyed by the growing unisex theory. God made man in his own image, male and female made he them. With relatively few accidents of nature, we are born male or female. The Lord knew best. Certainly, men and women who would change their sex status will answer to their Maker...."^[168]
"Dear brethren and sisters, the scriptures and the teachings of the Apostles and prophets speak of us in premortal life as sons and daughters, spirit children of God. Gender existed before, and did not begin at mortal birth."^[169]

"In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshiped God as their Eternal Father"

"The spirits of men and women are eternal (see D&C 93꞉29-31; see also Joseph Smith, Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 158, 208). All are sons and daughters of God and lived in a premortal life as his spirit children (see Numbers 16꞉22; Hebrews 12꞉9, D&C 76꞉24). The spirit of each individual is in the likeness of the person in mortality, male and female (see D&C 77꞉2; 132:63; Moses 6꞉9-10; Abraham 4꞉27). All are in the image of heavenly parents."^[170]

"accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life."

And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he [Jesus Christ] said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell; And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them; And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever (Abraham 3꞉24-26).

"The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave."

"There is another dimension to marriage that we know of in the Church. It came by revelation. This glorious, supernal truth teaches us that marriage is meant to be eternal. There are covenants we can make if we are willing, and bounds we can seal if we are worthy, that will keep marriage safe and intact beyond the veil of death."^[171]

"Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God"

"and for families to be united eternally."

"Oh, brothers and sisters, families can be forever! Do not let the lures of the moment draw you away from them! Divinity, eternity, and family—they go together, hand in hand, and so must we! (italics in original)^[172]

"The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife."

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth...." (Genesis 1:28).
"Before leaving our discussion of unchanging plans, however, we need to remember that the adversary sponsors a cunning plan of his own. 34 It invariably attacks God’s first commandment for husband and wife to beget children. It tempts with tactics that include infidelity, unchastity, and other abuses of procreative power. Satan’s band would trumpet choice, but mute accountability. Nevertheless, his capacity has long been limited, "for he knew not the mind of God" (Moses 4꞉6)."^[173]

"We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force."

"There seems to be a growing trend against marriage from degenerate areas of the world and a very strong trend toward marriage without children. Naturally the next question is, "Why marry?" And the "antimarriage revolution" comes into focus. Arguments are given that children are a burden, a tie, a responsibility. Many have convinced themselves that education, freedom from restraint and responsibility—that is the life. And unfortunately this benighted and destructive idea is taking hold of some of our own people."^[174]

"the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

General statements

The voice of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in unmistakable terms warns:

"… sexual sin—the illicit sexual relations of men and women—stands, in its enormity, next to murder. The Lord has drawn no essential distinctions between fornication, adultery, and harlotry or prostitution. Each has fallen under his solemn and awful condemnation. … [Such cannot] … escape the punishments and the judgments which the Lord has declared against this sin. The day of reckoning will come just as certainly as night follows day."

Then speaking of those who condone and justify evil whether from press or microphone or pulpit, they continue:

"They who would palliate this crime and say that such indulgence is but a sinless gratification of a normal desire, like appeasing hunger and thirst, speak filthiness with their lips. Their counsel leads to destruction; their wisdom comes from the father of lies." (Message of the First Presidency to the Church, Improvement Era, November 1942, page 686.)^[175]

"As we have said on previous occasions, certainly our Heavenly Father is distressed with the increasing inroads among his children of such insidious sins as adultery and fornication and homosexuality, lesbianism, abortion, alcoholism, dishonesty, and crime generally, which threaten the total breakdown of the family and the home…"^[176]
"There is a practice, now quite prevalent, for unmarried couples to live together, a counterfeit of marriage. They suppose that they shall have all that marriage can offer without the obligations connected with it. They are wrong! However much they hope to find in a relationship of that kind, they will lose more. Living together without marriage destroys something inside all who participate. Virtue, self-esteem, and refinement of character wither away. Claiming that it will not happen does not prevent the loss; and these virtues, once lost, are not easily reclaimed."^[177]
"God Himself decreed that the physical expression of love, that union of male and female which has power to generate life, is authorized only in marriage."^[178]
"Whether we like it or not, so many of the difficulties which beset the family today stem from the breaking of the seventh commandment (see Ex. 20꞉14). Total chastity before marriage and total fidelity after are still the standard from which there can be no deviation without sin, misery, and unhappiness. The breaking of the seventh commandment usually means the breaking of one or more homes."^[179]

Premarital sexual relations forbidden

"Let every youth keep himself from the compromising approaches and then with great control save himself from the degrading and life-damaging experience of sexual impurity."^[180]

Adulterous sexual relations forbidden

"Now the lust of the heart and the lust of the eyes and the lust of the body bring us to the major sin. Let every man remain at home with his affections. Let every woman sustain her husband and keep her heart where it belongs—at home with her family."^[181]
"And now a word of warning. One who destroys a marriage takes upon himself a very great responsibility indeed. Marriage is sacred! To willfully destroy a marriage, either your own or that of another couple, is to offend our God. Such a thing will not be lightly considered in the judgments of the Almighty and in the eternal scheme of things will not easily be forgiven. Do not threaten nor break up a marriage. Do not translate some disenchantment with your own marriage partner or an attraction for someone else into justification for any conduct that would destroy a marriage."^[182]

Homosexual relations forbidden

Homosexual behavior has consistently been forbidden within the Church of Jesus Christ.


See also:	What is the scriptural basis for the restriction on homosexual sexual behavior in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

(Note that in earlier statements, leaders often used the term "homosexuality" to refer to behavior, not to temptation or orientation.^[183])

"Every form of homosexuality is sin....May we repeat: Sex perversions of men and women can never replenish the earth and are definitely sin without excuse, and rationalizations are very weak; God will not tolerate it."^[184]

"A modern prophet, President Spencer W. Kimball, has warned us:... . when toleration for sin increases, the outlook is bleak and Sodom and Gomorrah days are certain to return." His predecessor, President Harold B. Lee, warned of the growing social acceptance of "that great sin of Sodom and Gomorrah... adultery: and beside this, the equally grievous sin of homosexuality, which seems to be gaining momentum with social acceptance in the Babylon of the world... " Many today are as indecisive about the evils emerging around us—are as reluctant to renounce fully a wrong way of life—as was Lot's wife. Perhaps in this respect, as well as in the indicators of corruption of which sexual immorality is but one indicator, our present parallels are most poignant and disturbing. It was Jesus himself who said, "Remember Lot's wife." Indeed we should—and remember too all that the Savior implied with those three powerful words."^[185]

In this day of the "new morality" as sex permissiveness is sometimes called, we should be made aware of the Lord’s concern about immorality and the seriousness of sex sins of all kinds.

We have come far in material progress in this century, but the sins of the ancients increasingly afflict the hearts of men today. Can we not learn by the experiences of others? Must we also defile our bodies, corrupt our souls, and reap destruction as have peoples and nations before us?

God will not be mocked. His laws are immutable. True repentance is rewarded by forgiveness, but sin brings the sting of death.

We hear more and more each day about the sins of adultery, homosexuality, and lesbianism. Homosexuality is an ugly sin, but because of its prevalence, the need to warn the uninitiated, and the desire to help those who may already be involved with it, it must be brought into the open.

It is the sin of the ages. It was present in Israel’s wandering as well as after and before. It was tolerated by the Greeks. It was prevalent in decaying Rome. The ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are symbols of wretched wickedness more especially related to this perversion, as the incident of Lot’s visitors indicates.^[186]

"We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed."

We are appalled at the conscious effort of many of the people in this world to take it upon themselves, presumptive, to change the properly established patterns of social behavior established by the Lord, especially with regard to marriage, sex life, family life. We must say: "The wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid." (See Isa. 29꞉14.)^[187]
"The expression of our procreative powers is pleasing to God, but he has commanded that this be confined within the relationship of marriage."^[188]
"...in the context of lawful marriage, the intimacy of sexual relations is right and divinely approved. There is nothing unholy or degrading about sexuality in itself, for by that means men and women join in a process of creation and in an expression of love."^[189]

"We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan."

"Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation." (D&C 49꞉15-16)^[190]
"Eternal love, eternal marriage, eternal increase! This ideal, which is new to many, when thoughtfully considered, can keep a marriage strong and safe. No relationship has more potential to exalt a man and a woman than the marriage covenant. No obligation in society or in the Church supersedes it in importance."^[191]

"Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children."

"Make sure, young man, that you treat your wife with reverence and with respect. Treat her as your sweetheart, your loving companion, the mother of your children."^[192]

"Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness"

"to provide for their physical and spiritual needs...to teach them...to observe the commandments of God"

And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents (D&C 68꞉25).

"to teach them to love and serve one another"

And ye will not suffer your children that they go hungry, or naked; neither will ye suffer that they transgress the laws of God, and fight and quarrel one with another, and serve the devil, who is the master of sin, or who is the evil spirit which hath been spoken of by our fathers, he being an enemy to all righteousness. But ye will teach them to walk in the ways of truth and soberness; ye will teach them to love one another, and to serve one another (Mosiah 4꞉14-15).

"to teach them...to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live"

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law" (Articles of Faith 1꞉12).

"The desirability of this country will persist so long as its citizenry are a God–fearing people with the integrity to obey the law of the land. This includes the laws we do not like as well as the laws we do like."^[193]

"Let our citizenship be spirited but always appropriate and befitting who we are."^[194]

"Discipleship includes good citizenship. In this connection, if you are a careful student of the statements of the modern prophets, you will have noticed that with rare exceptions—especially when the First Presidency has spoken out—the concerns expressed have been over moral issues, not issues between political parties. The declarations are about principles, not people; and causes, not candidates."^[195]

"Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony"

A higher and higher percentage of children grow up with only one parent. This is certainly not the way of the Lord. He expected for a father and a mother to rear their children. Certainly any who deprive their children of a parent will have some very stiff questions to answer. The Lord used parents in the plural and said if children were not properly trained "the sin be upon the heads of the parents." (D&C 68꞉25.) That makes it a bit hard to justify broken homes. Numerous of the divorces are the result of selfishness. The day of judgment is approaching, and parents who abandon their families will find that excuses and rationalizations will hardly satisfy the Great Judge.^[196]

"and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity"

"Once marriage vows are taken, absolute fidelity is essential—to the Lord and to one’s companion."^[197]

"Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ"

"The ultimate end of all activity in the Church is that a man and his wife and their children can be happy at home and that the family can continue through eternity. All Christian doctrine is formulated to protect the individual, the home, and the family."^[198]

"Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities."

"... the home and family have been the center of true civilization. Any distortion of the God-given program will bring dire consequences. The families worked together, played together, and worshiped God together."^[199]
"We hope our parents are using the added time that has come from the consolidated schedule in order to be with, teach, love, and nurture their children. We hope you have not forgotten the need for family activity and recreation, for which time is also provided. Let your love of each member of your family be unconditional. Where there are challenges, you fail only if you fail to keep trying!"^[200]

"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness"

"Brethren, as patriarchs in your homes, be worthy watchmen."^[201]
"It is the will of the Lord to strengthen and preserve the family unit. We plead with fathers to take their rightful place as the head of the house. We ask mothers to sustain and support their husbands and to be lights to their children."^[202]

"and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families"

"Both men and women are to serve their families and others, but the specific ways in which they do so are sometimes different. For example, God has revealed through his prophets that men are to receive the priesthood, become fathers, and with gentleness and pure, unfeigned love they are to lead and nurture their families in righteousness as the Savior leads the Church (see Eph. 5꞉23 ). They have been given the primary responsibility for the temporal and physical needs of the family (see DNC 83:2)."^[203]

"Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children"

"Women have the power to bring children into the world and have been given the primary duty and opportunity as mothers to lead, nurture, and teach them in a loving, spiritual environment."^[204]

"fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners"

Most of what men and women must do to qualify for an exalted family life together is based on shared responsibilities and objectives. Many of the requirements are exactly the same for men and women. For example, obedience to the laws of God should be the same for men and women. Men and women should pray in the same way. They both have the same privilege of receiving answers to their prayers and thereby obtaining personal revelation for their own spiritual development....In this divine partnership, husbands and wives support one another in their God-given capacities. By appointing different accountabilities to men and women, Heavenly Father provides the greatest opportunity for growth, service, and progress. He did not give different tasks to men and women simply to perpetuate the idea of a family; rather, He did so to ensure that the family can continue forever, the ultimate goal of our Heavenly Father’s eternal plan.^[205]

"The secret of a happy marriage is to serve God and each other. The goal of marriage is unity and oneness, as well as self-development. Paradoxically, the more we serve one another, the greater is our spiritual and emotional growth. The first fundamental, then, is to work toward righteous unity."^[206]

"Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation."

"We need to recognize the hard mortal realities in all of this and must use common sense and guidance by personal revelation. Some will not marry in this life. Some marriages will fail. Some will not have children. Some children will choose not to respond to even the most devoted and careful nurturing by loving parents. In some cases, health and faith may falter. Some who would rather remain at home may have to work. Let us not judge others, because we do not know their situation nor do we know what common sense and personal revelation have led them to do. We do know that throughout mortality, women and men will face challenges and tests of their commitment to God’s plan for them. We need to remember that trials and temptations are an important part of our lives. We should not criticize others for the way they choose to exercise their moral agency when faced with adversity or affliction."^[207]

"Extended families should lend support when needed."

"We warn that individuals...will one day stand accountable before God" [if they]

"God bless you, our beloved people. Listen to the words of heaven. God is true. He is just. He is a righteous judge, but justice must come before sympathy and forgiveness and mercy. Remember, God is in his heavens. He knew what he was doing when he organized the earth. He knows what he is doing now. Those of us who break his commandments will regret and suffer in remorse and pain. God will not be mocked. Man has his free agency, it is sure, but remember, GOD WILL NOT BE MOCKED. (See D&C 63꞉58.)"^[208]

"That society which puts low value on marriage sows the wind and, in time, will reap the whirlwind—and thereafter, unless they repent, bring upon themselves a holocaust!"^[209]

"violate covenants of chastity"

See above.

"abuse spouse or offspring"

Spouse abuse
- CITE
- CITE

Child abuse
- Cite
- CITE

"fail to fulfill family responsibilities"

"There is no lack of clarity in what the Lord has told us. We cannot shirk. He has placed the responsibility directly where it belongs, and he holds us accountable with regard to the duties of parents to teach their children correct principles and of the need to walk uprightly before the Lord—and there is no substitute for teaching our children by the eloquence of example."^[210]

"the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets"

Why do we take our destiny in our own hands? From the building of the first colonial cabin, the home and family have been the center of true civilization. Any distortion of the God-given program will bring dire consequences....Could it be possible that many of us, like a cork in a stream, have been swept off our destiny line by false concepts, perilous ways, and doctrines of devils? By whom are we enticed? Have we accepted the easy way and veered off from the "strait and narrow" way to the easy and comfortable way and the broad way which leads to sorrowful ends?^[211]

"As we have said on previous occasions, certainly our Heavenly Father is distressed with the increasing inroads among his children of such insidious sins as adultery and fornication and homosexuality, lesbianism, abortion, alcoholism, dishonesty, and crime generally, which threaten the total breakdown of the family and the home…"^[212]

"Society without basic family life is without foundation and will disintegrate into nothingness."^[213]

"We call upon" all "to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family"

"Furthermore, many of the social restraints which in the past have helped to reinforce and to shore up the family are dissolving and disappearing. The time will come when only those who believe deeply and actively in the family will be able to preserve their families in the midst of the gathering evil around us. Whether from inadvertence, ignorance, or other causes, the efforts governments often make (ostensibly to help the family) sometimes only hurt the family more. There are those who would define the family in such a nontraditional way that they would define it out of existence. The more governments try in vain to take the place of the family, the less effective governments will be in performing the traditional and basic roles for which governments are formed in the first place."^[214]

Has the family Proclamation been taught frequently?

Yes. This is an important point for judging the importance that Church leaders attach to it

Elder Neal L. Anderson taught:

There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many (emphasis added). Our doctrine is not difficult to find (emphasis added).^[215]

Repeated Publication of the Proclamation

Gordon B. Hinckley, "Stand Strong against the Wiles of the World," Ensign (November 1995): 100.
Separate pamphlet published: The First Presidency, The Family: A Proclamation To The World (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, December 1, 1995).
"The Family: A Proclamation to the World," Ensign (October 1998).
"The Family: A Proclamation to the World," Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Student Study Guide, (2005), 223.
"The Family: A Proclamation to the World," Liahona (June 2006).

Reference to the Proclamation as event of historical significance

"Family: A Proclamation to the World reaches 10 year milestone," Liahona (November 2005).
"Historical chronology of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," ldschurchnews.com (8 February 2010).

Teaching

"Line upon Line: The Family: A Proclamation to the World, Paragraph 3," New Era (August 2006).

Educational series (also ran in Ensign)

"Strengthening the Family: What Is a Family?," Liahona (October 2004).
"Strengthening the Family: The Family Is Central to the Creator’s Plan," Liahona (December 2004).
"Strengthening the Family: Created in the Image of God, Male and Female," Liahona (January 2006).
"Strengthening the Family: Our Progress toward Perfection," Liahona (February 2005).
"Strengthening the Family: Multiply and Replenish the Earth," Liahona (April 2005).
"Strengthening the Family: The Sacred Powers of Procreation," Liahona (June 2005).
"Strengthening the Family: A Solemn Responsibility to Love and Care," Liahona (July 2005).
"Strengthening the Family: Within the Bonds of Matrimony," Liahona (July 2005).
"Strengthening the Family: Happiness in Family Life," Liahona (September 2005).
"Strengthening the Family: As Equal Partners," Liahona (October 2005).
"Strengthening the Family: Adapting to Circumstances," Liahona (December 2005).

Since there are people that are born intersex, experience gender dysphoria, or identify as transgender, does this invalidate the Latter-day Saint doctrine of eternal gender?

The Criticism

Some secularist critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints point to the existence of intersex humans, people who experience gender dysphoria, or people who identify as transgender in order to invalidate the doctrine of eternal, binary gender.

Intersex people are defined as those that:

are born with any of several variations in sex characteristics including chromosomes, gonads, sex hormones, or genitals that, according to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, "do not fit the typical definitions for male or female bodies."^[216]

Transgender people are those that identify with, dress as, and/or have gender-reassignment surgeries performed on them to become, identify with, and or act as a different gender than the one they were proclaimed to be at birth.

Gender dysphoria is the dissonance caused by not identifying with the gender (male or female) that one is proclaimed to be a part of at birth.

It is claimed that this invalidates the doctrine of gender as outlined by "The Family: A Proclamation to the World":

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.^[217]

It should be noted here that "gender" is used synonymously with "biological sex".^[218]

Our spirits are eternally gendered either male or female

One immediate point to make is that, according to the Family Proclamation above and the Doctrine and Covenants, our spirits are eternally gendered either male or female (D&C 49꞉15-17). A male or female spirit can still be housed in an intersex body. The existence of intersex individuals does not invalidate the possibility that we have male and female spirits only.

As it concerns transgender individuals, there are four logical possibilities:

Their spirit has legitimately been housed in the wrong bodies by their choice.
Their spirit has legitimately been housed in the wrong bodies by God's choice.
Their spirit has legitimately been housed in the wrong body by the joint agreement of them and God.
There is a deeper mental condition that doesn't allow their brains to accept that they actually belong to the right body.

We don't know which of these actually are happening. It's best to wait for science and revelation to converge. Eventually, we know they will. As President Russell M. Nelson has taught, "[t]here is no conflict between science and religion. Conflict only arises from an incomplete knowledge of either science or religion, or both[.]"^[219]

Feelings are not being

Some may be offended by the last possibility. It does remain a logical possibility.

Brigham Young University professor Ty Mansfield pointed out something important in regard to feelings not forming identity. He related it to sexuality but it can equally apply to gender dysphoria.

"Being gay" is not a scientific idea, but rather a cultural and philosophical one, addressing the subjective and largely existential phenomenon of identity. From a social constructionist/constructivist perspective, our sense of identity is something we negotiate with our environment. Environment can include biological environment, but our biology is still environment. From an LDS perspective, the essential spiritual person within us exists independent of our mortal biology, so our biology, our body is something that we relate to and negotiate our identity with, rather than something that inherently or essentially defines us. Also, while there has likely been homoerotic attraction, desire, behavior, and even relationships, among humans as long as there have been humans, the narratives through which sexuality is understood and incorporated into one’s sense of self and identity is subjective and culturally influenced. The "gay" person or personality didn’t exist prior to the mid-20th century.
In an LDS context, people often express concern about words that are used—whether they be "same-sex attraction," which some feel denies the realities of the gay experience, or "gay," "lesbian," or "LGBT," which some feels speaks more to specific lifestyle choices. What’s important to understand, however, is that identity isn’t just about the words we use but the paradigms and worldviews and perceptions of or beliefs about the "self" and "self-hood" through which we interpret and integrate our various experiences into a sense of personal identity, sexual or otherwise. And identity is highly fluid and subject to modification with change in personal values or socio-cultural context. The terms "gay," "lesbian," and "bisexual" aren’t uniformly understood or experienced in the same way by everyone who may use or adopt those terms, so it’s the way those terms or labels are incorporated into self-hood that accounts for identity. One person might identify as "gay" simply as shorthand for the mouthful "son or daughter of God who happens to experience romantic, sexual or other desire for persons of the same sex for causes unknown and for the short duration of mortality," while another person experiences themselves as "gay" as a sort of eternal identity and state of being.
An important philosophical thread in the overall experience of identity, is the experience of "selfhood"—what it means to have a self, and what it means to "be true to" that self. The question of what it means to be "true to ourselves" is a philosophical rather than a scientific one. In her book Multiplicity: The New Science of Personality, Identity, and the Self, award-winning science and medical writer Rita Carter explores the plurality of "selves" who live in each one of us and how each of those varied and sometimes conflicting senses of self inform various aspects of our identity(ies). This sense seems to be universal. In the movie The Incredibles, there’s a scene in which IncrediBoy says to Mr. Incredible, "You always, always say, ‘Be true to yourself,’ but you never say which part of yourself to be true to!"^[220]

Thus, there is big difference between feelings and the meaning or labels that we assign to feelings. Thank goodness that feelings are not being. Couldn't we imagine a time where someone would want to change feelings that they didn't feel described their identity such as impulses for pornography, drugs, or violence? This does not mean that the author is comparing sexual orientation to bad impulses, this is simply to point out that feelings do not inherently control identity. We assign identity to feelings.

These points demonstrate that we all have to seek out something else to determine identity that is enduring, real, and meaningful. Some of us turn to God for that identity. Others may subconsciously or consciously create some form of a platonic entity to ground our morality and identity i.e. "Love binds the universe. Love is my religion". But the basic point still stands—our feelings may be used to form identity, but that identity—the identity based in our feelings that we are having now—isn't enduring; and we must turn to the unseen world to form abiding and real identity.

The Argument from Personal Revelation

There are often claims from members of the Church who identify as transgender and other members of the Church who support transgenderism that they have received personal revelation that they are meant to identify as the gender that they currently identify as and/or that gender is not meant to be binary.

There are often claims from members of the Church who identify as transgender and other members of the Church who support transgenderism that they have received personal revelation that the Church is wrong about this issue and that it will eventually accept transgenderism and so on in the future. Since this is an important theological topic that involves the entire human family and their eternal destiny, this type of revelation does not lie within the stewardship of those that identify as transgender or those that support same-sex marriage, but with the prophet of God (Doctrine and Covenants 28꞉2-4; 42:53-60; 112:20). We should wait for the Lord to reveal more officially as to what is occuring with transgender individuals. As it regards those that have felt like they've received revelation that gender isn't binary, the Savior told us that the one way we could protect ourselves against deception is to hold to his word (JS-Matthew 1꞉37) and he announces himself as the source of the revelation declaring that gender is binary (Doctrine and Covenants 49꞉28). Thus, it is likely that these individuals, if they have indeed felt revelation occur, have been deceived by false Spirits (Doctrine and Covenants 50꞉1-2) and their testimonies should be disregarded. If someone were to receive a revelation like this, it would be given to them for their own comfort and instruction. They would also be placed under strict commandment to not disseminate their revelation until it accords with the revelation of the prophets, God's authorized priesthood channels (Alma 12꞉9).


Main article:	How does official teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints view those that receive revelation that contradicts that of the Prophet?

As a final word which we wish to emphasize:

FairMormon joins The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in unequivocally condemning the discrimination of any of God's children based upon gender (or gender identity), race, sexual identity and/or orientation, and/or religious affiliation..


See also:	If same-sex attraction is something that occurs naturally, why can't God and the Church accept it by allowing sealings of LGBT couples?

Is The Family: A Proclamation to the World against feminism?

Introduction to Question

In 1995, top leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints introduced a nine-paragraph Proclamation regarding the family called The Family: A Proclamation to the World. In it, the divine institution of the family is described and defended–– including primary gender roles for a man and wife in marriage.

This document has invited a lot of criticism from some of the more progressive critics of the Church. It has also been the source of confusion for many regular members of the Church that have feminist leanings since the document prescribes ideal gender roles. The question has been: Is the Proclamation against feminism?

This article explores the question.

Response to Question

Two Lines that Affirm Male and Female Equality

The document contains two lines that affirm male/female equality––thus demonstrating that the Proclamation is not against feminism.

The first is this:

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.

The second is this:

Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.

Notice the assumptions behind the lines: that males and females are capable of performing the same tasks and are encouraged to share each other’s loads.

Now, it is true that the Proclamation prescribes ideal gender roles (that is, roles that change not on preference but out of necessity) based upon what we are naturally ordered to biologically. This shouldn’t be offensive. Gender complementarianism is scientifically defensible and is a philosophy that affirms the moral equality of the two genders.^[221] We should seek to fill our roles as prescribed by the Proclamation. But the Proclamation doesn’t exclude feminism. Notice that the second line assumes that wives will be able to take over their husbands’ responsibilities. Women should therefore have potential for lucrative careers to support their families––including those careers traditionally held by men.

The Proclamation may indeed be against certain strains of feminist thought—such as gender being merely a social construct. But it is not inherently against notions of moral equality of the genders. It does not say that females are fundamentally incapable of performing any task they wish. All the Proclamation intends to state is that there are psychobehavioral and physical differences between men and women that are both biologically and spiritually-determined and that these differences are optimized for producing, nurturing, and protecting children. It encourages us to fill the roles that we were most naturally ordered to so as to glorify men as men and women as women—not holding one to the other's standard of excellence.

Conclusion

It’s unfortunate that this has become such a common misunderstanding about the Proclamation; but hopefully this article will allow both "progressive" members and "conservative" members to find some common ground as we both seek to understand how both men and women can reach their fullest potential as children of God.

What does the Family Proclamation mean when it says fathers "preside" over their families?

Part of family Proclamation addresses general gender roles given to men and women. Fathers, it says, are to "preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families." Mothers "are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children." In these responsibilities, it says, "fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."

The definition of the word "preside"

The etymology of the word "preside" is interesting. It traces back to the Latin words "prae" and "sedere." When combined, they literally mean "to sit in front of." It was used in Latin to signify "standing guard" and "superintending." Thus, the word carries the dual meaning of protecting something and leading something (or someone). That is why the word is included in others like "president."

Husbands preside in the home

Church leaders have consistently taught that men preside in the home. Paul taught in Corinthians that "the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."^[222] The Prophet Joseph Smith explained, "It is the place of the man to stand at the head of his family."^[223] President Joseph F. Smith reemphasized this when he taught, "In the home the presiding authority is always vested in the father."^[224]

The appointment for the man to preside comes from heaven, as taught by President Howard W. Hunter: "Of necessity there must be in the Church and in the home a presiding officer (see D&C 107꞉21). By divine appointment, the responsibility to preside in the home rests upon the priesthood holder (see Moses 4꞉22)."^[225]

Husbands lead their families

The Church's General Handbook teaches:

Presiding in the family is the responsibility to help lead family members back to dwell in God’s presence. This is done by serving and teaching with gentleness, meekness, and pure love, following the example of Jesus Christ (see Matthew 20꞉26-28). Presiding in the family includes leading family members in regular prayer, gospel study, and other aspects of worship. Parents work in unity to fulfill these responsibilities.^[226]

Elder D. Todd Christofferson taught:

The scriptures tell us, "The Melchizedek Priesthood holds the right of presidency, and … to administer in spiritual things" (Doctrine and Covenants 107꞉8). Brethren, this means that we are to take the lead in our marriage and families in attending to the spiritual as well as physical welfare of our wives, children, and even extended family. . . .
Unfortunately, in some homes it is always the wife and mother who has to suggest—even sometimes plead—that the family gather for prayer or for home evening. This should not be. The women in our lives have the right to look to their husbands to assume their duty and to take the lead. A husband should counsel continually with his wife about the welfare of each of their children. … Most sisters are willing and eager to counsel with their husbands and can provide many helpful insights and recommendations, but it will be easier for them if their husband takes the initiative to talk with them and to plan together.^[227]

Husbands work in unity with their wives

The goal of this life, as taught by scripture, is to become "of one heart and one mind."^[228] Elder Boyd K. Packer taught that "[i]n the Church there is a distinct line of authority. We serve where called by those who preside over us. In the home it is a partnership with husband and wife equally yoked together, sharing in decisions, always working together."^[229] Elder L. Tom Perry taught, "The father is the head in his family. . . . Remember, brethren, that in your role as leader in the family, your wife is your companion. . . . Therefore, there is not a president or a vice president in a family. The couple works together eternally for the good of the family.^[230]

Presiding in righteousness

In all cases, men are to preside in love and righteousness. From the General Handbook we learn:

This [priesthood] authority can be used only in righteousness (see Doctrine and Covenants 121꞉36). It is exercised by persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, love, and kindness (see Doctrine and Covenants 121꞉41-42). Leaders counsel with others [and parents counsel together] in a spirit of unity and seek the Lord’s will through revelation (see Doctrine and Covenants 41꞉2). . . . Those who exercise priesthood authority do not force their will on others. They do not use it for selfish purposes. If a person uses it unrighteously, "the heavens withdraw themselves [and] the Spirit of the Lord is grieved" (Doctrine and Covenants 121꞉37).^[231]

A husband can lose the efficacy of his priesthood power if he is not keeping his life in accordance with the moral laws and other statutes laid out in scripture. That is made clear in Doctrine and Covenants 121꞉36-44 which includes telling men that they cannot act in "unrighteous dominion" over others. Thus, if a man's family is to receive guidance from God, he is obligated to act in accordance with the commandments. He should strive to include his wife in the leadership of his family as much as possible. His authority is not equivalent to a dictatorship.

Paul counseled married men to "love [their] wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word. That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish." "So ought men," he says, "to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church[.]"^[232]-->

Was "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" drafted by lawyers in Hawaii in response to legal concerns the Church had over the legalization of gay marriage?

The main concern of Church leaders, and the only one that they seem to have had in consciousness when they first started drafting the proclamation, was a conference held in Cairo, Egypt in 1994 on the family that did not mention marriage

It is claimed by some that "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" was drafted by lawyers in Hawaii in response to legal concerns the Church had over the legalization of gay marriage.^[233] Additionally it is claimed that the legalization of same-sex marriage and justifying an irrational homophobia ad hoc was the main concern motivating the creation of the proclamation.

Mormonr.org documents how "[i]n 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court began hearing a case on gay marriage, known as Baehr v. Lewin (later Miike).^[234] In 1994 the brethren begin the process of writing the Proclamation in a 'revelatory process' with members of the Quorum of the Twelve."^[235] They also state that "Lynn Wardle, a BYU law professor known for his opposition to gay marriage, consulted on the Church filing in Hawaii's Baehr v. Miike case. Wardle may have also consulted with drafting the family proclamation, but there is no known evidence to support this."^[236] This is as far as anyone can come to saying that Church lawyers drafted the proclamation. It is the case that Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder James E. Faust were lawyers prior to their call to the Quorum of the Twelve and that they were secondary draftsman to the Proclamation; but Oaks and Faust are not who people have in mind when making the claim that "the Family Proclamation was drafted by Church lawyers." They mean to say that lawyers outside of the Quorum of the Twelve apostles and First Presidency drafted the proclamation.

We have evidence that the drafting of the Proclamation was done by Elders Nelson, Faust, and Oaks in the winter of 1994 and by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve for the first 9 months of the year 1995.

Dallin H. Oaks' biography In the Hands of the Lord: The Life of Dallin H. Oaks (2021) authored by Richard Turley provides additional context:

During the fall of 1994, at the urging of its Acting President, Boyd K. Packer, the Quorum of the Twelve discussed the need for a scripture-based Proclamation to set forth the Church’s doctrinal position on the family. A committee consisting of Elders Faust, Nelson, and Oaks was assigned to prepare a draft. Their work, for which Elder Nelson was the principal draftsman, was completed over the Christmas holidays. After being approved by the Quorum of the Twelve, the draft was submitted to the First Presidency on January 9, 1995, and warmly received.
Over the next several months, the First Presidency took the proposed Proclamation under advisement and made needed amendments. Then on September 23, 1995, in the general Relief Society meeting held in the Salt Lake Tabernacle and broadcast throughout the world, Church President Gordon B. Hinckley read "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" publicly for the first time.
During the period that the Proclamation was being drafted, Church leaders grew concerned about efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in the state of Hawaii. As that movement gained momentum, a group of Church authorities and Latter-day Saint legal scholars, including Elder Oaks, recommended that the Church oppose the Hawaii efforts…^[237]

The above quotation from Dallin H. Oaks' biography notes that the initial impetus for drafting the Proclamation came from Boyd K. Packer. Boyd K. Packer related the following about the origins of the Proclamation at a devotional given at BYU in 2003:

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve issued a Proclamation on the family. I can tell you how that came about. They had a world conference on the family sponsored by the United Nations in Beijing, China. We sent representatives. It was not pleasant what they heard. They called another one in Cairo. Some of our people were there. I read the proceedings of that. The word marriage was not mentioned. It was at a conference on the family, but marriage was not even mentioned.
It was then they announced that they were going to have such a conference here in Salt Lake City. Some of us made the recommendation: "They are coming here. We had better proclaim our position."^[238]

Similarly, Elder M. Russell Ballard related:

Various world conferences were held dealing either directly or indirectly with the family…In the midst of all that was stirring on this subject in the world, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles could see the importance of declaring to the world the revealed, true role of the family in the eternal plan of God. We worked together through the divinely inspired council system that operates even at the highest levels of the Church to craft a Proclamation that would make the Lord’s position on the family so clear that it could not be misunderstood.^[239]

We note that the United Nations indeed held a conference in Beijing, China (the Fourth World Conference on Women) from the 4–15 of September 1995 and one in Cairo, Egypt (the "Cairo Conference on Population and Development") from 5–13 September 1994. The Beijing Conference probably had little to no impact on the drafting of the Proclamation given that the Proclamation had already been drafted, substantially edited, and was about read to the Church by Gordon B. Hinckley on 23 September 1995. The Deseret News reported on 14 March 1995 that the United Nations was holding a conference celebrating the International Year of the Family that week in Salt Lake City.^[240] The U.N. had designated the year 1994 as the International Year of the Family. The First Presidency released a statement on 1 January 1994 endorsing the U.N.'s designation.^[241] 5 days after the Deseret News' report on the UN coming to Salt Lake, they reported the alarming speech of a member of the John Birch Society before a gathering of about 400 in Salt Lake City. The speaker, William Grigg, warned of what he perceived were the United Nations' attempts at "redefining the family out of existence[.]"^[242]

Thus, this is the potential timeline/narrative that arises:

17 December 1990: With the encouragement of William E. Woods, a gay rights activist, three same-gender couples applied for marriage licenses at the Hawaii Department of Health.
12 April 1991: The three couples are denied the marriage licenses
1 May 1991: The three couples file the lawsuit.
1993: The Hawaii Supreme Court begins to hear the case.
1 February 1994: The First Presidency releases a statement saying "[w]e encourage members to appeal to legislators, judges, and other government officials to preserve the purposes and sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, and to reject all efforts to give legal authorization or other official approval or support to marriages between persons of the same gender."^[243]
5–13 September 1994: The United Nations holds their conference in Egypt.
Sometime between mid-September to December 1994: Boyd K. Packer read the proceedings of the conference in Cairo in 1994. Concerned about the conference coming to Salt Lake City in March of the next year, he and others (likely the Church's representatives at Cairo) provided encouragement for the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to write a proclamation.
Christmas and New Years 1994: The initial drafting of the Proclamation takes place by Elders Nelson, Faust, and Oaks with Elder Nelson as the principal draftsman. During this time, Church representatives grow concerned over the efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in Hawaii and, with the encouragement of Latter-day Saint legal scholars and Dallin H. Oaks, decided to formally oppose those efforts.
24 February 1995: The Associated Press reports that the Church had announced its petition to intervene in the case.^[244]
4–15 September 1995: The United Nations' conference in Beijing happened and Church representatives attended the conference. Sometime in the eight days after their being at the conference, they may have reported on their findings to top Church leaders. Minor edits (at best) would be made to the proclamation.
23 September 1995: Gordon B. Hinckley reads the Proclamation at the Relief Society meeting in response to these concerns.
3 June 1997: The Church includes the Proclamation as part of an amicus curiae brief regarding the case to the Hawaii Supreme Court.^[245]
3 November 1998: The state of Hawaii passes a constitutional amendment reserving marriage for man-woman unions.
3 December 1999: The Hawaii state Supreme Court dismisses the case on the grounds that reserving marriage to man-woman unions does not violate the state's constitution.

It's certain that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve knew about the efforts in Hawaii prior to Packer providing the initial impetus to draft the proclamation. But, according to the documentable accounts of President Packer, Elder Ballard, and President Oaks, those efforts probably weren't in leaders' immediate consciousness when initially beginning to draft the family proclamation. They weren't the main concern on leaders' hearts when beginning to draft the proclamation.

Economic and Social Concerns with the Breakdown of the Family in the 80s and 90s Motivating the Proclamation

Another Latter-day Saint, Walker Wright, wrote an insightful post outlining the economic and social costs of the breakdown of the family including the rise of fatherless homes and the amount of people on welfare being observed in the United States in late 80s and 90s that likely influenced the final shape of the proclamation.^[246] Elder Gordon B. Hinckley stated in the October 1993 General Conference:

We in America are saddled with a huge financial deficit in our national budget. This has led to astronomical debt. But there is another deficit which, in its long-term implications, is more serious. It is a moral deficit, a decline in values in the lives of the people, which is sapping the very foundation of our society. It is serious in this land. And it is serious in every other nation of which I know. Some months ago there appeared in the Wall Street Journal what was spoken of as an index of what is happening to our culture. I read from this statement: "Since 1960, the U.S. population has increased 41%; the gross domestic product has nearly tripled; and total social spending by all levels of government [has experienced] more than a fivefold increase. ... "But during the same ... period there has been a 560% increase in violent crime; a 419% increase in illegitimate births; a quadrupling in divorce rates; a tripling of the percentage of children living in single-parent homes; more than 200% increase in the teenage suicide rate" (William J. Bennett, "Quantifying America's Decline," Wall Street Journal, 15 Mar. 1993).^[247]

Elder Neal A. Maxwell decried the rise of illegitimate children, children not having functioning fathers more and more, the large percentage of juvenile criminals coming from fatherless homes, less children being born today and living continuously with their own mother and father, the rise of adolescents contracting sexually transmitted diseases, and the percentage of children that had both of their parents or their only parent in the workforce in the April 1994 General Conference.^[248]

Leaders couldn't have been concerned with just same-sex marriage. The Proclamation addressed a wide range of issues. Wright concludes:

While the Proclamation dedicates considerable space to heteronormative marriage and gender essentialism, it also focuses on the rearing of children: "Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations…Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity" (italics mine). The portion on father/mother responsibilities is typically interpreted as a mere restatement of traditional (or outdated) gender roles. However, the concept that "fathers are to preside over their families…and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families" may stem from the political and public discussions revolving around fatherless families and welfare-dependent mothers (recall the absent father from Moyers’ documentary). "Work" is listed among multiple "principles" upon which "successful families and marriages are established…" On an even more dire note, the Proclamation warns "that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God" (italics mine). The language surrounding parental responsibility and specifically working, present, faithful fathers fits quite well into the national politics of the day. Statements similar to the Proclamation’s final line could be pulled from any of the above cited works: "We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

President Gordon B. Hinckley was asked by a reporter what his greatest concerns were as President of the Church as he celebrated his 5th birthday in June 1995. He replied: "I am concerned about family life in the Church. We have wonderful people, but we have too many whose families are falling apart. … I think [this] is my most serious concern."^[249] Just three months after, he read the family Proclamation to the General Relief Society Meeting. "It was no coincidence[,]" writes Bruce C. Hafen, "that this solemn declaration was issued precisely when the Lord’s prophet felt that, of all the subjects on his mind, unstable family life in the Church was his greatest concern."^[250] President Hinckley decried the breakdown of the family in society in the October 1995 General Conference.^[251] He placed the rise of the welfare state and the breakdown of the family close to same-sex marriage as among the social ills the Church should combat.

How bitter are the fruits of casting aside standards of virtue. The statistics are appalling. More than one-fourth of all children born in the United States are born out of wedlock, and the situation grows more serious. Of the teens who give birth, 46 percent will go on welfare within four years; of unmarried teens who give birth, 73 percent will be on welfare within four years. I believe that it should be the blessing of every child to be born into a home where that child is welcomed, nurtured, loved, and blessed with parents, a father and a mother, who live with loyalty to one another and to their children. I am sure that none of you younger women want less than this. Stand strong against the wiles of the world…There are those who would have us believe in the validity of what they choose to call same-sex marriage. Our hearts reach out to those who struggle with feelings of affinity for the same gender. We remember you before the Lord, we sympathize with you, we regard you as our brothers and our sisters. However, we cannot condone immoral practices on your part any more than we can condone immoral practices on the part of others.

This may be further evidence that legalization of same-sex marriage in Hawaii was not the main concern of Church leaders when beginning to draft the proclamation.

Even if the Proclamation were drafted with the Hawaii case being the primary concern to be addressed, two things must be kept in mind

1. Legal documents can be revelatory and scriptural

Legal documents can still be revelatory and authoritative. Some sections of the Doctrine and Covenants started out as (1) council minutes, (2) official statements of church policy written by lawyers like Oliver Cowdery, (3) letters written by Joseph Smith, (4) excerpts from peoples’ notes recording things that Joseph Smith taught. Examples include D&C 102, 122, 123, 128, 129, 130, 131, 134, and 135.

Additionally, all revelations have a historical context in which they were given. No revelation comes in a vacuum. Just because the Proclamation arose in an environment that included legal questions about marriage, sexuality, and their nature, that does not negate nor diminish the authority of the proclamation.

When would revelation be more needed or more likely to come than in a contentious and confusing legal and political environment?

2. The doctrines contained within the Proclamation are doctrines long taught by the Church

The doctrines contained within the Proclamation have long taught by the Church. Regardless of how the doctrines were embodied in the Proclamation, they are not novel. The doctrine in the Proclamation wasnot created ad hoc to justify a political agenda or a stance on same-sex behavior that was an innovation.


Main articles:	*Have the doctrines in "The Family: A Proclamation* to the World" long been taught?**
	*What sort of scriptural support is there for the doctrines of The Family: A Proclamation* to the World?**
	What is the scriptural basis for the restriction on homosexual sexual behavior in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

What sort of scriptural support is there for the doctrines of The Family: A Proclamation to the World?

Introduction to Question

Many have asked what sort of scriptural support exists for the Family Proclamation. This article provides a resource that can answer this question.

Response to Question

Scriptural Insert

A website has been created called thefamilyproclamation.org. This website provides scriptures, general authority quotes, scientific research, and stories about applying the doctrines of the family proclamation. They have an annotated scriptural insert of the family Proclamation with scriptures that can support virtually each line of the proclamation. That insert is pictured below:

Line by Line Analysis

The same website has a section that provides line-by-line analysis of the family proclamation. Scriptures are listed in support of its doctrines.

Conclusion

The Family: A Proclamation to the World is a divinely inspired document. Its authors have repeatedly testified to its revelatory status. We should follow its teachings and see the rewards that we reap because of our obedience to it.

Is gender a social construct?

Introduction to Question

It’s a common refrain among the cultural left of the West that gender is a social construct.^[252] A social construct is any category of thought that is created and imposed onto reality through and because of human, social interaction. Key to the idea of a social construct is that the category of thought is not extracted from reality but imposed onto reality. For instance, social constructionists give the boundaries of nations as good examples of a social construct. At a finite moment in time, someone had to come along and say "here is where the boundaries of what we'll call the United States are going to be!" From that moment on, we have acted as if the boundaries of the United States have an objective, primitive existence when, according to these theorists, they don't.

The view of gender as a social construct stands in stark contrast to the ideas of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that "[g]ender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."^[253]

When saying gender in the statement "gender is a social construct", most are referring to the idea that there aren't any sex-specific, biologically-determined, psychobehavioral differences between men and women. According to these people, there are no substantive differences in preference or behavior between men and women. Postmodern-adjacent philosopher Judith Butler refers to gender as conceived here (as well as a person's gender identity) as a "performance".^[254] This performance is an outward showing or demonstration of the expectations that have been imposed onto a person through speech acts in their cultural environment. In other words, what we call "femininity" and "masculinity" is just people conforming to how society says that a man or woman "should act" and nothing more. There is no biological, neuroanatomical basis for any cognitive or behavioral differences between men and women. How a man or woman "should act" is merely an imposition from broader society for a particular social purpose—in this case the continuing replenishing of society with healthy citizens to run that society's economic and other political infrastructure.

When others say gender in the statement "gender is a social construct", they mean to say that the biological sex binary of male and female itself is a social construct. Butler in a 1994 book chapter regards the immutability of the body as pernicious since it "successfully buries and masks the genealogy of power relations by which it is constituted".^[255] "In short," summarizes social conservative philosopher Ryan T. Anderson, "‘the body’ conceived as something in particular is all about power."^[256]

Some people refer to both the male-female sex binary and cognitive-behavioral differences when saying gender in the statement "gender is a social construct".

The theory that gender is a social construct is the brainchild of second-wave feminism. Simone De Beauvoir is thought to be the mother of the movement. She is famous for the saying from her 1949 book The Second Sex that "[o]ne is not born, but rather becomes, a woman. No biological, psychological, or economic fate determines the figure that the human female presents in society; it is civilization as a whole that produces this creature, intermediate between male and eunuch, which is described as feminine."^[257] Second-wave feminism "broadened the debate [from merely about the ownership of property and suffrage, such as under first-wave feminism] to include a wider range of issues: sexuality, family, domesticity, the workplace, reproductive rights, de facto inequalities, and official legal inequalities. It was a movement that was focused on critiquing the patriarchal, or male-dominated, institutions and cultural practices throughout society. Second-wave feminism also drew attention to the issues of domestic violence and marital rape, created rape-crisis centers and women's shelters, and brought about changes in custody laws and divorce law."^[258] Key to undermining the conception of female as interested in domestic affairs was "undoing the myth" that there were sex-based, biologically-determined, psychobehavioral differences between men and women. Thus, second-wave feminists, and especially those involved in neuroscience and psychology, have been vocal for many years that gender is a social construct, and that there are no substantive brain differences between men and women that lead to differences in cognition and behavior. All of this theorizing and scholarship was toward the end of providing greater political equality for men and women. The claim that gender is a social construct now dominates most halls of academic learning in the West. While we can recognize the substantial and wonderful differences that have been made in society because of feminism including greater learning, financial, and professional opportunities for women as well as greater political power and influence, we can also recognize the deficiencies in the social constructionist theory of gender and theorize about new ways that themes of equality, equity, justice, fairness, sexism, and misogyny can be potentially reworked and retooled with our understanding of brain differences. We can celebrate men qua men and women qua women.

This article will respond to the social constructionist theory of gender under both meanings of gender as well as provide some resources for understanding other themes better.

Response to Question

Social Constructs May Not Exist

First, at the broadest level, social constructs may not exist. Recall that (key to the idea of a social construct) there is no objective existence to the categories imposed on to reality. Also, these categories of thoughts are created and imposed onto reality rather than extracted from it.

But both the subjectivity and the creation of categories are highly doubtful.

We can imagine a state of affairs in which there are no subjects, such as human beings, that exist. During that state of affairs, at some primitive point of time, there still existed the possibility that human beings would exist. On top of the possibility that human beings would exist was the possibility of their gender being physically substantiated and embodied. Given that the possibility of human male and female existed, the categories of male and female are objective and not imposed onto reality. The possibility is "out there" in the world and humans have merely given substance to the category of human male and female.

The same goes for all categories. Categories are never created and never merely subjective. Categories can only be embodied and recognized.

The Two Sex Gametes and Their Implications for the Male-Female Sex Binary

It is important to start by substantiating the existence of the male-female sex binary since, without it, sex-specific differences in cognition and behavior have no firm foundation. Without the existence of categories like male and female, there is no such thing as a "male brain" nor "female brain".

As explained by the atheist, lesbian, neuroscientist, sex researcher, and columnist Dr. Debra Soh:

Biological sex is either male or female. Contrary to what is commonly believed, sex is defined not by chromosomes or our genitals or hormonal profiles, but by gametes, which are mature reproductive cells. There are only two types of gametes: small ones called sperm that are produced by males, and large ones called eggs that are produced by females, There are no intermediate types of gametes between egg and sperm cells. Sex is therefore binary. It is not a spectrum.^[259]

It is because of the existence of the two and only two gametes that we are genetically evolved and constructed as human beings to be a segment of the population that carries and produces one gamete or the other: males or females. It is also by reason of the existence of the two gametes that intersex conditions are considered disorders of sexual development. A person was meant to develop and be born as either male or female. Evolutionary force has differentiated between male and female because of the advantages of sexual reproduction for the survival and progress of our species. The proximate, cooperative work of mother and father are vital to the health, development, and survival of human infants and young given that our young are helpless when born and thus require much attention. Nature gave us male and female in order to ensure that our young develop healthily.

Men are ordered towards the end of impregnation and women towards the end of hosting conception and incubation. Can you think of a third reproductive function that must be performed by a third member of the species in order for us or other animals to reproduce? If not, you have just been given additional evidence that the sex binary is real and that we were meant to develop as male or female and not something between it.

The male-female sex binary exists. This is not a category of thought that we have imposed onto reality but one that we have extracted from it.

Some claim that human sex is bimodal instead of binary—citing intersex conditions as evidence of people not being easily categorizable as male or female and thus evidence of human sex's bimodality. While it may be okay to make a merely descriptive claim that human sex is bimodal, it is not an accurate metaphysical claim. In other words, just because a group of people developed such that they are not easily categorizable as male or female, that does not mean that they weren't meant to develop as male or female. It does not mean that intersex conditions represent an entirely healthy, normal sexual development. Scripture proclaims and even secular evolutionary observations demand that we are meant to develop as either male or female.

Evidence For Neuroanatomical and Correlative Psychobehavioral Differences Between Men and Women

There is a lot of evidence for neuroanatomical and correlative psychobehavioral differences between men and women cited below.^[260] One of the clearest and most obvious differences between men and women is sexual preference. The vast majority of the human population is heterosexual and for obvious, biological reasons. There are also large differences in physical aggression and moderate to small differences in personality traits. Women have more oxytocin—a chemical reponsible for social paring and bonding—than men.^[261] This makes it so that women, on average and in general, are, for instance, more interested in careers involving people rather than things.

Much of today's society conflates the concepts of biological sex and sex differences in behavior. For instance, there are many different gender identities that one can choose from according to much of the modern cultural and political left. One of these is to be "non-binary". Those that identify as non-binary typically identify as such because they do not conform to stereotypically masculine nor feminine ways of thinking and behaving. In most cases, they are born male or female and physically present as such but, later in life, believe that they don't identify with their birth sex. It's important to remember that one can be gender non-conforming in behavior without necessarily having to identify as something other than their birth sex. Indeed, there are masculine women and effeminate men. Also, one does not need to be stereotypically masculine in every respect to be considered masculine or feminine. For its part, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints defines masculinity as acquiring the bodily and cognitive capabilities to do three things in the context of family life: preside over one's family, protect one's family, and provide for one's family. As for femininity, it is defined as acquiring the cognitive and bodily capabilities to nurture one's family. Father and mother have these primary roles but share in the other's roles and aid the other in those roles. What's great about these definitions is that, in the context of masculinity, masculinity is defined quite narrowly such that a man can love cooking, musicals, knitting, and other stereotypically feminine things but still be masculine insofar as he also acquires and becomes apt at the skills necessary to play the three roles listed above on behalf of his family and those around him. In the context of femininity, a woman can like and do stereotypically masculine things and still be a feminine woman so long as she acquires the bodily and cognitive skills necessary to nurture her family and those around her. Even if you don't have masculine nor feminine capabilities, there is still your body to confront which, in 99% of cases, will be genetically constructed as male or female. You can't identify as something that contradicts plain reality. If you are a more effeminate man, you don't have to identify as anything other than that: an effeminate man. There is indeed a spectrum of masculinity and femininity that one can be a part of. But one's greater or lesser masculinity or femininity should not lead someone to conclude they are something other than male or female and change their bodies which are, in about 99% of cases, organized as either male or female.

It is important to recognize that just because the author believes that gender (as behavior and cognition differences) has a biological basis, that does not mean that we are committed to the notion that socialization plays no role in how we shape our thinking or behavior. Differences exist at the individual level. Debra Soh explains:

To claim that there are no differences between the sexes when looking at group averages, or that culture has greater influence than biology; simply isn't true. Socialization shapes the extent to which our gender is expressed or suppressed, but it doesn't dictate whether someone will be masculine or feminine, or whether she or he will be gender-conforming or gender-atypical.
Let me explain: Whether a trait is deemed "masculine" or "feminine" is culturally defined, but whether a person gravitates toward traits that are considered masculine or feminine is driven by biology. For example, in the Western world, a shaved head is viewed as masculine, and the majority of people sporting a shaved head are men. For women who choose to shave their head as an expression of who they are, they are likely more masculine than the average woman, and will probably be more male-typical in other areas of their life, too. From a biological standpoint, compared with other women, there's a good chance they were exposed to higher levels of testosterone in utero.
If, in an alternate universe, a shaved head was seen as a feminine trait, we would expect to see the reverse—most people who shaved their head would be women, and any men who chose to do so would likely be more feminine than other men, and exposed to lower levels of testosterone in the womb.
For someone who is gender non-conforming, this is similarly influenced by biology, but the extent to which they will feel comfortable expressing their gender nonconformity (through, say, the way they dress or carry themselves) will be influenced by social factors, like parental upbringing and cultural messaging. Social influence cannot, however, override biology. No matter how much parents or teachers or peers frown upon gender nonconformity (or gender conformity, for that matter), a person will gravitate toward the same interests and behaviors, but he or she may feel more inclined to hide that part of themselves.^[262]

What A Man or Woman "Should Be"

But let's offer one more argument against the notion of a social construct. Judith Butler is a famous American philosopher and gender theorist. Butler is famous for the notion that gender is a "performance". This is known as the theory of "gender performativity". That theory is described well in an introduction to Butler's most famous book Gender Trouble (1990) here.

Butler's essential premise is that behaviors, attitudes, preferences, and temperaments that we typically associate with men and women are not innate to male and female. Male and female are not stable concepts, according to Butler, and any behavior that we associate as "innate" or "natural" to them is merely illusory. Gender identity—one's subjective sense of the sex that they belong to—is not innate either. Gender identity is constructed through a set of socially popular speech acts that are then performed. Gender identity and the behaviors that we engage in based on our understanding of what our gender identity is are thus socially-constructed. Recall that a social construct is a subjective category that is imposed onto reality.

There are three main points that we can offer against Butler's arguments:

Our inner sense of being male or female is most-often driven by the recognition that our bodies conform to the male or female sexual reproductive system. This is an objective observation.
Our inner sense of being masculine or feminine is driven by our recognition of patterns in male behavior and female behavior against which we judge our own level of masculinity or femininity. This is arguably an objective observation.
When in a situation where we have to tell someone to "be a man", we are transmitting a moral imperative to someone that they must act in accordance with. These morals can be persuasively argued to be objective morals. That moral imperative is transmitted with that particular linguistic content based on either the behavioral patterns that we witness men and women engaging in and/or the tasks that we can observe male and female bodies are more aptly suited for. These are all arguably objective observations.

If objective observations, then they definitionally cannot be social constructs. It's like what we call "walking". Walking is a particular kind of activity, and we can distinguish it from other kinds of activity like jogging and sprinting. That distinction is based on objective observations and abstracting a category of thought from objective observations. In a similar way, we might abstract categories of femininity and masculinity from objective observations of how men and women act. Performing these activities may have a biological basis that holds at the general level, varies slightly at the individual level, isn't infinitely malleable, and endures across time and culture.

Latter-day Saint Theology and Gender

As stated above, Latter-day Saints hold to gender being an essential characteristic as someone's eternal being. This understanding is gleaned from the scriptures of the faith.

The scriptures teach that the human spirit (or at least a part of it) is eternal.^[263] Prior to being given mortal bodies, the spirits of humans were created as male or female.^[264] Spirit is believed to be made of some kind of physical matter.^[265] Thus, the Latter-day Saint scriptures appear to teach that a part of human spirits is eternal while another part of it is created from perhaps more elementary spiritual matter particles. Latter-day Saints tend to call these parts a person's spiritual intelligence (which is eternal going backwards and forwards) and a person's spirit body (which is created). All people's spirits, from eternity past to eternity future, will be sired in some sense by a Heavenly Mother and Father.

Some Latter-day Saints (under what we'll call TSGA: "Theory of Spirit Gender A") believe that our gender is a part of only our intelligence and others (under what we'll call TSGB: "Theory of Spirit Gender B") believe that it is a part of only our spirit body. Another possibility (under what we'll call TSGC: "Theory of Spirit Gender C") may be that gendered ontologies are a part of a person's intelligence and are then added upon and expanded with a person's spirit body. Ultimately, it is not known exactly how and when gender becomes an eternal characteristic of someone's identity.

No matter which way you slice the theology, it is clear that gender is not a concept that was ever created. Some critics may be tempted to claim that gender is socially constructed in Latter-day Saint theology, but review of the scriptures and other official pronouncements declared to be inspired and authoritative contradicts that claim. Under TSGA, gender has always existed as a brute fact regarding a person's intelligence. Under TSGB, a divine feminine and masculine have existed from eternity past and will exist into eternity future and thus the concept of male or female gender was never created while our spirits' particular gender was.^[266] Under TSGC, both of these are true: gender is native to our intelligences and added upon with our spirit bodies by heavenly parents who have always been male or female and always will be male or female.

Key to understanding Latter-day Saint theology of gender and its importance to Latter-day Saints is the idea of gender complementarianism. That is: men and women play complementary roles and have complementary behaviors that contribute to the greater whole of producing and rearing children. For Latter-day Saints, this complementarity is something that is essential to the function of our mortal and eternal lives. That is why Latter-day Saints (and, at least in part, religious people more broadly) defend differences between men and women so much. There is something about men and women, qua men and qua women, that makes them special and contributes to the broader order of the cosmos. Gendered behavior and bodies are deeply meaningful to Latter-day Saints and signatures of the Eternal Mother and Father and their relationship. As stated by Elder Dallin H. Oaks, "Our theology begins with heavenly parents. Our highest aspiration is to be like them."^[267]

It is certainly the case that Latter-day Saints can create an understanding of complementarianism that is more rigorously based in scripture, science, and sound philosophy. However, it is clear that complementarianism is a necessary belief for fidelity to the basic, rudimentary statements of the scriptures and other pronouncements declared to be inspired and authoritative such as the Family Proclamation cited above.

Rethinking Sexism, Misogyny, Equality, and Morality

In noting that there are sex differences in cognition and behavior between men and women, it provides us an opportunity to plug an article that may be helpful in reconsidering and retooling our philosophical ideas regarding sexism, equality, misogyny, and more since much of the current moral and political discourse is based on an understanding of those themes that is informed by the assertion that gender is a social construct. We have written an article linked below that treats those themes philosophically and scripturally that we encourage our readers to be familiar with.


Main article:	What is sexism?

Conclusion

Our understanding of gender and its origins will continue to grow as neuroscientists and philosophers uncover more, but one thing is clear: it is the "conservative religious" folk that have an understanding of gender closer to reality than much of the modern cultural left of the West.

What is the scriptural basis for the restriction on homosexual sexual behavior in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Introduction to Question

In recent years, it has become an item of interest and controversy to know what scriptural grounds are for prohibiting homosexual sexual behavior in different Christian religions.

This article provides some resources for answering this question as well as other relevant scriptural texts from the Latter-day Saint canon for answering this question.

See also: What sort of scriptural support is there for the doctrines of The Family: A Proclamation to the World?

It demonstrates, despite lengthy and intelligent cases to the contrary,^[268] that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stands on solid scriptural grounds in their prohibition of homosexual sexual behavior and has effectively no theological workaround for incorporating neither homosexual sexual behavior nor same-sex unions/temple sealings into their theology.

Response to Question

Resources for Understanding the Biblical Perspective on Homosexuality

For understanding the biblical perspective on homosexuality, there are three great resources online that explain it.

Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (New York: HarperOne, 1996), 379–406 online at https://www.heartlandchurch.org/d/The_Moral_Vision_of_the_New_Testament_excerpt.pdf. This gives an academic, exegetical perspective from the New Testament about homosexuality, concluding that whenever homosexual sexual behavior is discussed, it is unremittingly negative.
Justin W. Starr, "Biblical Condemnations of Homosexual Conduct," FAIR Papers, November 2011, https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/starr-justin-BiblicalHomosexuality.pdf. This paper gives an academic, exegetical perspective from the entire Bible regarding homosexual sexual behavior. It concludes that the Bible is against all homosexual sexual behavior.
Robert A. J. Gagnon, one of the foremost experts on homosexuality and the Bible, has a website where he has links to his many articles and video presentations defending the traditional view from scripture.

Book Resources

The best book resource defending the traditional interpretation of scripture regarding homosexual sexual behavior:

Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001).

These resources thoroughly refute any notion that the Bible is either indifferent, silent, or in favor of homosexual sexual behavior.

Latter-day Saint Scripture and its Addenda to the Case Against Homosexual Sexual Behavior

Uniquely Latter-day Saint texts offer many important addenda to the conversation about proper sexuality.

The Book of Moses, contained in the Pearl of Great Price in the Latter-day Saint scriptural canon, affirms that all men and women had a personal, real pre-existence prior to being created on the earth. Moses 3꞉5 teaches that all things created in the Garden of Eden, including men and women (represented as Adam and Eve), were created spiritually before they were created physically in the Garden. Moses 1꞉8 reinforces that this was a real pre-existence (existing as actual spirits sepearte in both time and space from God) rather than ideal pre-existence (existing in God's mind prior to physical creation). Moses sees "all the children of men which are and were created." The Book of Abraham, also contained in the Pearl of Great price and purporting to the the writings of the biblical patriarch Abraham, teaches that there is at least a portion of our spirit that was not created (Abraham 3꞉18). Thus, our embodiment as man and woman means something not just now, but has always meant something. If that is the case, then there is an objective way to structure and understand our sexed embodiment and the sexual relationships that we engage in with those bodies. That is where this next point elucidates further.
The great Greek philosopher Aristotle taught that all things were created with a telos or purpose. By adhering to this telos or being used according to it, things, including people, flourish. Along similar lines, Jacob 2꞉21 teaches that all men and women were created with the end of keeping God’s commandments and glorifying him forever.^[269] Doctrine & Covenants 49꞉15-17 teaches that the Lord’s definition of marriage is such that it is between a man and a woman. In that scripture, men and women are commanded to be married and have sexual relations so that they can bear childrrn: to "multiply and replenish the earth". Scripture consistently associates keeping the commandments with flourishing and happiness. See, for example, Mosiah 2꞉41. This in and of itself should show that Latter-day Saint theology recognizes a gender binary of man and woman as well as the designedness and primacy of heterosexual marriages. People who claim that God made them with same-gender attraction and/or gender dysphoria and meant for them to act on their same-gender attraction are simply wrong. These scriptures also combine to testify that marriage, for Latter-day Saints, is not merely an instrumental good (something good because of the consequence it brings about) in that it brings about children that can contribute to society, but is an intrinsic good (something good by its nature) in that it is the consummation of who and what we are as men and women.
Restoration scripture echoes Genesis in affirming that men and women should become "one flesh"—affirming the creative order discussed in Justin W. Starr’s paper above.^[270] These are therefore affirmations of the created order whereby only relations between men and women are ethically proper. These scriptures, combined with those before that describe are telos, testify that, in matters regarding how we determine what is ethically-proper sexual conduct, it doesn't matter that God created us, but to what end he created us. If he created us for a particular end that was good, then we can and should make decisions that adhere to that purpose. God created woman from the rib of a man and said that for this reason (the reason of being taken from the man) shall a man leave his father and mothers and cleave to his wife, becoming one flesh (Genesis 2꞉21-24). He commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth (Genesis 1꞉28). God then saw that his creation was "very good" (Genesis 1꞉31).
Doctrine & Covenants 131꞉1-2 teaches that one must enter into the covenant of marriage in order to reach the Celestial Kingdom.
Doctrine & Covenants 132꞉19-20 lays out more of Latter-day Saint theology of marriage. According to that section, men and women’s glory as gods consists in part in having "a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever." Thus, the capacity to have spiritual offspring is a necessary condition of becoming gods in Latter-day Saint theology. Doctrine & Covenants 132 teaches that only men and women joined together in marriage have this capacity. Verse 63 of the revelation teaches that men and women are sealed together in part to "bear the souls of men." The revelation teaches that a binary sexual complementarity is required in order to achieve spiritual creation.^[271] This scripture alone naturally necessitates an ethic in which homosexual sexual behavior is discouraged or prohibited since engaging in it isn’t consonant with your divine identity and destiny. Sanctioned homosexual sexual behavior would confuse men and women both on earth and in heaven as to what their divine nature and destiny actually is. It would distort it.
The Family: A Proclamation to the World teaches that all men and women were born of Heavenly Parents in the pre-mortal life. Latter-day Saint theology affirms the existence of a Heavenly Mother by whom the spirits of all of humanity from Adam to the present day have been sired.^[272] It has been affirmed that the Proclamation came by way of divine inspiration and revelation many times.
The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible adds commentary to and restores much of the text of the Bible that is relevant to discussions of the Biblical witness regarding homosexual sexual behavior. Readers can see this for themselves in Joseph Smith's revision of Genesis 9 and the Sodom narratives, Romans 1꞉26-32,^[273] and 1 Corinthians 6꞉12 and 6:18.^[274] In each of these cases Joseph Smith either agrees with or intensifies the biblical witness against homosexual sexual behavior.

Will Technological Reproduction Justify a Reversal of the Church's Position on Homosexual Behavior?

Some claim that, perhaps in the future, technological reproduction will be able to occur and thus will be able to provide us, without the sexual union of (hopefully married) man and woman, healthy human bodies (either fully formed or ones that may need human care for development from both heterosexual and homosexual couples) for the spirit children of our Heavenly Parents to inhabit. Thus, in that situation, the Church could potentially receive revelation to be inclusive of LGBT romantic, sexual, and/or marital relationships and homosexuality and other human sexual behaviors that are not procreative, marital-sexual relationships can be accepted.

Here is an objection to such an argument: Jacob 2꞉21 informs us that we were created unto the end of keeping God's commandments. Doctrine & Covenants 49꞉15-17 tells us that God has commanded us to be married as man and woman so as to have children and give bodies to the amount of spirit children God has created.

The acceptance of LGBT romantic, sexual, and/or marital relationships, even at this future moment in time where technological reproduction, would flatly contradict these two scriptures. There is no other way to interpret these scriptures that places LGBT romantic, sexual, and/or marital relationships within the "telos" of the human body. Such hypothetical future acceptance is thus unnecessary and not even possible.

One would have to deny that there is divine inspiration behind these scriptures; but how could one do that? They're so intuitively true––and especially given other Latter-day Saint theological commitments such as the pre-existence, God's existence, and the necessity of God to instruct us in morality––that for scripture to state them seems almost unnecessary. Additional commentary on appeal to prophetic fallibility to justify rejection of these two scriptures is found in footnote #2 of this article.

Personal Revelation Justifying the Practice of Homosexual Sexual Behavior

Some have claimed that they have received revelation that homosexual sexual behavior is correct and use this as justification for not keeping the scriptural commandment of abstaining from them. This revelation, given its incongruity with scripture and other prophetic revelation, must be a form of false revelation from false spirits.

Main article: How does official teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints view those that receive revelation that contradicts that of the Prophet?

Scriptural Concordance of Words Relevant to Considerations About Homosexuality

Fornication is defined as any sexual activity between people outside of marriage. If one defines marriage as between a man and a woman, then any sexual contact between homosexual partners is going to be considered fornication. Below is a concordance of the mentions of fornication and its derivatives in scripture.

Fornication

Fornications

Ezekiel 16꞉15

Fornicator

Fornicators

Homosexuality as Part of the Definition of Other Words in Scripture Referring to Illicit Sexual Behavior

Homosexuality fits into the definition or the penumbras of the definitions of any other word in scripture referring to illicit sexual behavior.^[275] We have gathered an exhaustive concordance of those words at this link that readers should take a look at.


See also:	Did Christ teach against same-sex relationships during his mortal ministry?
	Isn't the Mormon opposition to same-sex marriage hypocritical, considering that they used to ban black from holding the priesthood until 1978?

Notes

↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "Same-Gender Attraction," Ensign (October 1995).
↑ "To The One," address given to twelve-stake fireside, Brigham Young University (5 March 1978); reprinted in Boyd K. Packer, That All May Be Edified (Bookcraft, 1982), pp. 186–200, emphasis added; italics in original. GL direct link
↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "Same-Gender Attraction," Ensign (October 1995): 9.
↑ "Orientation," American Psychological Association (last accessed 27 November 2010).
↑ Definition of Homosexuality, dictionary.reference.com, s.v. "homosexuality," (last accessed 27 November 2010).
↑ [American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style (Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005), 201.
↑ Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) Media reference guide (last accessed 27 November 2010).
↑ Katherine Ellen Foley, "Some animals kill each other after sex because their distinction between hungry and flirty is blurred," last modified February 14, 2017, https://qz.com/909885/some-animals-kill-each-other-after-sex-because-their-distinction-between-hungry-and-flirty-is-blurred/.
↑ Ty Mansfield, "'Mormons can be gay, they just can’t do gay': Deconstructing Sexuality and Identity from an LDS Perspective," (presentation, FairMormon Conference, Provo, UT, 2014).
↑ "The Conjugal vs. Revisionist Views of Marriage," Discussing Marriage, accessed May 4, 2021, https://discussingmarriage.org/the-conjugal-vs-revisionist-views-of-marriage/#.YJG5gkhKjRZ.
↑ Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "The Divine Institution of Marriage," (13 August 2008).
↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, "Reverence and Morality," General Conference (April 1987).
↑ “An Easter Greeting from the First Presidency,” Church News (15 April 1995), 1.
↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "Same-Gender Attraction," Ensign (October 2005): 9.
↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "Same-Gender Attraction," Ensign (October 2005): 9.
↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, "Why We Do Some of the Things We Do," Ensign (Nov 1999): 52. off-site
↑ Jeffrey R. Holland, "Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction," Ensign (October 2007): 42-45.
↑ Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, God Loveth His Children (Intellectual Reserve, 2007).
↑ Bruce C. Hafen, "Elder Bruce C. Hafen Speaks on Same-Sex Attraction," report of address given to Evergreen International annual conference, 19 September 2009.
↑ Michael Otterson, "Church Responds to HRC Petition," (12 October 2010).
↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "Protect the Children," Ensign (November 2012).
↑ Family Acceptance in Adolescence and the Health of LGBT Young Adults
↑ Jessica Gail, “Utah, one of the worst places to be LGBT and homeless,” Utah Public Radio, June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10, 2012. http://upr.org/post/utah-one-worst-places-be-lgbt-and-homeless
↑ Nicholas Ray, “Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth: an epidemic of homelessness,” National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute and the National Coalition for Homelessness, 2006. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/HomelessYouth.pdf
↑ “Throw-Away Kids,” originally published in qSaltLake, Aug 12,2008. Online copy at affirmation.org accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.affirmation.org/homelessness/throw-away_kids.shtml.
↑ Nicholas Ray, “Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth: an epidemic of homelessness,” National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute and the National Coalition for Homelessness, 2006. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/HomelessYouth.pdf
↑ “Throw-Away Kids,” originally published in qSaltLake, Aug 12,2008. Online copy at affirmation.org accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.affirmation.org/homelessness/throw-away_kids.shtml.
↑ “Growing up LGBT in America: HRC Youth Survey Report, Key Findings,” Human Rights Campaign, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Growing-Up-LGBT-in-America_Report.pdf.
↑ “Growing up LGBT in America: HRC Youth Survey Report, Key Findings,” Human Rights Campaign, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Growing-Up-LGBT-in-America_Report.pdf.
↑ Rebecca Trounson, “Gay teens less likely to be happy, nationwide survey finds,” The Salt Lake Tribune. June 7, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/54262370-68/gay-percent-lgbt-survey.html.csp.
↑ Melinda Rogers, “LGBT youth find safe haven at homeless drop-in shelter,” The Salt Lake Tribune. June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54274630-78/lgbt-utah-youths-center.html.csp.
↑ Melinda Rogers, “LGBT youth find safe haven at homeless drop-in shelter,” The Salt Lake Tribune. June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54274630-78/lgbt-utah-youths-center.html.csp.
↑ Melinda Rogers, “LGBT youth find safe haven at homeless drop-in shelter,” The Salt Lake Tribune. June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54274630-78/lgbt-utah-youths-center.html.csp.
↑ Understanding and Helping Those With Homosexual Problems
↑ "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," General Conference ({{{date}}}).
↑ "Same-Gender Attraction," General Conference (2006).
↑ "Same-Gender Attraction," General Conference (2006).
↑ "The Best Thing I Can Do for Leigh," General Conference (2009).
↑ Quinton L. Cook, "Our Father’s Plan—Big Enough for All His Children," General Conference (April 2009).
↑ Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "The Divine Institution of Marriage," (13 August 2008).
↑ Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "The Divine Institution of Marriage," (13 August 2008).
↑ Michael Otterson, Statement to SLC Council, 10 November 2009.
↑ D&C 132:16.
↑ Bruce C. Hafen, "Elder Bruce C. Hafen Speaks on Same-Sex Attraction," report of address given to Evergreen International annual conference, 19 September 2009.
↑ Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, God Loveth His Children (Intellectual Reserve, 2007). (italics added)
↑ Interview With Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman: “Same-Gender Attraction,” (undated).
↑ The Mormons, Interviews: Jeffrey R. Holland, pbs.org (30 April 2007).
↑ Address given by Elder Bruce C. Hafen at the Evergreen International annual conference, 19 September 2009.
↑ An Interview with Elder Dallin H. Oaks on Homosexuality and AIDS
↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, "Reverence and Morality," General Conference (April 1987).
↑ Understanding and Helping Those Who Have Homosexual Problems
↑ Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman, "Same Gender Attraction," interview with Church Public Affairs (2006). off-site
↑ Jeffrey R. Holland, "Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction," Ensign (October 2007): 42-45. off-site
↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality," New Era (October 1980): 39.
↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Balm of Gilead," General Conference (October 1987).
↑ “Free Agency and Freedom,” Brigham Young University 1987–88 Devotional and Fireside Speeches (Provo: BYU Publications, 1988), 46–47; the edited version printed here is found in Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate, Jr., eds., The Book of Mormon: Second Nephi, The Doctrinal Structure (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1989), 13-15.; cited in Dallin H. Oaks, "Same-Gender Attraction," Ensign (October 2005): 9.
↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Covenants," General Conference (October 1990).
↑ Boyd K. Packer, "For Time and All Eternity," General Conference (October 1993).
↑ Richard G. Scott, "To Be Healed," General Conference (April 1994). (italics in original)
↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "Same-Gender Attraction," Ensign (October 1995): 9.
↑ Richard G. Scott, "Trust in the Lord," General Conference (October 1995).
↑ Richard G. Scott, "Finding Joy in Life," General Conference (April 1996).
↑ Neal A. Maxwell, "According to the Desires of [Our Hearts]," General Conference (October 1996).
↑ Henry B. Eyring, "Do Not Delay," General Conference (October 1999).
↑ Neal A. Maxwell, "Content With The Things Allotted Unto Us," General Conference (April 2000).
↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "He Heals the Heavy Laden," General Conference (October 2006).
↑ Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman, "Same Gender Attraction," interview with Church Public Affairs (2006). off-site
↑ Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, God Loveth His Children (Intellectual Reserve, 2007).
↑ Jeffrey R. Holland, "Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction," Ensign (October 2007): 42-45.
↑ Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman, "Same Gender Attraction," interview with Church Public Affairs (2006). off-site
↑ American Psychological Association, "Answers to your questions for a better understanding of sexual orientation and homosexuality," (2008),2 .
↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "Same-Gender Attraction," Ensign (October 2005): 9.
↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Cleansing the Inner Vessel," Ensign (October 2010).
↑ Jeffrey R. Holland, "Helping Those Who Struggle With Same Gender Attraction," Ensign (October 2007).
↑ The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint, The Family: A Proclamation to the World (first presented 23 September 1995).
↑ ^{[citation needed]}
↑ Laumann, Edward O. , The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States 299
↑ Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman, "Same Gender Attraction," interview with Church Public Affairs (2006). off-site
↑ See Counsel given regarding sexual identity
↑ As quoted by Adam Olson in Maintaining the Course
↑ ^{[citation needed]}
↑ ^{[citation needed]}
↑ Laumann, Edward O. , The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States 299 link
↑ A New Therapy on Faith and Sexual Identity: Psychological Association Revises Treatment Guidelines to Allow Counselors to Help Clients Reject Their Same-Sex Attractions
↑ ^{[citation needed]} was footnoted as "task.force"
↑ Laumann, Edward O. , The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States 299
↑ ^{[needs work]} http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/87/6/869
↑ ^{[needs work]} http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0021-843X.112.1.144
↑ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2079706 ^{[citation needed]}
↑ http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a923933982~db=all~jumptype=rss ^{[citation needed]}
↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality," New Era (October 1980): 39.
↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, "Reverence and Morality," General Conference (April 1987).
↑ “Free Agency and Freedom,” Brigham Young University 1987–88 Devotional and Fireside Speeches (Provo: BYU Publications, 1988), pp. 46–47; an edited version is available in Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate, Jr., eds., The Book of Mormon: Second Nephi, The Doctrinal Structure (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1989), 13-15.
↑ First Presidency, letter, 14 November 1991.
↑ Richard G. Scott, "Making the Right Choices," General Conference (October 1994).
↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "Same-Gender Attraction," Ensign (October 1995): 9.
↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, "Stand Strong Against the Wiles of the World," General Conference (Women's Meeting, Sept 1995).
↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Ye Are The Temple of God," General Conference (November 2000).
↑ Boyd K. Packer, "The Standard of Truth Has Been Erected," General Conference (October 2003).
↑ Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman, "Same Gender Attraction," interview with Church Public Affairs (2006). off-site
↑ Jeffrey R. Holland, "Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction," Ensign (October 2007): 42-45.
↑ Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, God Loveth His Children (Intellectual Reserve, 2007).
↑ G. Todd Christopherson, "Moral Discipline," General Conference (October 2009).
↑ Bruce C. Hafen, "Elder Bruce C. Hafen Speaks on Same-Sex Attraction," report of address given to Evergreen International annual conference, 19 September 2009.
↑ Michael Otterson, "Church Responds to HRC Petition," (12 October 2010).
↑ Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Handbook 2: Administering the Church—2010 (Intellectual Reserve, 2010). Selected Church Policies and Guidelines 21.4.6
↑ Laumann, Edward O. , The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States 299
↑ American Psychiatric Association (May 2000). "Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues". Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists.
↑ "Helping Those Who Struggle," 42-45.
↑ Katherine Ellen Foley, "Some animals kill each other after sex because their distinction between hungry and flirty is blurred," last modified February 14, 2017, https://qz.com/909885/some-animals-kill-each-other-after-sex-because-their-distinction-between-hungry-and-flirty-is-blurred/.
↑ Ty Mansfield, "'Mormons can be gay, they just can’t do gay': Deconstructing Sexuality and Identity from an LDS Perspective," (presentation, FairMormon Conference, Provo, UT, 2014).
↑ "The Conjugal vs. Revisionist Views of Marriage," Discussing Marriage, accessed May 4, 2021, https://discussingmarriage.org/the-conjugal-vs-revisionist-views-of-marriage/#.YJG5gkhKjRZ.
↑ Brigham Young, Speech given in Joint Session of the Utah Legislature, February 5, 1952 in Fred Collier, The Teachings of President Brigham Young (Salt Lake City, UT: Collier's Publishing, 1987), 43.
↑ [1]
↑ Neal A. Maxwell, "Those Seedling Saints Who Sit Before You," CES Symposium on the Old Testament, August 1983, https://si.lds.org/library/talks/ces-symposium-addresses/those-seedling-saints-who-sit-before-you. [Note that here Elder Maxwell follows usage of homosexuality that was then current, especially among Church leaders: they saw homosexuality as behavior not as an orientation. Thus homosexual sin can be cured—for homosexual temptation or orientation is not a sin. (Though it is a burden for many that might be lightened or removed in accord with the Lord’s will.)]
↑ Boyd K. Packer, “How To Survive in Enemy Territory,” address on the centennial of Seminary program, 22 January 2012, http://seminary.lds.org/history/centennial/eng/how-to-survive-in-enemy-territory/.
↑ Russell M. Nelson, "Decisions for Eternity," general conference, October 2013 [footnotes make it clear he is speaking of same-sex marriage; these have been omitted here.
↑ Dallin H. Oaks, “Leadership Training: Chastity and Fidelity,” video, [1:01–1:14 timestamp] https://www.lds.org/pages/lt/hwb84sun4af0o2tjwwyt?lang=eng.
↑ Dallin H. Oaks, “No Other Gods,” general conference, October 2013, https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/no-other-gods.p27.
↑ Church statement, cited in Tad Walsh, “LDS Church responds to inquiries about Harry Reid comment,” Deseret News (7 November 2013), https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865590140/LDS-Church-responds-to-inquiries-about-Harry-Reid-comment.html. See also “Church Responds to Inquiries on ENDA, Same-Sex Marriage,” press release (11 November 2013), http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-inquiries-on-enda--same-sex-marriage
↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "No Other Gods," Ensign (November 2013), https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/no-other-gods?lang=eng.
↑ Daniel Woodruff, "LDS apostle explains church's evolution on LGBT issues, says members' politics may differ from doctrine," KUTV (14 March 2015), http://www.kutv.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/Tonight-at-10-LDS-apostle-opens-up-on-evolution-of-church-s-support-for-new-antidiscrimination-law-102821.shtml#.VQZN9i6zFQB.
↑ Dallin H. Oaks, “Love One Another: A Discussion on Same-Sex Attraction,” https://mormonandgay.lds.org/articles/love-one-another-a-discussion-on-same-sex-attraction.
↑ “Church Leaders,” <https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay/leaders?lang=eng> (21 October 2020). This comes from the Church's official website on same-sex attraction and the same statement remains there today.
↑ Church Newsroom, "April 2019 General Conference News and Announcements," (3 April 2019), https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/first-presidency-messages-general-conference-leadership-session-april-2019#oaks
↑ McKay Coppins, “The Most American Religion,” <https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/01/the-most-american-religion/617263/> (18 December 2020).
↑ Church News Staff, "President Dallin H. Oaks: ‘Divine Love in the Father’s Plan’," Church News, April 3, 2022, https://www.thechurchnews.com/general-conference/2022-04-03/president-oaks-april-2022-general-conference-gods-love-salvation-eternal-marriage-248346.
↑ Mosiah 18:9.
↑ "Church Provides Context on Handbook Changes Affecting Same-Sex Marriages," <https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/handbook-changes-same-sex-marriages-elder-christofferson> (21 October 2020).
↑ David B. Haight, "Be A Strong Link," Ensign 30/11 (November 2000). off-site
↑ Henry B. Eyring, "The Family," Ensign 28 (February 1998).
↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, "Stand Strong against the Wiles of the World," Ensign 25/11 (November 1995): 98. off-site
↑ Boyd K. Packer, "The Instrument of Your Mind and the Foundation of Your Character," CES Fireside (2 February 2003).off-site
↑ Neal A. Anderson, "Trial of Your Faith," Ensign 42/11 (November 2012). off-site
↑ " Approaching Mormon Doctrine, LDS Newsroom (4 May 2007). off-site
↑ D. Todd Christofferson, "The Doctrine of Christ," Ensign 42/5 (May 2012). off-site
↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Fledgling Finches and Family Life, BYU Campus Education Week Devotional, 18 August 2009.
↑ Henry B. Eyring, Ensign 28/2 (February 1998). off-site
↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Proclamation on the Family]," Worldwide Leadership Training Broadcast (9 February 2008). off-site
↑ David B. Haight, "Be A Strong Link," Ensign 30/11 (November 2000). off-site.
↑ M. Russell Ballard, "Beware of False Prophets and False Teachers," Ensign 29/11 (November 1999). off-site
↑ M. Russell Ballard, "Let Our Voices Be Heard," Ensign 33/11 (November 2003). off-site.
↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Counsel to Youth," Ensign 41/11 (November 2011). off-site
↑ M. Russell Ballard, "Beware of False Prophets and False Teachers," Ensign 29/11 (November 1999). off-site
↑ L. Tom Perry, "Obedience to Law Is Liberty," Ensign 43/5 (May 2013). off-site
↑ Neal A. Maxwell, "Sharing Insights from My Life," BYU Devotional 12 Jan 1999. off-site
↑ Henry B. Eyring, Ensign 28/2 (February 1998). off-site
↑ Robert D. Hales, "'If Thou Wilt Enter into Life," Ensign. off-site
↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "The Plan and the Proclamation," Ensign 47/11 (November 2017): 30–31. off-site
↑ W. Eugene Hansen, "Children and the Family," Ensign 28/5 (May 1998). off-site
↑ Eran A. Call, "The Home: A Refuge and Sanctuary," Ensign 28/11 (November 1998). off-site
↑ Claudio R.M. Costa, "Don't Leave for Tomorrow What You Can Do Today," Ensign 37/11 (November 2007). off-site
↑ ^153.0 ^153.1 M. Russell Ballard, "What Matters Most Is What Lasts Longest," Ensign 35/11 (November 2005). off-site
↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "As He Thinketh in His Heart," evening with a General Authority (February 2013). off-site
↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, "Stand Strong against the Wiles of the World," Ensign (November 1995): 98.
↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Fortify Your Homes Against Evil," Ensign (May 1979).
↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).
↑ Russell M. Nelson, "The Canker of Contention," Ensign (May 1989).
↑ Boyd K. Packer, The Things of the Soul (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997), 228 [Address given to Brigham Young University student body 14 April 1970.]
↑ Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed., (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1939), 272.
↑ Ezra Taft Benson, "To the Single Adult Brethren of the Church," Ensign (May 1988).
↑ Neal A. Maxwell, "Family Perspectives," BYU Devotional, 15 January 1974
↑ Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed., (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1939), 272.
↑ Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed., (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1939), 428.
↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "The Great Plan of Happiness," Ensign (November 1993).
↑ James E. Talmage, "The Eternity of Sex," Young Woman's Journal 25 (October 1914), 602-3 as found in Joseph Smith, The Words of Joseph Smith, comp. and ed. Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1980), 137 n. 4.
↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
↑ Boyd K. Packer, "For Time and All Eternty," Ensign (November 1993).
↑ Boyd K. Packer, "The Play and the Plan," CES Fireside, 7 May 1995, Kirkland, Washington.
↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).
↑ Russell M. Nelson, "Constancy Amid Change," Ensign (November 1993).
↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Fortify Your Homes Against Evil," Ensign (May 1979).
↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Voices of the Past, of the Present, of the Future," Ensign (May 1971).
↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Fortify Your Homes Against Evil," Ensign (May 1979).
↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).
↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
↑ This fact is exhaustively demonstrated in Gregory L. Smith, "Feet of Clay: Queer Theory and the Church of Jesus Christ," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 43/3 (5 March 2021): 187-215. [107–278] link
↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
↑ Neal A. Maxwell, Look Back At Sodom: A timely account from imaginary Sodom Scrolls (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1975).
↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "The Foundations of Righteousness," Ensign (November 1977).
↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Why Call Me Lord, Lord and Do Not the Things Which I Say?," Ensign (May 1975).
↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "The Great Plan of Happiness," Ensign (November 1993).
↑ Spencer W. Kimball, Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, edited by Edward L. Kimball, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982), 311.
↑ Cited in this context, for example, in Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
↑ Boyd K. Packer, The Things of the Soul (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997), 228 [Address given to Brigham Young University student body 14 April 1970.]
↑ James E. Faust, "The Integrity of Obeying the Law," Freedom Festival Fireside, Provo, Utah, 2 July 1995; cited in James P. Bell and James E. Faust, "Citizenship" in In The Strength Of the Lord: The Life and Teachings of James E. Faust (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1999), 274.
↑ Neal A. Maxwell, "All Hell Is Moved," BYU Devotional (8 November 1977).
↑ Neal A. Maxwell, "A More Determined Discipleship," Ensign (February 1979).
↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974). off-site
↑ Russell M. Nelson, "Children of the Covenant," Ensign (May 1995). off-site
↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).
↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Strengthening the Family, the Basic Unit of the Church," Ensign (May 1978).
↑ Joseph Fielding Smith, "Counsel to the Saints and to the World," Ensign (July 1972): 27.
↑ M. Russell Ballard, "Equality Through Diversity," Ensign (November 1993).
↑ M. Russell Ballard, "Equality Through Diversity," Ensign (November 1993).
↑ M. Russell Ballard, "Equality Through Diversity," Ensign (November 1993).
↑ Ezra Taft Benson, "Fundamentals of Enduring Family Relationships," Ensign (November 1982).
↑ M. Russell Ballard, "Equality Through Diversity," Ensign (November 1993).
↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).
↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Fortify Your Homes Against Evil," Ensign (May 1979).
↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).
↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).
↑ Neal A. Anderson, "Trial of Your Faith," Ensign (November 2012).
↑ "Intersex," Wikipedia, accessed January 4, 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex.
↑ "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed January 4, 2019, off-site.
↑ "General Conference Leadership Meetings Begin," Church Newsroom, accessed October 7, 2019, https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/october-2019-general-conference-first-presidency-leadership-session. "'Finally, the long-standing doctrinal statements reaffirmed in The Family: A Proclamation to the World 23 years ago will not change. They may be clarified as directed by inspiration.' For example, 'the intended meaning of gender in the family Proclamation and as used in Church statements and publications since that time is biological sex at birth.'"
↑ "Elder Nelson: 'There Is No Conflict Between Science and Religion'," LDS Living, April 17, 2015, [ttps://www.ldsliving.com/Elder-Nelson-There-Is-No-Conflict-Between-Science-and-Religion-/s/78668 off-site].
↑ Ty Mansfield, "'Mormons can be gay, they just can’t do gay': Deconstructing Sexuality and Identity from an LDS Perspective," (presentation, FairMormon Conference, Provo, UT, 2014).
↑ Bruce Goldman, "Two minds: the cognitive differences between men and women," Stanford Medicine, Stanford University, May 22, 2017, https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html; "'Two Minds' two years later: Still curious about sex differences in cognition? Here are some resources," Stanford Scope Blog, October 24, 2019, https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2019/10/24/two-minds-two-years-later-still-curious-about-sex-differences-in-cognition-here-are-some-resources/; John Stossel, "The Science: Male Brain vs Female Brain," YouTube, October 15, 2019, video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTEi2-FAEZE; David C. Geary, "The Real Causes of Human Sex Differences," Quilette, October 20, 2020, https://quillette.com/2020/10/20/the-real-causes-of-human-sex-differences/; "The Ideological Refusal to Acknowledge Evolved Sex Differences," Quillette, September 1, 2022, https://quillette.com/2022/09/01/the-ideological-refusal-to-acknowledge-evolved-sex-differences/; Male, Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences, 3rd ed. (Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association, 2020). Indeed, every single cell of our body is influenced by our sex. See Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Understanding the Biology of Sex and Gender Differences; Theresa M. Wizemann, Mary-Lou Pardue, eds., Exploring the Biological Contributions to Human Health: Does Sex Matter? (Washington D.C.: National Academies Press (US), 2001), Executive Summary, 2, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222291/#!po=1.11111. For further info on male-female neuroanatomy and psychobehavior, see Amber N. V. Ruigrock et. al, "A meta-analysis of sex differences in human brain structure," Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 39 (2014): 34–50; Larry Cahill, "A Half-Truth is a Whole Lie: On the Necessity of Investigating Sex Influences on the Brain," Endocrinology 153 (2012): 2542; "His Brain, Her Brain," Scientific American, October 1, 2012. For a paradigm of gender compatible with the Gospel, see Ryan T. Anderson, When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment (New York: Encounter, 2017), chap. 7. For the most thorough coverage of the literature exploring sex differences in neuroanatomy and psychobehavior in one book, see Charles Murray, Human Diversity: The Biology of Gender, Race, and Class (New York: Twelve, 2020), 11–127.
↑ 1 Corinthians 11꞉3
↑ "Chapter 42: Family: The Sweetest Union for Time and for Eternity," Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith.
↑ "Editorial Thoughts: The Rights of Fatherhood," Juvenile Instructor 37:5 (1 March 1902), 146.
↑ "Being a Righteous Husband and Father," October 1994 general conference.
↑ "Parents and Children", General Handbook, 2.1.3.
↑ D. Todd Christofferson, "To the Brethren of the Priesthood: Your Spiritual Leadership," Chile multistake conference, Aug. 26, 2018; as cited in Dallin H. Oaks, "Keeping the Faith on the Front Line," Ensign, June 2020 [digital only].
↑ Moses 7꞉18; Philippians 2꞉2; 1 Peter 3꞉15; Doctrine and Covenants 38꞉27.
↑ Boyd K. Packer, "The Relief Society," Ensign 28, no. 5 (May 1998): 73.
↑ "Fatherhood: An Eternal Calling," April 2004 general conference.
↑ "Exercising Priesthood Authority Righteously," General Handbook, 3.4.4.
↑ Ephesians 5꞉25-29
↑ The claim has its origins in Laura Compton, "From Amici to 'Ohana: The Hawaiian Roots of the Family Proclamation," Rational Faiths, May 15, 2015, https://rationalfaiths.com/from-amici-to-ohana/.
↑ Baehr v. Lewin (1993) was a case where three same-sex couples petitioned the Hawaii Supreme Court to recognize their unions.
↑ The Family Proclamation was published in 1995. Dallin H. Oaks explained that it was developed over the course of a year: "Subjects were identified and discussed by members of the Quorum of the Twelve for nearly a year. Language was proposed, reviewed, and revised. Prayerfully we continually pleaded with the Lord for His inspiration on what we should say and how we should say it." DHO offers an account of the Proclamation.
↑ "Origins of the Family Proclamation," Mormonr, accessed January 24, 2023, https://mormonr.org/qnas/NqoXl/origins_of_the_family_proclamation.
↑ Richard E. Turley Jr., In the Hands of the Lord: The Life of Dallin H. Oaks (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2021), 215.
↑ Boyd K. Packer, "The Instrument of Your Mind and the Foundation of Your Character," CES Fireside (2 February 2003).
↑ M. Russell Ballard, "The Sacred Responsibilities of Parenthood," (address at Brigham Young University, 19 August 2003). Cited in W. Justin Dyer and Michael A. Goodman, "The Prophetic Nature of The Family Proclamation," in Latter-day Saints in Washington D.C.: History, People, and Places, ed. Kenneth L. Alford, Lloyd D. Newell, and Alexander L. Baugh (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2021), 142, 152n24.
↑ "World Focus on S.L. Gathering," Deseret News, March 15, 1995.
↑ "Year of family endorsed by the First Presidency," Church News, January 1, 1994; "YEAR OF FAMILY ENDORSED BY THE FIRST PRESIDENCY," Deseret News, January 1, 1994; "FIRST PRESIDENCY BACKS 1994 AS YEAR OF FAMILY," Deseret News, January 9, 1994.
↑ Marianne Schmidt, "U.N. IS ENEMY OF THE FAMILY, EDITOR SAYS," Deseret News, March 19, 1995. Yet another Deseret News article appeared on 17 April 1995 from one Scott Bradley in North Logan decrying the perceived ways in which the U.N. was undermining family. "U.N. GATHERINGS THREATEN FAMILIES," Deseret News, April 17, 1995.
↑ "First Presidency Statement Opposing Same Gender Marriages," Ensign 24, no. 4 (April 1994): 80.
↑ "CHURCH JOINS HAWAII FIGHT OVER SAME-SEX MARRIAGES," Associated Press, February 24, 1995.
↑ "Amicus Curiae Brief of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1997), Baehr v. Miike," Mormonr, accessed May 10, 2022, https://mormonr.org/qnas/NqoXl/origins_of_the_family_proclamation/research#re-0Z2bwi-L8jzYb.
↑ Walker Wright, "Family Breakdown, the Welfare State, and the Family Proclamation: An Alternative History," Worlds Without End, August 1, 2015, http://www.withoutend.org/family-proclamation-alternative-history/.
↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, "Bring Up a Child in the Way He Should Go," Ensign 23, no. 11 (November 1993): 58–59.
↑ Neal A. Maxwell, "Take Especial Care of Your Family," Ensign 24, no. 5 (May 1994): 88–89.
↑ Bruce C. Hafen, "The Proclamation on the Family: Transcending the Cultural Confusion," Ensign 45, no. 8 (August 2015): 51.
↑ Ibid.
↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, "Stand Strong Against the Wiles of the World," Ensign 25, no. 11 (November 1995): 98–101.
↑ Unless otherwise stated, all quotations and citations from the feminist authors below come from Ryan T. Anderson, When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment (New York: Encounter Books, 2018).
↑ "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," 2nd paragraph.
↑ Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York: Routledge, 2006), 171–80.
↑ Judith Butler, "Bodies That Matter," in Engaging with Irigaray, ed. Carolyn Burke, Naomi Schor, and Margaret Whitford (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994), 148.
↑ Anderson, When Harry Became Sally, 153.
↑ Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex , trans. H.M. Parshley (London: Jonathan Cape, 1953; 2009), 294.
↑ "Second-wave feminism," Wikipedia, accessed January 11, 2023, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-wave_feminism.
↑ Dr. Debra Soh, The End of Gender: Debunking the Myths About Sex and Identity in Our Society (New York: Threshold Editions, 2020), 17.
↑ Bruce Goldman, "Two minds: the cognitive differences between men and women," Stanford Medicine, Stanford University, May 22, 2017, https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html; "'Two Minds' two years later: Still curious about sex differences in cognition? Here are some resources," Stanford Scope Blog, October 24, 2019, https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2019/10/24/two-minds-two-years-later-still-curious-about-sex-differences-in-cognition-here-are-some-resources/; John Stossel, "The Science: Male Brain vs Female Brain," YouTube, October 15, 2019, video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTEi2-FAEZE; David C. Geary, "The Real Causes of Human Sex Differences," Quilette, October 20, 2020, https://quillette.com/2020/10/20/the-real-causes-of-human-sex-differences/; "The Ideological Refusal to Acknowledge Evolved Sex Differences," Quillette, September 1, 2022, https://quillette.com/2022/09/01/the-ideological-refusal-to-acknowledge-evolved-sex-differences/; Male, Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences, 3rd ed. (Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association, 2020). Indeed, every single cell of our body is influenced by our sex. See Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Understanding the Biology of Sex and Gender Differences; Theresa M. Wizemann, Mary-Lou Pardue, eds., Exploring the Biological Contributions to Human Health: Does Sex Matter? (Washington D.C.: National Academies Press (US), 2001), Executive Summary, 2, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222291/#!po=1.11111. For further info on male-female neuroanatomy and psychobehavior, see Amber N. V. Ruigrock et. al, "A meta-analysis of sex differences in human brain structure," Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 39 (2014): 34–50; Larry Cahill, "A Half-Truth is a Whole Lie: On the Necessity of Investigating Sex Influences on the Brain," Endocrinology 153 (2012): 2542; "His Brain, Her Brain," Scientific American, October 1, 2012. For a paradigm of gender compatible with the Gospel, see Ryan T. Anderson, When Harry Became Sally, chap. 7. See also Abigail Favale, The Genesis of Gender: A Christian Theory (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2022). For the most thorough coverage of the literature exploring sex differences in neuroanatomy and psychobehavior in one book that the author has seen, see Charles Murray, Human Diversity: The Biology of Gender, Race, and Class (New York: Twelve, 2020), 11–127.
↑ Donatella Marazziti et. al, "Sex-Related Differences in Plasma Oxytocin Levels in Humans," Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health 15 (March 2019): 58–63; Shan Gao et. al, "Oxytocin, the peptide that bonds the sexes also divides them," Proc Natl Acad Sci 113, no. 27 (2016): 7650-7654.
↑ Soh, The End of Gender, 42–44.
↑ Abraham 3꞉18
↑ Moses 3꞉4-5
↑ Doctrine & Covenants 131꞉7
↑ Of course, a commitment to TSGB would mean that the male-female binary could be redefined or otherwise abolished given a different plan for the configuration of a person's or group of people's spirit gender.
↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "Apostasy and Restoration," Ensign 25, no. 5 (May 1995): 87.
↑ Taylor G. Petrey, "Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 44, no. 4 (2011): 106–41; Tabernacles of Clay: Sexuality and Gender in Modern Mormonism (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2020); Blaire Ostler, Queer Mormon Theology: An Introduction (Newburgh, IN: By Common Consent Press, 2021); Nathan Oman, "A Welding Link of Some Kind: Exploring a possible theology of same-sex marriage sealings," Thoughts from a Tamed Cynic, September 27, 2022, https://nateoman.substack.com/p/a-welding-link-of-some-kind; For lengthy and cogent rebuttals to and reviews of Petrey’s book Tabernacles of Clay, see Gregory L. Smith, "Feet of Clay: Queer Theory and the Church of Jesus Christ," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 43 (2021): 107–278; Michael A. Goodman and Daniel Frost, "Constancy Amid Change," BYU Studies Quarterly 61, no. 3 (2022): 191–217. For a solid and insightful rebuttal to Petrey’s article "Towards a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology", see V.H. Cassler, "Plato's Son, Augustine's Heir: ‘A Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology’?" SquareTwo 5, no. 2 (Summer 2012). Dr. Cassler has another article on SquareTwo that provides a feminist argument in favor of traditional marriage that readers may be interested in. See V.H. Cassler, "'Some Things That Should Not Have Been Forgotten Were Lost': The Pro-Feminist, Pro-Democracy, Pro-Peace Case for State Privileging of Companionate Heterosexual Monogamous Marriage," SquareTwo 2, no. 1 (2009). For a solid review of and response to Blaire Ostler’s book, see Daniel Ortner, "The Queer Philosophies of Men Mingled with Scripture," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 51 (2022): 317–34. For a review of Oman's work, see Matthew Watkins, "'We Don’t Know, So We Might as Well': A Flimsy Philosophy for Same-Sex Sealings," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 54 (2022): 207–22. Much of the scriptures covered in this article will show that, even if Oman's thesis holds (which it doesn't. Sealings have always been understood in part as marital since Nauvoo), his arguments will still be rejecting key scriptural assertions and broaching more questions than answering.
↑ Some will wish to undermine this scripture by pointing to passages in the Book of Mormon that affirm that errors might exist in it such as the Title Page of the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 19꞉6; Mormon 8꞉12, 16-17; Mormon 9꞉31; Ether 12꞉23-25. Each of the authors is clear that the content that they have included in the Book of Mormon is sacred content. All of them couch their disclaimers in conditionals i.e. "if error exists, don't condemn it". The Book of Mormon authors were confident that the content, and especially the content that prophets were claiming was sacred teaching revealed from heaven, was of divine origin. The way that they recount secular history and their particular writing style may be weak and may contain errors, and some of the claimed divine content may indeed not come from God, but Book of Mormon authors are clear that they tried their absolute hardest every effort to include only those things they believed came from God as the Book of Mormon’s sacred teaching. We should, in their honor, try our hardest to recognize the content that they wrote, compiled, and bequeathed to us as divine, morally and scientifically correct teachings.
↑ Doctrine & Covenants 49꞉15-17; Moses 3꞉21-24; Abraham 5꞉14-18
↑ It should be noted that Joseph Smith never appears to have taught in his public sermons that human spirits were birthed by Heavenly Parents in the pre-mortal existence. Indeed, he seems to have taught in his public sermons that spirits were never created. See Kenneth W. Godfrey, "The History of Intelligence in Latter-day Saint Thought," in The Pearl of Great Price: Revelations from God, ed. H. Donl Peterson and Charles D. Tate Jr. (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1989), 213-36; Blake Ostler, "The Idea of Pre-Existence in the Development of Mormon Thought," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15, no. 1 (Spring 1982): 59–78. Although that is true, it is also the case that his revelations teach that men and women can create spirit children and that our spirits were at one point created. The Book of Moses teaches this doctrine of spirits having a moment when they were created and the majority of Latter-day Saint scriptural exegetes have recognized this or at least been open to it. See Moses 3꞉5 and especially in connection to Moses 1꞉8 where Moses sees "all the children of men which are and were created." All scripture assumes real pre-existence instead of ideal pre-existence and virtually all Latter-day Saint exegetes with the exception of perhaps one have recognized this. See Elder Bruce R. McConkie, "Christ and the Creation," in Studies in Scripture: Volume Two, The Pearl of Great Price, ed. Robert L. Millet and Kent P. Jackson (Salt Lake City: Randall Book, 1985), 88; Milton R. Hunter, Pearl of Great Price Commentary (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1951), 80–86; Richard D. Draper, S. Kent Brown, and Michael D. Rhodes, The Pearl of Great Price: A Verse by Verse Commentary (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2005), 222; H. Donl Peterson, The Pearl of Great Price: A History and Commentary (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1987), 129–30; Shon D. Hopkin, "Premortal Existence," in Pearl of Great Price Reference Companion, ed. Dennis L. Largey (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2017), 240–41; Hyrum L. Andrus, Doctrinal Commentary on the Pearl of Great Price (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1973), 99–136; Aaron P. Schade and Matthew L. Bowen, The Book of Moses: From the Ancient of Days to the Latter Days (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2021), 153–54n30; Book of Mormon Central and Jeffrey R. Bradshaw, "Book of Moses Essays: #54 Moses Sees the Garden of Eden (Moses 3) Spiritual Creation (Moses 3꞉5-7)," The Interpreter Foundation, May 8, 2021, https://interpreterfoundation.org/book-of-moses-essays-054/; Terryl L. Givens, "The Book of Moses as a Pre–Augustinian Text: A New Look at the Pelagian Crisis," in Tracing Ancient Threads in the Book of Moses: Inspired Origins, Temple Contexts, and Literary Qualities, ed. Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, David R. Seely, John W. Welch and Scott Gordon, 2 vols. (Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation; Springville, UT: Book of Mormon Central; Redding, CA: FAIR; Tooele, UT: Eborn Books, 2021), 1:293-314. Of the five commentaries on the Doctrine and Covenants that were reviewed and that commented on v. 63 of this revelation specifically, two appear to explicitly accept that spirit birth is a reality. Exactly how is not specified. See Roy W. Doxey, Doctrine and Covenants Speaks (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1970), 422; Daniel H. Ludlow, A Companion to Your Study of the Doctrine and Covenants, 2 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1978), 1:664. Two seem to be at the very least open to that possibility. See Robert L. Millet, "A New and Everlasting Covenant (D&C 132)," in Studies in Scripture: Volume One, The Doctrine and Covenants, ed. Robert L. Millet and Kent P. Jackson (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1989), 524–25. See also Joseph Fielding McConkie and Craig J. Ostler, Revelations of the Restoration: A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants and Other Modern Revelations (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2000), 63. One appears to believe that reference to the eternal worlds and bearing the souls of men refers to mortal life and the bearing of life on earth similar to how Doctrine & Covenants 49꞉15-17 speaks about marriage. See Richard O. Cowan, Doctrine & Covenants: Our Modern Scripture (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1978), 133. McConkie's and Ostler's commentary may have meant to fit more into this understanding of the verse. The dominant understanding seems to be that spirit birth is a reality. All commentators agree that sexual relations are only proper between a married man and woman. Indeed, there still seems to be little purpose for God creating us as man and woman if it did not have a vital purpose to our earthly and eternal flourishing. Lastly, Brian Hales discusses evidence that Joseph Smith taught spirit birth to his followers more in private when introducing eternal and plural marriage. He also relates this evidence to Doctrine & Covenants 132 and concludes that it and JS's private teachings substantiate the doctrine of spirit birth. See Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy: Volume 3, Theology (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2013), 113–125. Thus at worst Joseph Smith considered spirit birth a possibility and didn't consider it carefully enough when presenting his King Follet Discourse that the so-called "progressives" on this issue quote and rely on in order to construct theologies that permit same-gender sexual relations.
↑ David L. Paulsen and Martin Pulido, "‘A Mother There’: A Survey of Historical Teachings About Heavenly Mother," BYU Studies Quarterly 50, no. 1 (2011): 70–97.
↑ Smith, "Feet of Clay," 129.
↑ Scott H. Faulring, Kent P. Jackson, and Robert J. Matthews, Joseph Smith's New Translation of the Bible: Original Manuscripts (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2004), 501.
↑ This is especially true when considering the biblical outlook on scripture. In the words of Lyn M. Bechtel in Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible: "In Hebrew Scripture sex has two primary functions: the production of progeny which lead to salvation, and the creation of the strong ties or oneness which are essential for holding the household and community together. Sex is the physical bonding together of what appears physically different in order to produce life, suggesting that the uniting of opposites is both creative and essential to the divine life process. In Gen.1 God creates by separating what is different into a physical (a child) and psychological unity...There is also casual sex or sex that does not create marital or family bonding and obligation (e.g., Deut. 22꞉28-29) or that violates existing marital or family bonding and obligation (e.g., vv. 23-24). This kind of sex is considered foolish and shameful, an "inadequacy" or "failure" to live up to internalized, societal goals and ideals because it violates the purpose of sex and therefore does not participate in the divine life process...Sexual intercourse in ancient Israel is intended to be an activity that builds the community first and therein fills the needs of the individual." See Lyn M. Bechtel, "Sex," in Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. David Noel Freedman (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 1192–93. Thus scripture's outlook on proper sexual behavior refers to men and women becoming "one flesh" both physically and psychologically so that they can benefit the community. This naturally rules out homosexual sexual behavior as ethical.

Question: Is same-gender sexual attraction immutable?

Introduction to Question

The question of the legality of same-gender marriage has been heavily debated in the United States. In June 2015, the United States Supreme Court institutionalized same-gender marriage in the United States as a constitutionally-protected right of same-gender couples.

As part of their legal strategy, advocates for same-gender marriage affirmed that a homosexual sexual orientation was an immutable part of a person’s genetic and/or biological makeup. This is the same affirmation made by those that are either members or not of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who wish to change the Church’s doctrine on marriage to include the sealing of same-gender couples in temples of the Church or who may wish to portray it as homophobic and ultimately harmful to those that experience same-gender attraction and/or gender dysphoria.

But is same-gender sexual attraction an immutable trait of a human being?

Response to Question

Lisa M. Diamond and Clifford J. Rosky Examine Scientific Evidence to Dismiss Immutability

Lisa M. Diamond—a leading sexologist and professor of health psychology and developmental psychology at the University of Utah (and herself a lesbian)—and Clifford J. Rosky—an associate professor of law at the University of Utah—conducted a meta-analysis of the relevant literature regarding the immutability of sexual orientation as well as typical legal arguments based in immutability in favor of LGBT rights. The abstract of their paper, published in the prestigious Journal of Sex Research, reads as follows:

We review scientific research and legal authorities to argue that the immutability of sexual orientation should no longer be invoked as a foundation for the rights of individuals with same-sex attractions and relationships (i.e., sexual minorities). On the basis of scientific research as well as U.S. legal rulings regarding lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) rights, we make three claims: First, arguments based on the immutability of sexual orientation are unscientific, given what we now know from longitudinal, population-based studies of naturally occurring changes in the same-sex attractions of some individuals over time. Second, arguments based on the immutability of sexual orientation are unnecessary, in light of U.S. legal decisions in which courts have used grounds other than immutability to protect the rights of sexual minorities. Third, arguments about the immutability of sexual orientation are unjust, because they imply that same-sex attractions are inferior to other-sex attractions, and because they privilege sexual minorities who experience their sexuality as fixed over those who experience their sexuality as fluid. We conclude that the legal rights of individuals with same-sex attractions and relationships should not be framed as if they depend on a certain pattern of scientific findings regarding sexual orientation.^[1]

Diamond made the same points two years later (2018) in a TEDx presentation in Salt Lake City:

Further research needs to be conducted to understand the origins of same-gender attraction. Once that is fully understood, then the ultimate degree of mutability of sexual orientation of all humanity can be understood.

Scientists Favor Genetic Explanations, But These Don't Demonstrate that Same-Gender Attraction is Immutable Nor that It Stems Entirely from Your Genetic Makeup

One of the largest studies that has ever been conducted on the potential genetic origins of same-gender attraction and behavior studied 477,522 individuals from the United Kingdom and United States. It concludes that “[s]ame-sex sexual behavior is influenced by not one or a few genes but many. Overlap with genetic influences on other traits provides insights into the underlying biology of same-sex sexual behavior, and analysis of different aspects of sexual preference underscore its complexity and call into question the validity of bipolar continuum measures such as the Kinsey scale. Nevertheless, many uncertainties remain to be explored, including how sociocultural influences on sexual preference might interact with genetic influences.”^[2]

Scientists favor these genetic explanations for the origins of attraction and behavior. None, however, have conclusively demonstrated that same-gender attraction is entirely immutable.

Thinking Differently About Same-Sex Attraction

Perhaps one of the most compelling theories for understanding the origins of same-sex attraction was presented by Jeffrey Robinson PhD (Marriage and Family Therapy, BYU), a licensed marriage and family therapist who completed his doctoral dissertation by performing a qualitative study on Latter-day Saint men who reported that they had overcome same-sex attraction, at the 2018 FAIR Conference. We encourage those interested in this topic to consider Robinson's thoughts by watching the video below.

There are three main objections that have been raised to Dr. Robinson's presentation. We wish to answer those to clarify Robinson's points.

Some who experience same-sex attraction exclusively, even while thinking about and trying to comprehend opposite-sex attraction, cannot begin to know how to experience opposite-sex attraction. Dr. Robinson does not say in his video that expanding a repertoire is an easy task for anyone and, indeed, it may be harder for some than others. All Robinson means to establish is that sexuality is something that you know how to do and that expanding your repertoire is possible. It's like saying that because learning Spanish is incredibly hard for some that they can never learn Spanish.
How does a child of heterosexual parents who experiences nothing but heterosexual modeling and instruction their whole childhood end up homosexual? It is not known. Perhaps it can start out as a curiosity that a child explores. Perhaps they've been modeled that sexuality only occurs between heterosexual partners but then they get a passing thought or wonder if the same is ever possible for people of the same sex and acquire the cognitive repertoire for homosexuality. Also, one can't discount that there may be many cultural and social factors outside of one's family that sparks someone's genes and brain into acquiring the cognitive repertoire required for experiencing same-gender attraction.
Robinson's example of gravity is absurd. Robinson does not mean to say that no potential explanation of gravity exists. Indeed, a very popular and well-supported one exists that has to do with Einstein's observations about spacetime and the curvature of it that exists when objects of great mass occupy it. But that is only one theory. What Robinson means to say is that you can't explain gravity by merely pointing to the effects of it. You must identify a cause of the effects. Merely assigning a label to something is not the same thing as explaining it.

The paper referenced by Dr. Robinson is cited below.^[3]

This appears to be the video of Lisa Diamond that Dr. Robinson mentions at 29:50 of the video above.

A. Dean Byrd on the Origins of Same Sex Attraction

Another insightful presentation on the origins of same-sex attraction was given by A. Dean Byrd, then a professor of psychology at BYU, at the 2004 FAIR Conference. The presentation can be found here.

Conclusion

We should all remain humble as investigation continues to unfold the origins of same-gender attraction. Latter-day Saints, for now, can continue to promulgate by faith the truths, given to us by revelation and recorded in scripture, that God created us unto the end of keeping his commandments and glorifying him forever,^[4] that marriage is ordained of God unto humankind,^[5] that marriage between one man and one woman and their becoming "one flesh" is lawful,^[6] and that the sealing of man and woman together for all eternity is essential for their exaltation as gods.^[7]

Question: How may criticism of the Church over LGBT issues become fiercer in the future and how can members respond?

This page is still under construction. We welcome any suggestions for improving the content of this FAIR Answers Wiki page.

Introduction to Question

FAIR has compiled an exhaustive list of responses to concerns held by LGBT members of the Church and other critics regarding the Church’s position on homosexual sexual behavior. This compilation responds to all the common contemporary criticisms of the Church’s position, but there may be others that arise in the future.

One of them may go like this: the advent of reproductive technology is coming upon us quickly. One article from CNN reported that scientists are now able to reproduce a synthetic mouse embryo from mouse stem cells.^[8] An article from NBC News reports that scientists are marching towards being able to create sperm cells and egg cells from a person’s stem cells, thus potentially allowing same-sex couples the ability to create their own biological children by fusing the normal eggs of one the hypothetical lesbian partners with the stem-cell-created sperm of the other lesbian partner or the sperm of one of the hypothetical gay partners with the stem-cell-created egg cell of the other gay partner.^[9] Post fertilization, the zygote can be implanted in a female’s womb for incubation and birth.

Thus, if we are able to reproduce without male-female copulation, then why should we believe in the institution of marriage any more, much less the primacy of heterosexual relationships generally?

Another criticism may go like this: machine reproduction ensures that an infant is not born with any significant defects, and we can actually screen them genetically and edit their genome such that they’re much less susceptible to diseases,

So how can we respond when people say that the purpose of male-female unions has basically been supplanted by machines that allow us to do what males and females do but maybe even better?

Response to Criticisms

Criticism #1: Machines Can Do What Men and Women Do and Therefore the Church’s Stance is Unnecessary

The easiest response to this criticism is just to reassert that male-female copulation is an instrinsic good rather than an instrumental good.

The great Greek philosopher Aristotle considered all things to have a telos or purpose for which they were created/designed. He believed that things (including human beings) flourish when they adhere to their telos. Telic thinking (aka "teleology") became the foundation of Aristotle’s theory of morality (known as “virtue ethics”). According to Aristotle, human excellence consists of adhering to their telos to be virtuous.

The scriptures and other official pronouncements of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have a similar view of human sexuality. They teach that men and women are designed to be united with each other sexually after marriage. Scripture repeatedly affirms that men and women are meant to be united sexually—becoming "one flesh”.^[10] Becoming “one flesh” does not merely refer to physically joining the complementary reproductive sexual organs of a man and woman (and more particularly toward the end of procreation and family life: the all-encompassing, instrumental, and intrinsic good of male-female unions),^[11] but also to that man and woman becoming psychologically and spiritually unified through their sexual union. Individuals, communities, and nations flourish when men and women adhere strongly to this “telos”. Any act that takes men and women away from living in accordance with that design (or at least has a high probability of taking them away from it) is going to be viewed as sinful/immoral by the Church.^[12] Thus, sex between a married man and woman is an intrinsic good and not merely an instrumental good because marriage and procreation is the consummation of who and what we are as men and women. Technological reproduction will discourage men and women from understanding and trying to live in accordance with their telos and will thus be considered immoral and sinful.

Those that disagree with the Church's moral logic on this point will need to argue that we do not have this telos. If we do have this telos, then technological reproduction and homosexual sexual relationships are immoral. If we don't, then they're morally acceptable. Those that will argue that we don't have this telos may argue against the existence of God. If there is no person to design us with a particular end, then there is no inherent design and no telos. Thus Latter-day Saints will want to know arguments against God's existence and how to respond to them.

Criticism #2: Machines Can Make Same-Sex Couples Biological Children and Thus the Church’s Stance is Unnecessary

The answer to this criticism is virtually the same as the answer to criticism #1

Criticism #3 Machines Can Do What Men and Women Do and Prevent Disease and Disorder More and Therefore the Church’s Stance is Unjust

An answer to this criticism may be that it is immoral to screen children for diseases and disorders and genetically edit them since by so doing, you are communicating that there is something of greater value than just the person themselves with their presence in our lives. By editing them, you are communicating that you value a person for what they can produce for you or someone else rather than what you can learn about love by having them, with all of their imperfection, present in your life and dependent on you.

Conclusions

Those who make this argument do so shortsightedly of real ethical debates and objections regarding genetic editing and stem-cell technology.

Homosexual aversion therapy performed at BYU in the 1970's

Summary: What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality in the 1970's? How did that relate to medical and psychological science as understood at that time? What was the role of the Church in BYU's treatments?

Aversion Therapy at BYU - Information regarding aversion therapy, Brigham Young University (BYU), and President Dallin H. Oaks

Jump to details:

Did Christ teach against same-sex relationships during his mortal ministry?

Summary: Some critics have asserted that our stance on same-sex relationships are not substantiated by the teachings of Christ during his mortal minstry. This is not the case. Christ taught a very strict law for sexual morality. He taught against sexual relationships outside of marriage and that marriage was between a man and a woman. While he did not specifically teach against the modern concept of same-sex relationships, he was clear that the only legitimate expression of sexuality was in a marriage between a man and woman.

Why wasn't the prohibition against same-sex relationships recinded when the rest of the law of Moses was recinded?

Summary: While the law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ, Christ specifically taught against fornication and adultery, which would include same-sex relationships. After Peter received a vision that the law of Moses had been fulfilled, the prohibition against fornication remained intact.

Early LDS did not oppose homosexual acts?

Summary: It is claimed that Joseph Smith and other nineteenth century Mormons were not strenuously opposed to same-sex acts or intimacy, and that the modern Church's opposition to homosexual conduct is a later aberration. Historian D. Michael Quinn's book, Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example is almost solely responsible for this claim. Quinn's methodology and conclusions are shoddy, and have been severely criticized by LDS and non-LDS historians.

- A FairMormon Analysis of Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example—
  Brief Summary: FairMormon analyzes claims made in a book by D. Michael Quinn that asserts that same-sex intimacy was accepted in the early 19th-century Church. (Click here for full article)
  ∗ ∗ ∗

False analogy between same-sex marriage and the priesthood ban

Summary: An examination and comparison of the differences between the way the Church approaches same-sex attraction as opposed to the Priesthood ban.

False analogy between same-sex marriage and plural marriage

Summary: An examination and comparison of the differences between the way the Church approaches same-sex attraction as opposed to plural marriage.

Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8

Summary: The passage of California Proposition 8 during the November 2008 election has generated a number of criticisms of the Church regarding a variety of issues including the separation of church and state, the Church's position relative to people who experience same-sex attraction, accusations of bigotry by members, and the rights of a non-profit organization to participate in the democratic process on matters not associated with elections of candidates.

- Does the Church seek to "impose its morality" on others?—
  Brief Summary: Critics charge that by its political opposition to same-sex marriage, the Church is attempting to "impose its own morality" on those who are not members. The Church opposes legislation that seeks to control conscience or suppress the freedom of the soul and has supported legislation that expands the freedom to choose same-sex relationships. It has also sought to preserve the legal definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. These two things do not conflict. (Click here for full article)
  ∗ ∗ ∗
- How does same-sex marriage affect religious freedoms?—
  Brief Summary: Religious freedoms and gay rights conflict in interesting and sometimes unexpected ways. This explains some of the potential threats to religious freedoms if marriage is redefined. (Click here for full article)
  ∗ ∗ ∗
- Does the Church oppose rights for same-sex couples?—
  Brief Summary: The Church has emphasized that it does not object to the extension of rights associated with marriage to same-sex couples, as long as it does not interfere with other rights. Its objection is limited to redefining marriage so that it no longer refers to a union between a man and a woman. (Click here for full article)
  ∗ ∗ ∗
- How will changing the definition of marriage affect families?—
  Brief Summary: Part of the reasoning that the Church gave for protecting the definition of marriage is the effects it will have on families. What are those effects? What are the pros and cons of changing the definition of marriage? (Click here for full article)
  ∗ ∗ ∗
- How does the definition of marriage affect agency?—
  Brief Summary: Does the Church inhibit the agency of same-sex couples in defending the definition of marriage? Does changing the definition of marriage affect the agency of members of the Church with SSA? (Click here for full article)
  ∗ ∗ ∗ ^{[needs work]}
- A FairMormon Analysis of: 8: The Mormon Proposition—
  Brief Summary: FairMormon analyzes a documentary that purports to expose the "truth" behind the Church's involvement in California Proposition 8. (Click here for full article)
  ∗ ∗ ∗

⍗

Learn more about LGBTQ issues

Key sources	Michael R. Otterson, "On the Record," Proceedings of the 2015 FAIR Conference (August 2015). link
FAIR links	FAIR blog - Blog posts on homosexuality including a podcast series William Duncan, "Same-sex Marriage and the Role of Religion," Proceedings of the 2010 FAIR Conference (August 2010). link Edwin E. Gantt, "Agentic Sexuality: How a Latter-day Saint Perspective Can Rescue Humanity from the Tyranny of the Abstract," Proceedings of the 2021 FAIR Conference (August 2021). link Ralph Hancock, "'“Love Wins,” and Charity Loses'," Proceedings of the 2016 FAIR Conference (August 2016). link Cassandra Hedelius, "Compassion and Evidence: The Wisdom of Church Guidelines for Transgender Individuals and Their Families," Proceedings of the 2022 FAIR Conference (August 2022). link Joshua Johanson, "Navigating the Labyrinth Surrounding Homosexual Desire," Proceedings of the 2012 FAIR Conference (August 2012). link Ty Mansfield, "'“Mormons can BE gay, they just can’t DO gay”?: Deconstructing Sexuality and Identity From an LDS Perspective'," Proceedings of the 2014 FAIR Conference (August 2014). link Jeff Robinson, "Thinking Differently About Same-Sex Attraction," Proceedings of the 2018 FAIR Conference (August 2018). link Stephen O. Smoot, "Abraham and the Stranger at Sodom and Gomorrah: Reading the Bible and Navigating LGBT Identity," Proceedings of the 2021 FAIR Conference (August 2021). link
Online	Jeffrey R. Holland, "Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction," Ensign (October 2007): 42-45. Gregory L. Smith, "Feet of Clay: Queer Theory and the Church of Jesus Christ," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 43/3 (5 March 2021). [107–278] link Matthew Watkins, "'We Don't Know, So We Might as Well': A Flimsy Philosophy for Same-Sex Sealings," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 54/8 (6 January 2023). [207–222] link
Video	"Origins of The Family Proclamation," BH Roberts Foundation print-link. Video version: "Was the Family Proclamation written by lawyers to fight against gay marriage?," (19 April 2024). video-link. "LGBTQ and suicide rates," BH Roberts Foundation print-link. "The Church and Prop 8," BH Roberts Foundation print-link.
Print	Bishop Keith B. McMullin, "Remarks," given at 20th annual Evergreen International conference held in Salt Lake City, 18 September 2010. Same sex attraction - collection of resources for those with SSA published by the Church Agency—Freedom to Choose - mormon.org Northstar - support group for those affected by SSA who wish to live the Church's standard of chastity Evergreen International - resources encouraging those with SSA to live the Church's standards of chastity FAIR Examination 6 - Overcoming same-sex attraction - Blake Smith - FAIR podcast of LDS man who underwent aversion therapy Aversion Therapy at BYU - Detailed information regarding aversion therapy, "To The One," address given to twelve-stake fireside, Brigham Young University (5 March 1978); reprinted in Boyd K. Packer, That All May Be Edified (Bookcraft, 1982), pp. 186–200, emphasis added; italics in original. GL direct link Gregory L. Smith, "Shattered Glass: The Traditions of Mormon Same-Sex Marriage Advocates Encounter Boyd K. Packer," Mormon Studies Review 23/1 (2011): 61–85. off-site wiki Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "The Divine Institution of Marriage," (13 August 2008). Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, God Loveth His Children (Intellectual Reserve, 2007). Bruce C. Hafen, "Elder Bruce C. Hafen Speaks on Same-Sex Attraction," report of address given to Evergreen International annual conference, 19 September 2009. Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman, "Same Gender Attraction," interview with Church Public Affairs (2006). off-site Michael Otterson, "Church Responds to HRC Petition," (12 October 2010).
Navigators	Table of contents Abuse Bible Book of Abraham Book of Mormon CES Letter Church history Church finances Doctrine and Covenants First Vision Joseph Smith Latter-day Saint temples Mountain Meadows Massacre Plural marriage Prophets and leaders Scripture Brigham Young
Sub categories	aversion therapy

↑ Lisa M. Diamond and Clifford J. Rosky, “Scrutinizing Immutability: Research on Sexual Orientation and U.S. Legal Advocacy for Sexual Minorities,” Journal of Sex Research 53, nos. 4-5 (2016): 363–91.
↑ Andrea Ghanna et. al, “Large-scale GWAS reveals insights into the genetic architecture of same-sex sexual behavior,” Science 365, no. 6456 (2019): 881–85.
↑ Liahna E. Gordon, "Inhabiting the Sexual Landscape: Toward an Interpretive Theory of the Development of Sexual Orientation and Identity," Journal of Homosexuality 62, no. 4 (2015): 495–530.
↑ Jacob 2:21
↑ Doctrine & Covenants 49:15
↑ Doctrine & Covenants 49:16
↑ Doctrine & Covenants 131:1-2; 132:19-20, 63
↑ Madeline Holcombe, “A synthetic embryo, made without sperm or egg, could lead to infertility treatments,” CNN, September 5, 2022, https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/05/world/synthetic-embryos-stem-cells-scn/index.html.
↑ Julie Compton, “Could same-sex couples soon conceive a child with both their DNA?” NBC News, January 12, 2018, https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/could-same-sex-couples-soon-conceive-child-both-their-dna-n836876.
↑ Genesis 2:21–24; Matthew 19:3–9; Mark 10:2–12; Romans 1:20–28; Doctrine & Covenants 49:15–17; Moses 3:21–24; Abraham 5:14–18; The Family: A Proclamation to the World. Some may not believe that the Family Proclamation constitutes an official pronouncement of the church, but several facts contradict this view. See this page for more info. For a solid exegesis of the Romans passage, see Justin W. Starr, "Biblical Condemnations of Homosexual Conduct]," FAIR Papers, 2004, https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/starr-justin-BiblicalHomosexuality.pdf. Another way to argue for this telos is to cite Jacob 2:21 which teaches that we were created unto the end of keeping God's commandments. Doctrine & Covenants 49:15-17 teaches that we are commanded to be married and become one flesh with our spouses. Scripture consistently associates keeping commandments with happiness and flourishing. See, for example, Mosiah 2:41.
↑ That the joining of the complementary reproductive sexual organs of men and women is the referent “one flesh” is confirmed in scripture and in nature. Scripturally, Eve is the “missing rib” of Adam. God takes Adam’s rib and forms Eve. Scripture then gives us a “therefore” to indicate that for this reason—the reason of Eve being the complementary opposite of Adam and being his missing rib—should they again unite and become “one flesh”. Furthermore, Adam and Eve are commanded to "be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth" (Genesis 1:28; Moses 2:28; Abraham 4:28). That can only happen, in the creation scenario, in the procreative relationship of man and woman. In nature, it's obviously the case that only the organic sexual union of a human male and female can create children.
↑ This is almost certainly why Church leaders have been verbally, openly, and strongly skeptical of birth control and oral sex or otherwise issued strong restrictions on them that were later softened. Leaders' past skepticism and rhetoric is often mocked and maligned today, but here with the understanding of the sexual telos of men and women, it becomes much more sensible as to why they were skeptical and harsh: those things can very easily further separate the children of God from understanding their sexual telos and achieving their fullest flourishing found in the procreative relationship of a man and woman. The further one gets from understanding their sexual telos as the procreative union of a man and woman, the more uncomfortable a Latter-day Saint Christian should get.

[1] Dallin H. Oaks, "Same-Gender Attraction," Ensign (October 1995).

[2] "To The One," address given to twelve-stake fireside, Brigham Young University (5 March 1978); reprinted in Boyd K. Packer, That All May Be Edified (Bookcraft, 1982), pp. 186–200, emphasis added; italics in original. GL direct link

[3] Dallin H. Oaks, "Same-Gender Attraction," Ensign (October 1995): 9.

[4] "Orientation," American Psychological Association (last accessed 27 November 2010).

[5] Definition of Homosexuality, dictionary.reference.com, s.v. "homosexuality," (last accessed 27 November 2010).

[6] [American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style (Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005), 201.

[7] Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) Media reference guide (last accessed 27 November 2010).

[8] Katherine Ellen Foley, "Some animals kill each other after sex because their distinction between hungry and flirty is blurred," last modified February 14, 2017, https://qz.com/909885/some-animals-kill-each-other-after-sex-because-their-distinction-between-hungry-and-flirty-is-blurred/.

[9] Ty Mansfield, "'Mormons can be gay, they just can’t do gay': Deconstructing Sexuality and Identity from an LDS Perspective," (presentation, FairMormon Conference, Provo, UT, 2014).

[10] "The Conjugal vs. Revisionist Views of Marriage," Discussing Marriage, accessed May 4, 2021, https://discussingmarriage.org/the-conjugal-vs-revisionist-views-of-marriage/#.YJG5gkhKjRZ.

[11] Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "The Divine Institution of Marriage," (13 August 2008).

[12] Gordon B. Hinckley, "Reverence and Morality," General Conference (April 1987).

[13] “An Easter Greeting from the First Presidency,” Church News (15 April 1995), 1.

[14] Dallin H. Oaks, "Same-Gender Attraction," Ensign (October 2005): 9.

[15] Dallin H. Oaks, "Same-Gender Attraction," Ensign (October 2005): 9.

[16] Gordon B. Hinckley, "Why We Do Some of the Things We Do," Ensign (Nov 1999): 52. off-site

[17] Jeffrey R. Holland, "Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction," Ensign (October 2007): 42-45.

[18] Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, God Loveth His Children (Intellectual Reserve, 2007).

[19] Bruce C. Hafen, "Elder Bruce C. Hafen Speaks on Same-Sex Attraction," report of address given to Evergreen International annual conference, 19 September 2009.

[20] Michael Otterson, "Church Responds to HRC Petition," (12 October 2010).

[21] Dallin H. Oaks, "Protect the Children," Ensign (November 2012).

[22] Family Acceptance in Adolescence and the Health of LGBT Young Adults

[23] Jessica Gail, “Utah, one of the worst places to be LGBT and homeless,” Utah Public Radio, June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10, 2012. http://upr.org/post/utah-one-worst-places-be-lgbt-and-homeless

[24] Nicholas Ray, “Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth: an epidemic of homelessness,” National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute and the National Coalition for Homelessness, 2006. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/HomelessYouth.pdf

[25] “Throw-Away Kids,” originally published in qSaltLake, Aug 12,2008. Online copy at affirmation.org accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.affirmation.org/homelessness/throw-away_kids.shtml.

[26] Nicholas Ray, “Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth: an epidemic of homelessness,” National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute and the National Coalition for Homelessness, 2006. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/HomelessYouth.pdf

[27] “Throw-Away Kids,” originally published in qSaltLake, Aug 12,2008. Online copy at affirmation.org accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.affirmation.org/homelessness/throw-away_kids.shtml.

[28] “Growing up LGBT in America: HRC Youth Survey Report, Key Findings,” Human Rights Campaign, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Growing-Up-LGBT-in-America_Report.pdf.

[29] “Growing up LGBT in America: HRC Youth Survey Report, Key Findings,” Human Rights Campaign, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Growing-Up-LGBT-in-America_Report.pdf.

[30] Rebecca Trounson, “Gay teens less likely to be happy, nationwide survey finds,” The Salt Lake Tribune. June 7, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/54262370-68/gay-percent-lgbt-survey.html.csp.

[31] Melinda Rogers, “LGBT youth find safe haven at homeless drop-in shelter,” The Salt Lake Tribune. June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54274630-78/lgbt-utah-youths-center.html.csp.

[32] Melinda Rogers, “LGBT youth find safe haven at homeless drop-in shelter,” The Salt Lake Tribune. June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54274630-78/lgbt-utah-youths-center.html.csp.

[33] Melinda Rogers, “LGBT youth find safe haven at homeless drop-in shelter,” The Salt Lake Tribune. June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54274630-78/lgbt-utah-youths-center.html.csp.

[34] Understanding and Helping Those With Homosexual Problems

[35] "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," General Conference ({{{date}}}).

[36] "Same-Gender Attraction," General Conference (2006).

[37] "Same-Gender Attraction," General Conference (2006).

[38] "The Best Thing I Can Do for Leigh," General Conference (2009).

[39] Quinton L. Cook, "Our Father’s Plan—Big Enough for All His Children," General Conference (April 2009).

[40] Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "The Divine Institution of Marriage," (13 August 2008).

[41] Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "The Divine Institution of Marriage," (13 August 2008).

[42] Michael Otterson, Statement to SLC Council, 10 November 2009.

[43] D&C 132:16.

[44] Bruce C. Hafen, "Elder Bruce C. Hafen Speaks on Same-Sex Attraction," report of address given to Evergreen International annual conference, 19 September 2009.

[45] Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, God Loveth His Children (Intellectual Reserve, 2007). (italics added)

[46] Interview With Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman: “Same-Gender Attraction,” (undated).

[47] The Mormons, Interviews: Jeffrey R. Holland, pbs.org (30 April 2007).

[48] Address given by Elder Bruce C. Hafen at the Evergreen International annual conference, 19 September 2009.

[49] An Interview with Elder Dallin H. Oaks on Homosexuality and AIDS

[50] Gordon B. Hinckley, "Reverence and Morality," General Conference (April 1987).

[51] Understanding and Helping Those Who Have Homosexual Problems

[52] Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman, "Same Gender Attraction," interview with Church Public Affairs (2006). off-site

[53] Jeffrey R. Holland, "Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction," Ensign (October 2007): 42-45. off-site

[54] Spencer W. Kimball, "President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality," New Era (October 1980): 39.

[55] Boyd K. Packer, "Balm of Gilead," General Conference (October 1987).

[56] “Free Agency and Freedom,” Brigham Young University 1987–88 Devotional and Fireside Speeches (Provo: BYU Publications, 1988), 46–47; the edited version printed here is found in Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate, Jr., eds., The Book of Mormon: Second Nephi, The Doctrinal Structure (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1989), 13-15.; cited in Dallin H. Oaks, "Same-Gender Attraction," Ensign (October 2005): 9.

[57] Boyd K. Packer, "Covenants," General Conference (October 1990).

[58] Boyd K. Packer, "For Time and All Eternity," General Conference (October 1993).

[59] Richard G. Scott, "To Be Healed," General Conference (April 1994). (italics in original)

[60] Dallin H. Oaks, "Same-Gender Attraction," Ensign (October 1995): 9.

[61] Richard G. Scott, "Trust in the Lord," General Conference (October 1995).

[62] Richard G. Scott, "Finding Joy in Life," General Conference (April 1996).

[63] Neal A. Maxwell, "According to the Desires of [Our Hearts]," General Conference (October 1996).

[64] Henry B. Eyring, "Do Not Delay," General Conference (October 1999).

[65] Neal A. Maxwell, "Content With The Things Allotted Unto Us," General Conference (April 2000).

[66] Dallin H. Oaks, "He Heals the Heavy Laden," General Conference (October 2006).

[67] Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman, "Same Gender Attraction," interview with Church Public Affairs (2006). off-site

[68] Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, God Loveth His Children (Intellectual Reserve, 2007).

[69] Jeffrey R. Holland, "Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction," Ensign (October 2007): 42-45.

[70] Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman, "Same Gender Attraction," interview with Church Public Affairs (2006). off-site

[71] American Psychological Association, "Answers to your questions for a better understanding of sexual orientation and homosexuality," (2008),2 .

[72] Dallin H. Oaks, "Same-Gender Attraction," Ensign (October 2005): 9.

[73] Boyd K. Packer, "Cleansing the Inner Vessel," Ensign (October 2010).

[74] Jeffrey R. Holland, "Helping Those Who Struggle With Same Gender Attraction," Ensign (October 2007).

[75] The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint, The Family: A Proclamation to the World (first presented 23 September 1995).

[76] {[citation needed]}

[77] Laumann, Edward O. , The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States 299

[78] Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman, "Same Gender Attraction," interview with Church Public Affairs (2006). off-site

[79] See Counsel given regarding sexual identity

[80] As quoted by Adam Olson in Maintaining the Course

[81] {[citation needed]}

[82] {[citation needed]}

[83] Laumann, Edward O. , The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States 299 link

[84] A New Therapy on Faith and Sexual Identity: Psychological Association Revises Treatment Guidelines to Allow Counselors to Help Clients Reject Their Same-Sex Attractions

[85] {[citation needed]} was footnoted as "task.force"

[86] Laumann, Edward O. , The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States 299

[87] {[needs work]} http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/87/6/869

[88] {[needs work]} http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0021-843X.112.1.144

[89] ttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2079706 ^{[citation needed]}

[90] ttp://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a923933982~db=all~jumptype=rss ^{[citation needed]}

[91] Spencer W. Kimball, "President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality," New Era (October 1980): 39.

[92] Gordon B. Hinckley, "Reverence and Morality," General Conference (April 1987).

[93] “Free Agency and Freedom,” Brigham Young University 1987–88 Devotional and Fireside Speeches (Provo: BYU Publications, 1988), pp. 46–47; an edited version is available in Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate, Jr., eds., The Book of Mormon: Second Nephi, The Doctrinal Structure (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1989), 13-15.

[94] First Presidency, letter, 14 November 1991.

[95] Richard G. Scott, "Making the Right Choices," General Conference (October 1994).

[96] Dallin H. Oaks, "Same-Gender Attraction," Ensign (October 1995): 9.

[97] Gordon B. Hinckley, "Stand Strong Against the Wiles of the World," General Conference (Women's Meeting, Sept 1995).

[98] Boyd K. Packer, "Ye Are The Temple of God," General Conference (November 2000).

[99] Boyd K. Packer, "The Standard of Truth Has Been Erected," General Conference (October 2003).

[100] Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman, "Same Gender Attraction," interview with Church Public Affairs (2006). off-site

[101] Jeffrey R. Holland, "Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction," Ensign (October 2007): 42-45.

[102] Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, God Loveth His Children (Intellectual Reserve, 2007).

[103] G. Todd Christopherson, "Moral Discipline," General Conference (October 2009).

[104] Bruce C. Hafen, "Elder Bruce C. Hafen Speaks on Same-Sex Attraction," report of address given to Evergreen International annual conference, 19 September 2009.

[105] Michael Otterson, "Church Responds to HRC Petition," (12 October 2010).

[106] Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Handbook 2: Administering the Church—2010 (Intellectual Reserve, 2010). Selected Church Policies and Guidelines 21.4.6

[107] Laumann, Edward O. , The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States 299

[108] American Psychiatric Association (May 2000). "Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues". Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists.

[109] "Helping Those Who Struggle," 42-45.

[110] Katherine Ellen Foley, "Some animals kill each other after sex because their distinction between hungry and flirty is blurred," last modified February 14, 2017, https://qz.com/909885/some-animals-kill-each-other-after-sex-because-their-distinction-between-hungry-and-flirty-is-blurred/.

[111] Ty Mansfield, "'Mormons can be gay, they just can’t do gay': Deconstructing Sexuality and Identity from an LDS Perspective," (presentation, FairMormon Conference, Provo, UT, 2014).

[112] "The Conjugal vs. Revisionist Views of Marriage," Discussing Marriage, accessed May 4, 2021, https://discussingmarriage.org/the-conjugal-vs-revisionist-views-of-marriage/#.YJG5gkhKjRZ.

[113] Brigham Young, Speech given in Joint Session of the Utah Legislature, February 5, 1952 in Fred Collier, The Teachings of President Brigham Young (Salt Lake City, UT: Collier's Publishing, 1987), 43.

[114] [1]

[115] Neal A. Maxwell, "Those Seedling Saints Who Sit Before You," CES Symposium on the Old Testament, August 1983, https://si.lds.org/library/talks/ces-symposium-addresses/those-seedling-saints-who-sit-before-you. [Note that here Elder Maxwell follows usage of homosexuality that was then current, especially among Church leaders: they saw homosexuality as behavior not as an orientation. Thus homosexual sin can be cured—for homosexual temptation or orientation is not a sin. (Though it is a burden for many that might be lightened or removed in accord with the Lord’s will.)]

[116] Boyd K. Packer, “How To Survive in Enemy Territory,” address on the centennial of Seminary program, 22 January 2012, http://seminary.lds.org/history/centennial/eng/how-to-survive-in-enemy-territory/.

[117] Russell M. Nelson, "Decisions for Eternity," general conference, October 2013 [footnotes make it clear he is speaking of same-sex marriage; these have been omitted here.

[118] Dallin H. Oaks, “Leadership Training: Chastity and Fidelity,” video, [1:01–1:14 timestamp] https://www.lds.org/pages/lt/hwb84sun4af0o2tjwwyt?lang=eng.

[119] Dallin H. Oaks, “No Other Gods,” general conference, October 2013, https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/no-other-gods.p27.

[120] Church statement, cited in Tad Walsh, “LDS Church responds to inquiries about Harry Reid comment,” Deseret News (7 November 2013), https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865590140/LDS-Church-responds-to-inquiries-about-Harry-Reid-comment.html. See also “Church Responds to Inquiries on ENDA, Same-Sex Marriage,” press release (11 November 2013), http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-inquiries-on-enda--same-sex-marriage

[121] Dallin H. Oaks, "No Other Gods," Ensign (November 2013), https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/no-other-gods?lang=eng.

[122] Daniel Woodruff, "LDS apostle explains church's evolution on LGBT issues, says members' politics may differ from doctrine," KUTV (14 March 2015), http://www.kutv.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/Tonight-at-10-LDS-apostle-opens-up-on-evolution-of-church-s-support-for-new-antidiscrimination-law-102821.shtml#.VQZN9i6zFQB.

[123] Dallin H. Oaks, “Love One Another: A Discussion on Same-Sex Attraction,” https://mormonandgay.lds.org/articles/love-one-another-a-discussion-on-same-sex-attraction.

[124] “Church Leaders,” <https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay/leaders?lang=eng> (21 October 2020). This comes from the Church's official website on same-sex attraction and the same statement remains there today.

[125] Church Newsroom, "April 2019 General Conference News and Announcements," (3 April 2019), https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/first-presidency-messages-general-conference-leadership-session-april-2019#oaks

[126] McKay Coppins, “The Most American Religion,” <https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/01/the-most-american-religion/617263/> (18 December 2020).

[127] Church News Staff, "President Dallin H. Oaks: ‘Divine Love in the Father’s Plan’," Church News, April 3, 2022, https://www.thechurchnews.com/general-conference/2022-04-03/president-oaks-april-2022-general-conference-gods-love-salvation-eternal-marriage-248346.

[128] Mosiah 18:9.

[129] "Church Provides Context on Handbook Changes Affecting Same-Sex Marriages," <https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/handbook-changes-same-sex-marriages-elder-christofferson> (21 October 2020).

[130] David B. Haight, "Be A Strong Link," Ensign 30/11 (November 2000). off-site

[131] Henry B. Eyring, "The Family," Ensign 28 (February 1998).

[132] Gordon B. Hinckley, "Stand Strong against the Wiles of the World," Ensign 25/11 (November 1995): 98. off-site

[133] Boyd K. Packer, "The Instrument of Your Mind and the Foundation of Your Character," CES Fireside (2 February 2003).off-site

[134] Neal A. Anderson, "Trial of Your Faith," Ensign 42/11 (November 2012). off-site

[135] " Approaching Mormon Doctrine, LDS Newsroom (4 May 2007). off-site

[136] D. Todd Christofferson, "The Doctrine of Christ," Ensign 42/5 (May 2012). off-site

[137] Boyd K. Packer, "Fledgling Finches and Family Life, BYU Campus Education Week Devotional, 18 August 2009.

[138] Henry B. Eyring, Ensign 28/2 (February 1998). off-site

[139] Boyd K. Packer, "Proclamation on the Family]," Worldwide Leadership Training Broadcast (9 February 2008). off-site

[140] David B. Haight, "Be A Strong Link," Ensign 30/11 (November 2000). off-site.

[141] M. Russell Ballard, "Beware of False Prophets and False Teachers," Ensign 29/11 (November 1999). off-site

[142] M. Russell Ballard, "Let Our Voices Be Heard," Ensign 33/11 (November 2003). off-site.

[143] Boyd K. Packer, "Counsel to Youth," Ensign 41/11 (November 2011). off-site

[144] M. Russell Ballard, "Beware of False Prophets and False Teachers," Ensign 29/11 (November 1999). off-site

[145] L. Tom Perry, "Obedience to Law Is Liberty," Ensign 43/5 (May 2013). off-site

[146] Neal A. Maxwell, "Sharing Insights from My Life," BYU Devotional 12 Jan 1999. off-site

[147] Henry B. Eyring, Ensign 28/2 (February 1998). off-site

[148] Robert D. Hales, "'If Thou Wilt Enter into Life," Ensign. off-site

[149] Dallin H. Oaks, "The Plan and the Proclamation," Ensign 47/11 (November 2017): 30–31. off-site

[150] W. Eugene Hansen, "Children and the Family," Ensign 28/5 (May 1998). off-site

[151] Eran A. Call, "The Home: A Refuge and Sanctuary," Ensign 28/11 (November 1998). off-site

[152] Claudio R.M. Costa, "Don't Leave for Tomorrow What You Can Do Today," Ensign 37/11 (November 2007). off-site

[ballard-153] 153.0 ^153.1 M. Russell Ballard, "What Matters Most Is What Lasts Longest," Ensign 35/11 (November 2005). off-site

[154] Dallin H. Oaks, "As He Thinketh in His Heart," evening with a General Authority (February 2013). off-site

[155] Gordon B. Hinckley, "Stand Strong against the Wiles of the World," Ensign (November 1995): 98.

[156] Spencer W. Kimball, "Fortify Your Homes Against Evil," Ensign (May 1979).

[157] Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).

[158] Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).

[159] Russell M. Nelson, "The Canker of Contention," Ensign (May 1989).

[160] Boyd K. Packer, The Things of the Soul (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997), 228 [Address given to Brigham Young University student body 14 April 1970.]

[161] Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed., (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1939), 272.

[162] Ezra Taft Benson, "To the Single Adult Brethren of the Church," Ensign (May 1988).

[163] Neal A. Maxwell, "Family Perspectives," BYU Devotional, 15 January 1974

[164] Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed., (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1939), 272.

[165] Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed., (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1939), 428.

[166] Dallin H. Oaks, "The Great Plan of Happiness," Ensign (November 1993).

[167] James E. Talmage, "The Eternity of Sex," Young Woman's Journal 25 (October 1914), 602-3 as found in Joseph Smith, The Words of Joseph Smith, comp. and ed. Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1980), 137 n. 4.

[168] Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).

[169] Boyd K. Packer, "For Time and All Eternty," Ensign (November 1993).

[170] Boyd K. Packer, "The Play and the Plan," CES Fireside, 7 May 1995, Kirkland, Washington.

[171] Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).

[172] Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).

[173] Russell M. Nelson, "Constancy Amid Change," Ensign (November 1993).

[174] Spencer W. Kimball, "Fortify Your Homes Against Evil," Ensign (May 1979).

[175] Spencer W. Kimball, "Voices of the Past, of the Present, of the Future," Ensign (May 1971).

[176] Spencer W. Kimball, "Fortify Your Homes Against Evil," Ensign (May 1979).

[177] Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).

[178] Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).

[179] Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).

[180] Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).

[181] Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).

[182] Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).

[183] This fact is exhaustively demonstrated in Gregory L. Smith, "Feet of Clay: Queer Theory and the Church of Jesus Christ," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 43/3 (5 March 2021): 187-215. [107–278] link

[184] Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).

[185] Neal A. Maxwell, Look Back At Sodom: A timely account from imaginary Sodom Scrolls (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1975).

[186] Spencer W. Kimball, "The Foundations of Righteousness," Ensign (November 1977).

[187] Spencer W. Kimball, "Why Call Me Lord, Lord and Do Not the Things Which I Say?," Ensign (May 1975).

[188] Dallin H. Oaks, "The Great Plan of Happiness," Ensign (November 1993).

[189] Spencer W. Kimball, Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, edited by Edward L. Kimball, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982), 311.

[190] Cited in this context, for example, in Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).

[191] Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).

[192] Boyd K. Packer, The Things of the Soul (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997), 228 [Address given to Brigham Young University student body 14 April 1970.]

[193] James E. Faust, "The Integrity of Obeying the Law," Freedom Festival Fireside, Provo, Utah, 2 July 1995; cited in James P. Bell and James E. Faust, "Citizenship" in In The Strength Of the Lord: The Life and Teachings of James E. Faust (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1999), 274.

[194] Neal A. Maxwell, "All Hell Is Moved," BYU Devotional (8 November 1977).

[195] Neal A. Maxwell, "A More Determined Discipleship," Ensign (February 1979).

[196] Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974). off-site

[197] Russell M. Nelson, "Children of the Covenant," Ensign (May 1995). off-site

[198] Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).

[199] Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).

[200] Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).

[201] Spencer W. Kimball, "Strengthening the Family, the Basic Unit of the Church," Ensign (May 1978).

[202] Joseph Fielding Smith, "Counsel to the Saints and to the World," Ensign (July 1972): 27.

[203] M. Russell Ballard, "Equality Through Diversity," Ensign (November 1993).

[204] M. Russell Ballard, "Equality Through Diversity," Ensign (November 1993).

[205] M. Russell Ballard, "Equality Through Diversity," Ensign (November 1993).

[206] Ezra Taft Benson, "Fundamentals of Enduring Family Relationships," Ensign (November 1982).

[207] M. Russell Ballard, "Equality Through Diversity," Ensign (November 1993).

[208] Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).

[209] Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).

[210] Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).

[211] Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).

[212] Spencer W. Kimball, "Fortify Your Homes Against Evil," Ensign (May 1979).

[213] Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).

[214] Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).

[215] Neal A. Anderson, "Trial of Your Faith," Ensign (November 2012).

[216] "Intersex," Wikipedia, accessed January 4, 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex.

[217] "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed January 4, 2019, off-site.

[218] "General Conference Leadership Meetings Begin," Church Newsroom, accessed October 7, 2019, https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/october-2019-general-conference-first-presidency-leadership-session. "'Finally, the long-standing doctrinal statements reaffirmed in The Family: A Proclamation to the World 23 years ago will not change. They may be clarified as directed by inspiration.' For example, 'the intended meaning of gender in the family Proclamation and as used in Church statements and publications since that time is biological sex at birth.'"

[219] "Elder Nelson: 'There Is No Conflict Between Science and Religion'," LDS Living, April 17, 2015, [ttps://www.ldsliving.com/Elder-Nelson-There-Is-No-Conflict-Between-Science-and-Religion-/s/78668 off-site].

[220] Ty Mansfield, "'Mormons can be gay, they just can’t do gay': Deconstructing Sexuality and Identity from an LDS Perspective," (presentation, FairMormon Conference, Provo, UT, 2014).

[221] Bruce Goldman, "Two minds: the cognitive differences between men and women," Stanford Medicine, Stanford University, May 22, 2017, https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html; "'Two Minds' two years later: Still curious about sex differences in cognition? Here are some resources," Stanford Scope Blog, October 24, 2019, https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2019/10/24/two-minds-two-years-later-still-curious-about-sex-differences-in-cognition-here-are-some-resources/; John Stossel, "The Science: Male Brain vs Female Brain," YouTube, October 15, 2019, video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTEi2-FAEZE; David C. Geary, "The Real Causes of Human Sex Differences," Quilette, October 20, 2020, https://quillette.com/2020/10/20/the-real-causes-of-human-sex-differences/; "The Ideological Refusal to Acknowledge Evolved Sex Differences," Quillette, September 1, 2022, https://quillette.com/2022/09/01/the-ideological-refusal-to-acknowledge-evolved-sex-differences/; Male, Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences, 3rd ed. (Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association, 2020). Indeed, every single cell of our body is influenced by our sex. See Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Understanding the Biology of Sex and Gender Differences; Theresa M. Wizemann, Mary-Lou Pardue, eds., Exploring the Biological Contributions to Human Health: Does Sex Matter? (Washington D.C.: National Academies Press (US), 2001), Executive Summary, 2, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222291/#!po=1.11111. For further info on male-female neuroanatomy and psychobehavior, see Amber N. V. Ruigrock et. al, "A meta-analysis of sex differences in human brain structure," Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 39 (2014): 34–50; Larry Cahill, "A Half-Truth is a Whole Lie: On the Necessity of Investigating Sex Influences on the Brain," Endocrinology 153 (2012): 2542; "His Brain, Her Brain," Scientific American, October 1, 2012. For a paradigm of gender compatible with the Gospel, see Ryan T. Anderson, When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment (New York: Encounter, 2017), chap. 7. For the most thorough coverage of the literature exploring sex differences in neuroanatomy and psychobehavior in one book, see Charles Murray, Human Diversity: The Biology of Gender, Race, and Class (New York: Twelve, 2020), 11–127.

[222] 1 Corinthians 11꞉3

[223] "Chapter 42: Family: The Sweetest Union for Time and for Eternity," Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith.

[224] "Editorial Thoughts: The Rights of Fatherhood," Juvenile Instructor 37:5 (1 March 1902), 146.

[225] "Being a Righteous Husband and Father," October 1994 general conference.

[226] "Parents and Children", General Handbook, 2.1.3.

[227] D. Todd Christofferson, "To the Brethren of the Priesthood: Your Spiritual Leadership," Chile multistake conference, Aug. 26, 2018; as cited in Dallin H. Oaks, "Keeping the Faith on the Front Line," Ensign, June 2020 [digital only].

[228] Moses 7꞉18; Philippians 2꞉2; 1 Peter 3꞉15; Doctrine and Covenants 38꞉27.

[229] Boyd K. Packer, "The Relief Society," Ensign 28, no. 5 (May 1998): 73.

[230] "Fatherhood: An Eternal Calling," April 2004 general conference.

[231] "Exercising Priesthood Authority Righteously," General Handbook, 3.4.4.

[232] Ephesians 5꞉25-29

[233] The claim has its origins in Laura Compton, "From Amici to 'Ohana: The Hawaiian Roots of the Family Proclamation," Rational Faiths, May 15, 2015, https://rationalfaiths.com/from-amici-to-ohana/.

[234] Baehr v. Lewin (1993) was a case where three same-sex couples petitioned the Hawaii Supreme Court to recognize their unions.

[235] The Family Proclamation was published in 1995. Dallin H. Oaks explained that it was developed over the course of a year: "Subjects were identified and discussed by members of the Quorum of the Twelve for nearly a year. Language was proposed, reviewed, and revised. Prayerfully we continually pleaded with the Lord for His inspiration on what we should say and how we should say it." DHO offers an account of the Proclamation.

[236] "Origins of the Family Proclamation," Mormonr, accessed January 24, 2023, https://mormonr.org/qnas/NqoXl/origins_of_the_family_proclamation.

[237] Richard E. Turley Jr., In the Hands of the Lord: The Life of Dallin H. Oaks (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2021), 215.

[238] Boyd K. Packer, "The Instrument of Your Mind and the Foundation of Your Character," CES Fireside (2 February 2003).

[239] M. Russell Ballard, "The Sacred Responsibilities of Parenthood," (address at Brigham Young University, 19 August 2003). Cited in W. Justin Dyer and Michael A. Goodman, "The Prophetic Nature of The Family Proclamation," in Latter-day Saints in Washington D.C.: History, People, and Places, ed. Kenneth L. Alford, Lloyd D. Newell, and Alexander L. Baugh (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2021), 142, 152n24.

[240] "World Focus on S.L. Gathering," Deseret News, March 15, 1995.

[241] "Year of family endorsed by the First Presidency," Church News, January 1, 1994; "YEAR OF FAMILY ENDORSED BY THE FIRST PRESIDENCY," Deseret News, January 1, 1994; "FIRST PRESIDENCY BACKS 1994 AS YEAR OF FAMILY," Deseret News, January 9, 1994.

[242] Marianne Schmidt, "U.N. IS ENEMY OF THE FAMILY, EDITOR SAYS," Deseret News, March 19, 1995. Yet another Deseret News article appeared on 17 April 1995 from one Scott Bradley in North Logan decrying the perceived ways in which the U.N. was undermining family. "U.N. GATHERINGS THREATEN FAMILIES," Deseret News, April 17, 1995.

[243] "First Presidency Statement Opposing Same Gender Marriages," Ensign 24, no. 4 (April 1994): 80.

[244] "CHURCH JOINS HAWAII FIGHT OVER SAME-SEX MARRIAGES," Associated Press, February 24, 1995.

[245] "Amicus Curiae Brief of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1997), Baehr v. Miike," Mormonr, accessed May 10, 2022, https://mormonr.org/qnas/NqoXl/origins_of_the_family_proclamation/research#re-0Z2bwi-L8jzYb.

[246] Walker Wright, "Family Breakdown, the Welfare State, and the Family Proclamation: An Alternative History," Worlds Without End, August 1, 2015, http://www.withoutend.org/family-proclamation-alternative-history/.

[247] Gordon B. Hinckley, "Bring Up a Child in the Way He Should Go," Ensign 23, no. 11 (November 1993): 58–59.

[248] Neal A. Maxwell, "Take Especial Care of Your Family," Ensign 24, no. 5 (May 1994): 88–89.

[249] Bruce C. Hafen, "The Proclamation on the Family: Transcending the Cultural Confusion," Ensign 45, no. 8 (August 2015): 51.

[250] Ibid.

[251] Gordon B. Hinckley, "Stand Strong Against the Wiles of the World," Ensign 25, no. 11 (November 1995): 98–101.

[252] Unless otherwise stated, all quotations and citations from the feminist authors below come from Ryan T. Anderson, When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment (New York: Encounter Books, 2018).

[253] "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," 2nd paragraph.

[254] Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York: Routledge, 2006), 171–80.

[255] Judith Butler, "Bodies That Matter," in Engaging with Irigaray, ed. Carolyn Burke, Naomi Schor, and Margaret Whitford (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994), 148.

[256] Anderson, When Harry Became Sally, 153.

[257] Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex , trans. H.M. Parshley (London: Jonathan Cape, 1953; 2009), 294.

[258] "Second-wave feminism," Wikipedia, accessed January 11, 2023, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-wave_feminism.

[259] Dr. Debra Soh, The End of Gender: Debunking the Myths About Sex and Identity in Our Society (New York: Threshold Editions, 2020), 17.

[260] Bruce Goldman, "Two minds: the cognitive differences between men and women," Stanford Medicine, Stanford University, May 22, 2017, https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html; "'Two Minds' two years later: Still curious about sex differences in cognition? Here are some resources," Stanford Scope Blog, October 24, 2019, https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2019/10/24/two-minds-two-years-later-still-curious-about-sex-differences-in-cognition-here-are-some-resources/; John Stossel, "The Science: Male Brain vs Female Brain," YouTube, October 15, 2019, video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTEi2-FAEZE; David C. Geary, "The Real Causes of Human Sex Differences," Quilette, October 20, 2020, https://quillette.com/2020/10/20/the-real-causes-of-human-sex-differences/; "The Ideological Refusal to Acknowledge Evolved Sex Differences," Quillette, September 1, 2022, https://quillette.com/2022/09/01/the-ideological-refusal-to-acknowledge-evolved-sex-differences/; Male, Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences, 3rd ed. (Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association, 2020). Indeed, every single cell of our body is influenced by our sex. See Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Understanding the Biology of Sex and Gender Differences; Theresa M. Wizemann, Mary-Lou Pardue, eds., Exploring the Biological Contributions to Human Health: Does Sex Matter? (Washington D.C.: National Academies Press (US), 2001), Executive Summary, 2, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222291/#!po=1.11111. For further info on male-female neuroanatomy and psychobehavior, see Amber N. V. Ruigrock et. al, "A meta-analysis of sex differences in human brain structure," Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 39 (2014): 34–50; Larry Cahill, "A Half-Truth is a Whole Lie: On the Necessity of Investigating Sex Influences on the Brain," Endocrinology 153 (2012): 2542; "His Brain, Her Brain," Scientific American, October 1, 2012. For a paradigm of gender compatible with the Gospel, see Ryan T. Anderson, When Harry Became Sally, chap. 7. See also Abigail Favale, The Genesis of Gender: A Christian Theory (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2022). For the most thorough coverage of the literature exploring sex differences in neuroanatomy and psychobehavior in one book that the author has seen, see Charles Murray, Human Diversity: The Biology of Gender, Race, and Class (New York: Twelve, 2020), 11–127.

[261] Donatella Marazziti et. al, "Sex-Related Differences in Plasma Oxytocin Levels in Humans," Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health 15 (March 2019): 58–63; Shan Gao et. al, "Oxytocin, the peptide that bonds the sexes also divides them," Proc Natl Acad Sci 113, no. 27 (2016): 7650-7654.

[262] Soh, The End of Gender, 42–44.

[263] Abraham 3꞉18

[264] Moses 3꞉4-5

[265] Doctrine & Covenants 131꞉7

[266] Of course, a commitment to TSGB would mean that the male-female binary could be redefined or otherwise abolished given a different plan for the configuration of a person's or group of people's spirit gender.

[267] Dallin H. Oaks, "Apostasy and Restoration," Ensign 25, no. 5 (May 1995): 87.

[268] Taylor G. Petrey, "Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 44, no. 4 (2011): 106–41; Tabernacles of Clay: Sexuality and Gender in Modern Mormonism (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2020); Blaire Ostler, Queer Mormon Theology: An Introduction (Newburgh, IN: By Common Consent Press, 2021); Nathan Oman, "A Welding Link of Some Kind: Exploring a possible theology of same-sex marriage sealings," Thoughts from a Tamed Cynic, September 27, 2022, https://nateoman.substack.com/p/a-welding-link-of-some-kind; For lengthy and cogent rebuttals to and reviews of Petrey’s book Tabernacles of Clay, see Gregory L. Smith, "Feet of Clay: Queer Theory and the Church of Jesus Christ," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 43 (2021): 107–278; Michael A. Goodman and Daniel Frost, "Constancy Amid Change," BYU Studies Quarterly 61, no. 3 (2022): 191–217. For a solid and insightful rebuttal to Petrey’s article "Towards a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology", see V.H. Cassler, "Plato's Son, Augustine's Heir: ‘A Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology’?" SquareTwo 5, no. 2 (Summer 2012). Dr. Cassler has another article on SquareTwo that provides a feminist argument in favor of traditional marriage that readers may be interested in. See V.H. Cassler, "'Some Things That Should Not Have Been Forgotten Were Lost': The Pro-Feminist, Pro-Democracy, Pro-Peace Case for State Privileging of Companionate Heterosexual Monogamous Marriage," SquareTwo 2, no. 1 (2009). For a solid review of and response to Blaire Ostler’s book, see Daniel Ortner, "The Queer Philosophies of Men Mingled with Scripture," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 51 (2022): 317–34. For a review of Oman's work, see Matthew Watkins, "'We Don’t Know, So We Might as Well': A Flimsy Philosophy for Same-Sex Sealings," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 54 (2022): 207–22. Much of the scriptures covered in this article will show that, even if Oman's thesis holds (which it doesn't. Sealings have always been understood in part as marital since Nauvoo), his arguments will still be rejecting key scriptural assertions and broaching more questions than answering.

[269] Some will wish to undermine this scripture by pointing to passages in the Book of Mormon that affirm that errors might exist in it such as the Title Page of the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 19꞉6; Mormon 8꞉12, 16-17; Mormon 9꞉31; Ether 12꞉23-25. Each of the authors is clear that the content that they have included in the Book of Mormon is sacred content. All of them couch their disclaimers in conditionals i.e. "if error exists, don't condemn it". The Book of Mormon authors were confident that the content, and especially the content that prophets were claiming was sacred teaching revealed from heaven, was of divine origin. The way that they recount secular history and their particular writing style may be weak and may contain errors, and some of the claimed divine content may indeed not come from God, but Book of Mormon authors are clear that they tried their absolute hardest every effort to include only those things they believed came from God as the Book of Mormon’s sacred teaching. We should, in their honor, try our hardest to recognize the content that they wrote, compiled, and bequeathed to us as divine, morally and scientifically correct teachings.

[270] Doctrine & Covenants 49꞉15-17; Moses 3꞉21-24; Abraham 5꞉14-18

[271] It should be noted that Joseph Smith never appears to have taught in his public sermons that human spirits were birthed by Heavenly Parents in the pre-mortal existence. Indeed, he seems to have taught in his public sermons that spirits were never created. See Kenneth W. Godfrey, "The History of Intelligence in Latter-day Saint Thought," in The Pearl of Great Price: Revelations from God, ed. H. Donl Peterson and Charles D. Tate Jr. (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1989), 213-36; Blake Ostler, "The Idea of Pre-Existence in the Development of Mormon Thought," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15, no. 1 (Spring 1982): 59–78. Although that is true, it is also the case that his revelations teach that men and women can create spirit children and that our spirits were at one point created. The Book of Moses teaches this doctrine of spirits having a moment when they were created and the majority of Latter-day Saint scriptural exegetes have recognized this or at least been open to it. See Moses 3꞉5 and especially in connection to Moses 1꞉8 where Moses sees "all the children of men which are and were created." All scripture assumes real pre-existence instead of ideal pre-existence and virtually all Latter-day Saint exegetes with the exception of perhaps one have recognized this. See Elder Bruce R. McConkie, "Christ and the Creation," in Studies in Scripture: Volume Two, The Pearl of Great Price, ed. Robert L. Millet and Kent P. Jackson (Salt Lake City: Randall Book, 1985), 88; Milton R. Hunter, Pearl of Great Price Commentary (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1951), 80–86; Richard D. Draper, S. Kent Brown, and Michael D. Rhodes, The Pearl of Great Price: A Verse by Verse Commentary (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2005), 222; H. Donl Peterson, The Pearl of Great Price: A History and Commentary (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1987), 129–30; Shon D. Hopkin, "Premortal Existence," in Pearl of Great Price Reference Companion, ed. Dennis L. Largey (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2017), 240–41; Hyrum L. Andrus, Doctrinal Commentary on the Pearl of Great Price (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1973), 99–136; Aaron P. Schade and Matthew L. Bowen, The Book of Moses: From the Ancient of Days to the Latter Days (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2021), 153–54n30; Book of Mormon Central and Jeffrey R. Bradshaw, "Book of Moses Essays: #54 Moses Sees the Garden of Eden (Moses 3) Spiritual Creation (Moses 3꞉5-7)," The Interpreter Foundation, May 8, 2021, https://interpreterfoundation.org/book-of-moses-essays-054/; Terryl L. Givens, "The Book of Moses as a Pre–Augustinian Text: A New Look at the Pelagian Crisis," in Tracing Ancient Threads in the Book of Moses: Inspired Origins, Temple Contexts, and Literary Qualities, ed. Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, David R. Seely, John W. Welch and Scott Gordon, 2 vols. (Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation; Springville, UT: Book of Mormon Central; Redding, CA: FAIR; Tooele, UT: Eborn Books, 2021), 1:293-314. Of the five commentaries on the Doctrine and Covenants that were reviewed and that commented on v. 63 of this revelation specifically, two appear to explicitly accept that spirit birth is a reality. Exactly how is not specified. See Roy W. Doxey, Doctrine and Covenants Speaks (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1970), 422; Daniel H. Ludlow, A Companion to Your Study of the Doctrine and Covenants, 2 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1978), 1:664. Two seem to be at the very least open to that possibility. See Robert L. Millet, "A New and Everlasting Covenant (D&C 132)," in Studies in Scripture: Volume One, The Doctrine and Covenants, ed. Robert L. Millet and Kent P. Jackson (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1989), 524–25. See also Joseph Fielding McConkie and Craig J. Ostler, Revelations of the Restoration: A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants and Other Modern Revelations (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2000), 63. One appears to believe that reference to the eternal worlds and bearing the souls of men refers to mortal life and the bearing of life on earth similar to how Doctrine & Covenants 49꞉15-17 speaks about marriage. See Richard O. Cowan, Doctrine & Covenants: Our Modern Scripture (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1978), 133. McConkie's and Ostler's commentary may have meant to fit more into this understanding of the verse. The dominant understanding seems to be that spirit birth is a reality. All commentators agree that sexual relations are only proper between a married man and woman. Indeed, there still seems to be little purpose for God creating us as man and woman if it did not have a vital purpose to our earthly and eternal flourishing. Lastly, Brian Hales discusses evidence that Joseph Smith taught spirit birth to his followers more in private when introducing eternal and plural marriage. He also relates this evidence to Doctrine & Covenants 132 and concludes that it and JS's private teachings substantiate the doctrine of spirit birth. See Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy: Volume 3, Theology (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2013), 113–125. Thus at worst Joseph Smith considered spirit birth a possibility and didn't consider it carefully enough when presenting his King Follet Discourse that the so-called "progressives" on this issue quote and rely on in order to construct theologies that permit same-gender sexual relations.

[272] David L. Paulsen and Martin Pulido, "‘A Mother There’: A Survey of Historical Teachings About Heavenly Mother," BYU Studies Quarterly 50, no. 1 (2011): 70–97.

[273] Smith, "Feet of Clay," 129.

[274] Scott H. Faulring, Kent P. Jackson, and Robert J. Matthews, Joseph Smith's New Translation of the Bible: Original Manuscripts (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2004), 501.

[275] This is especially true when considering the biblical outlook on scripture. In the words of Lyn M. Bechtel in Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible: "In Hebrew Scripture sex has two primary functions: the production of progeny which lead to salvation, and the creation of the strong ties or oneness which are essential for holding the household and community together. Sex is the physical bonding together of what appears physically different in order to produce life, suggesting that the uniting of opposites is both creative and essential to the divine life process. In Gen.1 God creates by separating what is different into a physical (a child) and psychological unity...There is also casual sex or sex that does not create marital or family bonding and obligation (e.g., Deut. 22꞉28-29) or that violates existing marital or family bonding and obligation (e.g., vv. 23-24). This kind of sex is considered foolish and shameful, an "inadequacy" or "failure" to live up to internalized, societal goals and ideals because it violates the purpose of sex and therefore does not participate in the divine life process...Sexual intercourse in ancient Israel is intended to be an activity that builds the community first and therein fills the needs of the individual." See Lyn M. Bechtel, "Sex," in Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. David Noel Freedman (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 1192–93. Thus scripture's outlook on proper sexual behavior refers to men and women becoming "one flesh" both physically and psychologically so that they can benefit the community. This naturally rules out homosexual sexual behavior as ethical.

[276] Lisa M. Diamond and Clifford J. Rosky, “Scrutinizing Immutability: Research on Sexual Orientation and U.S. Legal Advocacy for Sexual Minorities,” Journal of Sex Research 53, nos. 4-5 (2016): 363–91.

[277] Andrea Ghanna et. al, “Large-scale GWAS reveals insights into the genetic architecture of same-sex sexual behavior,” Science 365, no. 6456 (2019): 881–85.

[278] Liahna E. Gordon, "Inhabiting the Sexual Landscape: Toward an Interpretive Theory of the Development of Sexual Orientation and Identity," Journal of Homosexuality 62, no. 4 (2015): 495–530.

[279] Jacob 2:21

[280] Doctrine & Covenants 49:15

[281] Doctrine & Covenants 49:16

[282] Doctrine & Covenants 131:1-2; 132:19-20, 63

[283] Madeline Holcombe, “A synthetic embryo, made without sperm or egg, could lead to infertility treatments,” CNN, September 5, 2022, https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/05/world/synthetic-embryos-stem-cells-scn/index.html.

[284] Julie Compton, “Could same-sex couples soon conceive a child with both their DNA?” NBC News, January 12, 2018, https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/could-same-sex-couples-soon-conceive-child-both-their-dna-n836876.

[285] Genesis 2:21–24; Matthew 19:3–9; Mark 10:2–12; Romans 1:20–28; Doctrine & Covenants 49:15–17; Moses 3:21–24; Abraham 5:14–18; The Family: A Proclamation to the World. Some may not believe that the Family Proclamation constitutes an official pronouncement of the church, but several facts contradict this view. See this page for more info. For a solid exegesis of the Romans passage, see Justin W. Starr, "Biblical Condemnations of Homosexual Conduct]," FAIR Papers, 2004, https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/starr-justin-BiblicalHomosexuality.pdf. Another way to argue for this telos is to cite Jacob 2:21 which teaches that we were created unto the end of keeping God's commandments. Doctrine & Covenants 49:15-17 teaches that we are commanded to be married and become one flesh with our spouses. Scripture consistently associates keeping commandments with happiness and flourishing. See, for example, Mosiah 2:41.

[286] That the joining of the complementary reproductive sexual organs of men and women is the referent “one flesh” is confirmed in scripture and in nature. Scripturally, Eve is the “missing rib” of Adam. God takes Adam’s rib and forms Eve. Scripture then gives us a “therefore” to indicate that for this reason—the reason of Eve being the complementary opposite of Adam and being his missing rib—should they again unite and become “one flesh”. Furthermore, Adam and Eve are commanded to "be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth" (Genesis 1:28; Moses 2:28; Abraham 4:28). That can only happen, in the creation scenario, in the procreative relationship of man and woman. In nature, it's obviously the case that only the organic sexual union of a human male and female can create children.

[287] This is almost certainly why Church leaders have been verbally, openly, and strongly skeptical of birth control and oral sex or otherwise issued strong restrictions on them that were later softened. Leaders' past skepticism and rhetoric is often mocked and maligned today, but here with the understanding of the sexual telos of men and women, it becomes much more sensible as to why they were skeptical and harsh: those things can very easily further separate the children of God from understanding their sexual telos and achieving their fullest flourishing found in the procreative relationship of a man and woman. The further one gets from understanding their sexual telos as the procreative union of a man and woman, the more uncomfortable a Latter-day Saint Christian should get.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]

[75]

[76]

[77]

[78]

[79]

[80]

[81]

[82]

[83]

[84]

[85]

[86]

[87]

[88]

[89]

[90]

[91]

[92]

[93]

[94]

[95]

[96]

[97]

[98]

[99]

[100]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{FairMormon}}
+{{Main Page}}
 <onlyinclude>
-{{H2
+{{H1
 |L=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction
 |H=Mormonism and same-sex attraction
@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 |L3=Joshua Johanson, "Navigating the Labyrinth Surrounding Homosexual Desire"
 |L4=Question: Can a person identify as gay or lesbian and still be a member of the Church in good standing?
-|L5=Question: Do Mormon teachings against homosexual acts lead to bullying of gay youth or unchristian treatment of members or non-members with same-sex attraction?
+|L5=Question: If same-sex attraction is something that occurs naturally, why can't God and the Church accept it by allowing sealings of LGBT couples?
-|L6=Question: Are Mormon family members taught to reject their LGBT children, thereby forcing many of them to become homeless?
+|L6=Question: Do Mormon teachings against homosexual acts lead to bullying of gay youth or unchristian treatment of members or non-members with same-sex attraction?
-|L7=Question: Since the Church teaches that homosexual conduct is sinful, does this mean it opposes efforts to protect those who engage in homosexual acts?
+|L7=Question: Are Mormon family members taught to reject their LGBT children, thereby forcing many of them to become homeless?
-|L8=Question: What are some of the unique challenges or difficulties faced by Mormons with same-sex attraction?
+|L8=Question: Since the Church teaches that homosexual conduct is sinful, does this mean it opposes efforts to protect those who engage in homosexual acts?
-|L9=Question: Do Mormons believe that same-sex attraction will persist in the next life?
+|L9=Question: What are some of the unique challenges or difficulties faced by Mormons with same-sex attraction?
-|L10-Question: Do Mormon leaders recommend marriage as "therapy" for those with same-sex attraction?
+|L10=Question: Do Mormons believe that same-sex attraction will persist in the next life?
-|L11=Question: How do Mormons view the issue of heterosexual marriage for people with same-sex attraction?
+|L11-Question: Do Mormon leaders recommend marriage as "therapy" for those with same-sex attraction?
-|L12=Question: What have past and present Mormon leaders taught about why some people are attracted to the same sex?
+|L12=Question: How do Mormons view the issue of heterosexual marriage for people with same-sex attraction?
-|L13=Question: Do Mormons believe that same-sex attraction is "inborn" or "genetic"?
+|L13=Question: What have past and present Mormon leaders taught about why some people are attracted to the same sex?
-|L14=Question: Is there an "epidemic" of suicide among gay Mormons?
+|L14=Question: Do Mormons believe that same-sex attraction is "inborn" or "genetic"?
-|L15=Question: Why do Mormons typically refer to homosexual/gay/lesbian issues with such terms as "same-sex attraction"?
+|L15=Question: Is there an "epidemic" of suicide among gay Mormons?
-|L16=Question: Are Mormon with same-sex attraction encouraged to be closeted or lie about their attractions?
+|L16=Question: Why do Mormons typically refer to homosexual/gay/lesbian issues with such terms as "same-sex attraction"?
-|L17=Question: In Mormonism, what are the ramifications from denying a gay identity?
+|L17=Question: Are Mormon with same-sex attraction encouraged to be closeted or lie about their attractions?
-|L18=Question: What have Mormon leaders taught about the distinction between desires, feelings, or inclinations, and sexual acts?
+|L18=Question: In Mormonism, what are the ramifications from denying a gay identity?
-|L19=Question: Do Mormon leaders teach that people with same-sex attraction should not associate with each other?
+|L19=Question: What have Mormon leaders taught about the distinction between desires, feelings, or inclinations, and sexual acts?
-|L20=Homosexual aversion therapy performed at BYU in the 1970's
+|L20=Question: Do Mormon leaders teach that people with same-sex attraction should not associate with each other?
+|L21=Question: Isn't the Mormon opposition to same-sex marriage hypocritical, considering that they used to ban black from holding the priesthood until 1978?
+|L22=Question: Did Christ teach against same-sex relationships during his mortal ministry?
+|L23=Question: What is the scriptural basis for the restriction on homosexual sexual behavior in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
+|L24=Question: Is same-gender sexual attraction immutable?
+|L25=Question: How may criticism of the Church over LGBT issues become fiercer in the future and how can members respond?
+|L26=Homosexual aversion therapy performed at BYU in the 1970's
 }}
 </onlyinclude>
@@ Line 57: / Line 63: @@
 {{:Question: Can a person identify as gay or lesbian and still be a member of the Church in good standing?}}
+{{:Question: If same-sex attraction is something that occurs naturally, why can't God and the Church accept it by allowing sealings of LGBT couples?}}
 {{:Question: Do Mormon teachings against homosexual acts lead to bullying of gay youth or unchristian treatment of members or non-members with same-sex attraction?}}
 {{:Question: Are Mormon family members taught to reject their LGBT children, thereby forcing many of them to become homeless?}}
@@ Line 70: / Line 77: @@
 {{:Question: Are Mormon with same-sex attraction encouraged to be closeted or lie about their attractions?}}
 {{:Question: In Mormonism, what are the ramifications from denying a gay identity?}}
-{{:Question: What have Mormon leaders taught about the distinction desires, feelings, or inclinations, and sexual acts?}}
+{{:Question: What have Mormon leaders taught about the distinction between desires, feelings, or inclinations, and sexual acts?}}
 {{:Question: Do Mormon leaders teach that people with same-sex attraction should not associate with each other?}}
+{{:Question: If same-sex attraction is something that occurs naturally, why can't God and the Church accept it by allowing sealings of LGBT couples?}}
 {{SummaryItem
 |link=Marriage_not_needed_for_exaltation#What_of_members_who_are_not_married.3F
@@ Line 78: / Line 85: @@
 |summary=In his article in the ''Encyclopedia of Mormonism'', James T. Duke explains the LDS doctrine on this subject: "People who live a worthy life but do not marry in the temples, for various reasons beyond their control, which might include not marrying, not having heard the gospel, or not having a temple available so that the marriage could be sealed for eternity, will at some time be given this opportunity. Latter-day Saints believe it is their privilege and duty to perform these sacred ordinances vicariously for deceased progenitors, and for others insofar as possible."
 }}
 {{SummaryItem
 |link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Boyd K. Packer October 2010 conference talk
@@ Line 89: / Line 95: @@
 |summary=Given that same-sex attraction is a charged issue with political overtones, it is not surprising that some sincerely misunderstood President Packer's talk. Just as there are those who could sincerely misunderstand President Packer's talk, there are those who choose, for whatever reason, to purposely misunderstand.
 }}</noinclude>
+{{:Question: Isn't the Mormon opposition to same-sex marriage hypocritical, considering that they used to ban black from holding the priesthood until 1978?}}
+{{:Question: Did Christ teach against same-sex relationships during his mortal ministry?}}
+{{:Question: What is the scriptural basis for the restriction on homosexual sexual behavior in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?}}
+{{:Question: Is same-gender sexual attraction immutable?}}
+{{:Question: How may criticism of the Church over LGBT issues become fiercer in the future and how can members respond?}}
 {{:Mormonism_and_gender_issues/Same-sex_attraction/Aversion therapy performed at BYU}}
 {{SummaryItem
 |link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Christ's teachings on
@@ Line 159: / Line 166: @@
 }}
+{{To learn more box:LGBTQ}}
-{{FurtherReading}}
 <!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->
 [[es:Cuestiones mormonismo y de género/La atracción del mismo sexo]]

Main navigation

Difference between revisions of "Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction"

Latest revision as of 22:13, 9 May 2024

Contents

Mormonism and same-sex attraction

Ensign, "Why We Do Some of the Things We Do"

Click here to view the complete article

Ensign, "Same-Gender Attraction"

Click here to view the complete article

Joshua Johanson, "Navigating the Labyrinth Surrounding Homosexual Desire"

Click here to view the complete article

Question: Can a person identify as gay or lesbian and still be a member of the Church in good standing?

Teachings of Church leaders

Definition of sexual orientation

Definition of homosexuality, homosexual, and gay

Avoiding using gay as a noun

Question: If same-sex attraction is something that occurs naturally, why can't God and the Church accept it by allowing sealings of LGBT couples?

Introduction to Question

Response to Question

Feelings are Not Being

The Latter-day Saint Argument for Marriage

Objections to Church Standard

The Argument from Personal Revelation

The Argument from Priesthood Restriction

Conclusion

Question: Do Mormon teachings against homosexual acts lead to bullying of gay youth or unchristian treatment of members or non-members with same-sex attraction?

Some members have, through ignorance or malice, doubtless used the sinful nature of homosexual acts to justify their decision to disparage, neglect, or mistreat those who are tempted toward such acts

In this, as in all else, the example of Jesus is paramount

1980s

1990s

2000s

2010s

Question: Are Mormon family members taught to reject their LGBT children, thereby forcing many of them to become homeless?

Homelessness among LGBT youth in America is considered “an epidemic"

Parents have a duty to love and take care of their children

While reports of homelessness among gay youth are sad and startling, they aren’t out of line with other data collected in other US states

In 2008, the homeless rate for LGBT youth in Utah rose above the national average

Family Support for LGBT Youth in Utah

Utah youth tend to feel more accepted in their families than other LGBT American youth

Nothing yet released in any of the data collected definitively links LDS affiliation with homelessness in LGBT youth

Should the case arise where an LDS parent did force a child to leave home because of that child's sexuality, the teachings of the Church are quick to denounce the parent's behavior

Question: Since the Church teaches that homosexual conduct is sinful, does this mean it opposes efforts to protect those who engage in homosexual acts?

The Church has not opposed measures which grant all the civil or secular benefits of marriage to other domestic partnerships

The Church sustains the principle that all citizens are equal before the law

Question: What are some of the unique challenges or difficulties faced by Mormons with same-sex attraction?

A theology that, without question, favors heterosexual relationships over homosexual relationships

Church leaders have encouraged members to be particularly kind and compassionate to those struggling with SSA

Question: Do Mormons believe that same-sex attraction will persist in the next life?

Multiple LDS leaders have taught that same-sex attraction and homosexual desire will not persist beyond death

Question: Do Mormon leaders recommend marriage as "therapy" for those with same-sex attraction?

The prophets and general authorities have, in their written statements, long been clear that marriage is not to be seen as a "treatment" for same-sex attraction

1970s

1980s

1990s

2006

2007

Question: How do Mormons view the issue of heterosexual marriage for people with same-sex attraction?

The Church does not recommend marriage for everyone with same-sex attraction

The Church encourages all of its members to be open and honest with their spouse

Some people have never had an attraction to the opposite sex, but develop an attraction for their spouse

Marriages where one spouse is attracted to the same sex are more prone to divorce and dissatisfaction

Prevalence of marriages

This section is a chronology of statements from primary and secondary sources. Sources may be viewed by following the citation links.

Question: What have past and present Mormon leaders taught about why some people are attracted to the same sex?

The Church does not have an official position on the causes for same-sex attraction

1980

President Spencer W. Kimball

1987

Boyd K. Packer

1988

Dallin H. Oaks

1990

Boyd K. Packer

1993

Boyd K. Packer

1994

Richard G. Scott

1995

Dallin H. Oaks

Richard G. Scott