Four Proposals for the Church to Mend Wounds What is the Cause of LDS & LGBTQ Community Issues:
It’s no secret that there are some definite points of contention between the LDS church and the LGBTQ community. Some of this contention is based on doctrine, some on church policies, and some of it is caused by either misunderstandings as well as other easily avoidable circumstance. Of all of these problems, the last one has become an ever increasingly growing problem. The reasons this has become a growing problem is due to either statements, expectations, or actions from church leaders, many of which are not even church teachings. I am not referring to things such as doctrine, church policies or teachings held by the church; I’m referring to things that happen, but shouldn’t— and things only the Apostles and First Presidency hold the power to change. The following are four proposals that if leaders of the church followed, it would end much of the contention mentioned above, yet not compromise any church beliefs:
1) Be more Consistent in LGBTQ Approach & Teachings
Doctrine in the church regarding gender and marriage have remained clear and unchanging. Unfortunately, this is not something that can be said about church policies and teachings on such topics.
Up until Proposition 8, there wasn’t much discussion regarding the church and LGBTQ relationships. When the topic would arise in the church, there was an emphasis on the “grievous sin” aspect, and a lack of emphasis on the empathetic side. Shortly after Proposition 8, this negativity began to change. From then on, we heard more frequent talks about sexuality, and how members need to be empathetic towards individuals with “same sex attractions.” In 2011, BYU even changed its honor code so that homosexual students were not in violation of the honor code due to their sexuality, which prior to this time was a violation of the honor code, even if they weren’t “acting on it.” By 2015 church leaders even stated that members were free to support whatever political causes they choose, including ones involving marriage, without it affecting their standing in the church. Each of these things started to mend wounds mentioned earlier, and people recognized these positive changes in the church’s attitude towards LGBTQ topics.
Within a few months of all this, gay marriage was legalized in the United States by the Supreme Court. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, a statement was made by an apostle saying that “faithful” members of the church would not support such causes. In that short of a timeframe, church leaders encouraged members to support whatever they felt was right, and then said “But, if you support this, you’re not faithful.” Shortly after this, the church came out with the new policy change regarding children of LGBTQ couples, which by many is seen as the biggest step back the church and its leaders have made in years regarding its attitude towards LGBTQ rights.
None of these things were necessarily “wrong” by themselves, but together they all created an emotional roller coaster for those involved. Consistency will help stop this pattern of people getting excited about the church being more affirming, just to come crashing down when church leaders make decisions such as this.
2) Mean what you say, and say what you mean:
Ever since the policy change in November, this is something the church has struggled with. Even the policy change itself was something the church could have done better in this regard. For the children of LGBTQ couples to get baptized, the policy states that the child has to “disavow” gay marriage. A synonym to “disavow” is “disown”; Church leaders had to have known many would find this unsettling. Elder Christofferson was interviewed the next day to help clear up misunderstandings. Elder Christofferson made the following comment: “They would disavow, or assent I guess would be a better way to say it.” (Elder, 2016). If the word “assent” to church teachings regarding gay marriage is not only less unsettling, but also is a “better” way to say it, why didn’t they say that in the first place? Organizations such as the church should always be cautious from the beginning to use the most proper and applicable language they can, rather than creating the need to go back and try to explain the lack of such things.
This isn’t to say that because a word is offensive it shouldn’t be used. The policy change also defined gay marriage as “apostasy”, which also created quite a stir of emotions. Apostasy is a harsh term, but it is also what the church considers to be an accurate term, and therefore a necessary term. The point isn’t to carefully avoid all hurt feelings, but if you say something that inflicts pain, and the more accurate way of saying it will inflict less pain, clearly the more accurate version needs to be stated from the beginning.
A more recent example is from a Q&A Elder Bednar gave. The direct quote from the Q&A that nearly went viral was “There are no homosexual members of the church” (Wagner, 2016). This is a great example of not meaning what you say. He was saying this as if “homosexual” means that a person is acting on such attractions. Homosexuality has nothing to do with whether a person is sexually active or not, but purely is being attracted to the same sex, which is not how Bednar tried defining it.
Bednar also said sexuality is a label and therefore does not define us. While a person’s sexuality is just a label, it is an accurate one, and should not be looked upon negatively. Labels can help accurately portray who a person is. Mormon, homosexual, and ambivert are all labels I use to describe myself. The goal isn’t to remove labels, but to understand their purpose. One of my favorite quotes is “Labels don't define us; we define our labels.” Elder Bednar made an effort to remove what he described as negative labels, and tried removing “homosexual.” I would hope he does not believe this to be a negative label, and it was just him not saying what he meant.
When you’re a leader in the church, one of your jobs is to uplift, motivate, and inspire. If leaders are not saying what they mean nor meaning what they say, they’re likely not putting themselves in a position to fulfill these important aspects of their calling.
3) Get Away From the Political Line
Let’s look at the Sunday School lesson about staying away from the line. In the church we are always taught that in regards to commandments there is a line between right and wrong (and keep in mind, abiding by the laws of the land is a commandment as well). In every moral issue, we have been taught to find the line between right and wrong, be sure we’re on the “right” side, and walk as far away from the line as we can. We shouldn’t try to “walk the line”, as that is risky territory and asking for trouble. When it comes to political matters, the church is very close to the line.
“Churches are not political action committees and should not act like them. Religious leaders should abide by the law and refrain from turning their congregations into cogs in a political machine” (Churches, 2016). There are laws set up so that if a tax exempt organization crosses the line, they lose their tax exempt status. The church will walk that line, they might not cross it, but they come as close to it as they can.
Proposition eight is a great example of this. There were significant influences from the church on Proposition eight, which was not their place. The church emphasising its doctrines on marriage during that time is one thing, but leaders essentially coercing members to vote a certain way is too close to the line, and a spot the church shouldn’t be at in the first place. In more recent months, there was a bill that Utah politicians tried passing that would further protect victims of hate crimes (including crimes of sexual identity, religion, and more), but the church stated that the bill shouldn’t be passed, and it was not (Dobner, 2016).
If leaders of the church would altogether get out of political matters, there would be a couple positive results: first, it would show they “practice what they preach” by staying away from the line, which prevents legal trouble. Second, church leaders would stop adding fuel to the fire that has become the bad aspects of the church’s reputation. The church is a good organization, now let’s stop doing bad things.
4) Support the Support Groups
In 2011, after BYU changed the honor code so that same sex attractions were not in violation of the honor code there was a group created on campus; this group was named “USGA” (Understand Same Gender Attractions). By the end of 2012, the decision was made that this group could no longer meet at BYU, nor have an official affiliation with BYU. The group has always had an official stance supporting and honoring BYU’s honor code, yet the school and church leaders decided the group could not have this BYU or church affiliation, presumably due to its being a support for LGBTQ individuals.
Thankfully, after USGA was kicked off campus, the group itself remained. They have since been meeting at other public venues in Provo, and the group is still designed for LGBTQ Mormons as well as allies to have a safe place to discuss topics meaningful to them. To this day the group still promotes following BYU’s honor code, and is in accordance to policies that should allow it to remain on campus.
Even though the group supports BYU and its honor code, to this day the group still is not able to meet on campus; this is the exact opposite of what these members need. If the church wants LGBTQ members to remain strong and active, it really needs to give them the resources to do so. For students at BYU & other church schools, a group such as USGA being an official group or club in the school would enable it to be an even greater support for these students. It will also give them a heightened sense of love and belonging at a school in which they often feel a great lack of such things..
BYU students are not the only ones that would benefit from such a church affiliated organization. Creating it’s own group, or officially endorsing one or more already in existence would be a strength for all LGBTQ members wanting to remain active in the church even more than the existing groups already are. They would also be a great resource for member allies in the church. This would give member allies, or any other member, a place to go to learn how to support LGBTQ individuals the best they can. This way members can be allies yet know that the church is in full support of what they’re supporting, and it will be more impactful than the resources already out there, such as online resources (not that those aren’t helpful, but many people would benefit even more in person).
Conclusion
Consistency, not saying what you mean, political involvement, and a lack of endorsement towards any support group are major parts of the LGBTQ and Mormon struggles. Each of these inflict unintended or unnecessary pain, give the church a bad reputation, or give people reason to believe the church is “anti-gay.” Whether these people are right or wrong, the church is giving them substantial reasoning to believe it. I’ve always heard “the church is in the business of saving lives” (in the eternal perspective), well these are four things that can help save lives; both in the eternal perspective, as well as the temporal. But an inconsistent church that is involved in areas they shouldn’t be, while not being involved in places they should be, that is a church too distracted to focus on saving those lives. 
