How does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints view Homosexuality as a whole (the concept and its implications, rather than the acts of any particular individual or group).
Justify your answers below.
Monday Morning Theological Poll: LGBTQ in abstract edition
June 16, 2019 by
Justify your answers below.
By Common Consent, a Mormon Blog 
I have no idea. Take just this last week:
Elder Redlund leans toward neutral, from a local stake conference Q&A last weekend: ” Having same-sex attraction is not a sin….” then later “That’s why someone should, if I had same-sex attraction I should still try to live a chaste life. And by trying to live in accordance with the law of chastity, even though that seems difficult and hard the blessing that is there, is that they will receive all that Heavenly Father has.”
President Oaks leans toward sinful, from the BYU-H devotional this week: “Along with these challenges—and caused by them—we are confronted by a culture of evil and personal wickedness in the world. This includes… The increasing frequency and power of the culture and phenomenon of lesbian, gay, and transgender lifestyles and values.”
Elder Holland, from the Seminary & Institute meeting for instructors earlier this week leans toward sinful: “‘Generation Z’ students — ages 7 to 22… tend to support gay marriage and transgender rights as part of everyday life. Because of this sociability, the thin line between friendship and condoning behavior begins to blur.”
Elder Bednar, from his social media feed on Tuesday, seems to skirt the question and just says “Part of a happy marriage is benefiiting from the differences between men and women.” I don’t think he likes to think about it beyond that.
I think that it depends on the practical definition of “homosexuality.”
For same-sex attraction, I would say “Neutral: A Mental Illness that will be cured in the afterlife.”
For same sex-activity, I would say “Sinful: A Problem that will be solved in the afterlife.”
For same-sex marriage, I would say “Sinful: Grievous and to be avoided at all costs.” Though this seems to be in some amount of flux.
Mike,
I think I’m aiming for “the notion that ones sexuality Is not determined by social norms that are applied based on genitalia.” Homosexuality is maybe the wrong term; how about queerness.
As a whole, perhaps that LGBTQ folks can be in the Celestial Kingdom just not the highest degree? The highest degree requires temple marriage right? So I think most members would assume that LGBTQ folks can in fact be judged at the final judgment as worth of the Celestial Kingdom but assuming that they still would be LGTBQ post resurrection temple marriage would not be available to them, since that requires a heterosexual male and female couple.
If one subscribes to the hormonal theory of sexually (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation), will the resurrection provide a body that had optimal levels of hormones in its development?
I’d be interested to know how respondents view the Church’s position and how they describe their own position. The similarity or differences between responses would be interesting.
I know that people will say that they feel that the church is teaching them that they’re irredeemably broken, and I’ve never picked up on that at all. Same sex attraction is a temptation, and a thorn in the side of those who have it. But we all are sinners, and we all have our temptations. My current belief is that same sex attraction is part of mortality, and won’t carry over to perfected physical bodies.
I agree with Mike Austin though I disagree with the categorization for the Church’s position on same sex attraction. I would say the general leadership consensus is, “We’re not sure what combination of biochemical and mental circumstances causes it but we believe it will be resolved in the afterlife.” The leadership of the Church do not seem to believe that anything but heterosexuality will persist in the afterlife and the Family Proclamation is the touchstone for establishing that belief. How different members of the Q of 15 perceive that question is at best determined through kremlinology of their personal talks but that is looking through a glass darkly.
As Em Jen says, they don’t have a consistent view. Oaks has dedicated his career as an apostle to fighting gays, so until he goes we are stuck with homophobia, I expect. He could surprise us.
I believe that when the church leaders, overcome their prejudices, and allow the gospel in, we will accept gay marriage, as equal, and also women as equal. All can be alike unto God, and the church too. No more discrimination, simple.
Is the Church’s position the relevant concern?
What would a follower of Christ do?
And again, in a different translation:
Wouldn’t you want to be warned from your sins so that you may inherit the kingdom of God and be saved? Why therefore not warn them from their sins – lust in particular, since lust defines the group under discussion – so that they may inherit the kingdom of God and be saved?
And, again, you cannot repent in the eternal world.
If you love them who labor under sin and are to perish except they repent, why would you not warn them?
Jared, this ain’t a platform for you to preach. Knock it off or we’ll knock you off the platform.
John C.,
In your opinion, what separates “preaching” from “responding”?
Lots of definitional issues (“The Church” doesn’t have a position; people do. “Homosexuality” . . . already discussed.) Restating in my own terms:
1. I can only reconcile the several things said and done by Church leaders with a prior that everyone *other than* simple cis-gender XX and XY persons have something like a disease to be reversed or cured in the hereafter.
2. I do not believe this is an examined or tested or updated prior in many/most instances. I do not believe there is any developed or thought-through ontology. I believe for most Church leaders it is simply an unexamined assumption.
John, thank you for this, it is an interesting undertaking. There are, however, a few matters regarding the questions that make it difficult to choose an answer. First, it is unclear to me whether the poll is asking how I as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints view homosexuality, or are you asking how the 1. Church as an organization or 2. a cultural collective views it. It does seem you intend the question to pertain to homosexuality as a phenomenology rather than as a behavior, affording a rather wider range of responses.
Second, there is some possible contradictory bias in some of the questions. For example, saying that something is a disease or mental illness that needs to be cured automatically frames the phenomenology as a negative rather than as something neutral. Even in the positive categories, the statement “that it will not be cured” in the afterlife introduces a possible bias by suggesting that it may need to be cured even though it won’t be, which posits an inherent contradiction to the premise in those categories that it may just be another way of being. Perhaps it would fit more with the category to say it won’t be “modified” in the afterlife rather than “cured.”
Nevertheless, given the difficulties with the poll, I still chose to participate. I decided that the poll is asking about what the Church thinks as either a hierarchy/cultural collective rather than my own views, and I emphasized that the question pertains to the phenomenlogical experience of homosexuality divorced from any behavior. Therefore, since it is theoretically possible that a person can be homosexual and can be abstinent of any homosexual activity and can even theoretically join in a heterosexual marriage in the temple, that any and every blessing of the ordinances and the gospel are available, even the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, however, the contradictions of the category make it difficult to answer since I also think the Church collective generally believes in this situation that the same sex attraction will be modified in the afterlife as part of the package.
The reality is much different. It is difficult for people to be completely abstinent and this produces a standard that is not expected of heterosexual members. No heterosexual member is expected to be completely celibate throughout his or her entire life and to also carry no hope of being anything other than celibate throughout life or eternity. If you do not think this is a double standard, just imagine how many heterosexual members would be able to comply with the standard if they were to awaken overnight in a parallel universe to find that the Church was teaching that they had to be completely and always celibate and could not even get married if they were to be in compliance with standards of Chastity. If that sounds crazy to you, then you may be able to picture how crazy it sounds to our homosexual brothers and sisters. So I would say that the reality of the Church’s view translates to an extreme negative in practice, even if the theoretical idea that someone can be homosexual and still abide the standards to enter and maintain a temple marriage sounds positive. The field is white with examples of people who have tried valiantly by relegating and suppressing who they are and trying to make it in a het-marriage, only to bring sorrow and heartbreak to spouse and children as the reality of who they are overtook them. There may be some who have had more success at it.
I personally believe God created us all and we are all his children, and that if mere mortals have been able to figure out how to have loving supportive same-sex marriages that nurture children in love here on Earth (I know many such families), then it should be possible in the eternities. But I do recognize this view is beyond heterodox in my Church tribe. Nevertheless, it seems to me to be most consistent with teachings on love and God not being a respecter of persons.
My additional question: if you are a queer person at church, at what point on the poll do you feel emotionally, spiritually and even physically safe among your fellow congregants?
EmJen, good question. In my experience I might get that in the afterlife. SP and bishop and close friends are kind. Congregants as a whole can be vewy scawy.
Maybe prejudice will be cured in the afterlife.
Lona,
Thank you for the pushback. I was trying to frame it in a manner that most church members would recognize (revealing my own bias regarding how the church approaches it). But things could definitely have been worded more carefully. I also think that church members who approach it like a disease or mental illness do so in order to engage “love the sinner/hate the sin.” FWIW
I think that we are leaning on the arm of flesh for our salvation by some charactistic we either possess or don’t possess being the hate or way to salvation. We are told that Jesus is the way, not heterosexual marriage in a LDS temple. If God is the framer of creation and all the reality that we know surely there is provision for every kind of human to experience human love kindness of every type and have Joy within the body and be encompassed within the love, power and our relationships and salvation without having to have a body or brain that is inclined to be one way or love one way and no other.
I understand John, thank you.
Sin is to be avoided. At all costs is hyperbole, but I’ll go with it to the extent that is meaningful in normal usage.
I didn’t vote because none of the statements were satisfying to me. I liked Michael Austin’s response and would go with that. I believe that the institutional church sees LGBTQ+ issues as deeply sinful and won’t exist in a Zion like society or in “heaven” Members of the church likely lean heavily in that direction but with considerable variation based on their discomfort or dissonance on the topic. I personally see LGBTQ+ very positively and wish for the day that our leaders and membership can find a way to include sexual minorities.
I think it’s fair to say that this is something that requires significant and groundbreaking revelation. Considering the whiplash of policies and a wide variety of positions within the Quorum of the Twelve I feel like I’m seeing church history from the 1970s begin to repeat itself.
I know where I stand, but I don’t really have a clue what the Church’s official stance is. It seems to be shifting, but I’m not sure any of your options fit what I perceive the Church’s position to be.
But see D&C 138:58, and more particularly 138:31-34.
I’ve given no answers because the questions seem more complex than the questions themselves and the choices given in answer to those questions must always be changing. The issue we need to deal with first is a world created by God that employs all the complexities of evolution. Until evolution’s necessity and its values are addressed in our theology, instead of giving it a simple neutrality, it doesn’t seem to make much sense to rail against the diversity that has arisen for the sake of ultimate progression. Or not. For instance, how does the law of evolution comport with the ultimate law of the gospel: love? We will theorize, like we will here in this discussion. It’s like a recent notion that members are told that they should only pray to HF and not to HM also, because God is only comprised of HFs and not a HF and a HM.
Even considering it sinful or neutral, could that not be said of many other conditions in life? If we were to consider alcoholism instead, is that a sin that will be “solved” in the afterlife? Is it a disease or mental illness that will be “cured” in the afterlife? I don’t think there is any magic to those options and it will still require a sincere desire to change and focused effort on the individual’s behalf. An alcoholic may work tremendously hard to repent and change the desires of their heart. However, it may be that an alcoholic will choose not to change their behaviors and they feel that living as they choose is more important to them than to be in the top level of Celestial glory.
Various kingdoms of glory exist for a reason. Otherwise, why not just the heaven/hell dichotomy prevalent in most(?) other religions. Even our lowest glory would be just like our lives now, but with perfect bodies and no death or disease. That is amazing! I believe that there will be individuals that choose to live in a lower kingdom for reasons that are more important to them than what the Celestial kingdom offers. As example, many of us as members of the church find joy in child rearing and having a family. However, many couples in this life choose not to have kids and find greater satisfaction for themselves in other ways. I truly believe that people will end up in whatever kingdom of glory that will make them happiest. It is called the plan of happiness after all.
We know that the highest level of the Celestial kingdom will include having “eternal increase,” which I understand as having the capacity to create spiritual children of our own. This would exclude members of the LGBTQ community just based on the “spiritual biology” of it, just as much as they can’t have naturally born children now. However, it may be that they are allowed into a lower level of the Celestial kingdom, or the Terrestrial or Telestial kingdoms. That is NOT a bad thing and I truly believe that they will be happy there.
I hate this argument about the celestial kingdom: Don’t worry, you’ll still be happy in a lower kingdeom.
Because guess what, LGBT people love their families. Parents love their LGBT children. Telling them that everyone will be fine to be in another kingdom doesn’t fly for those who have been taught their entire lives that only at the top tier of the celestial kingdom will they get to be with their families forever.
So stop saying this. Say it like it really is: unless you are a heterosexual married couple with children (who also are in heterosexual pairings) we believe your family will be broken up and you won’t get to be with God.
Or, better yet, let’s stop teaching it as an exclusive place.
Because I believe we really don’t know how it will work out in the end. However categorizing groups of people in the here and now into lesser kingdoms means we treat them as lesser people.
Thank you, EmJen.
“Say it like it really is: unless you are a heterosexual married couple with children (who also are in heterosexual pairings) we believe your family will be broken up…”
You say that you believe that we really don’t know how it will work out in the end, but you’re pretty absolutist about this…? Where the hell does it say we will be broken up from our families?
I don’t believe that we will be cut off from our families, not at all. I don’t live in the same house as my parents right now; it’s a far stretch to say that my family is “broken up”
Nobody said it was an exclusive place. I view it more as a state of mind and series of actions. I can go to the temple and participate in Celestial activities and go meet my non-recommend holding family for dinner right after.
“categorizing groups of people in the here and now into lesser kingdoms means we treat them as lesser people.”
We need to stop viewing any kingdom of glory as lesser. They are ALL kingdoms of glory. Because people choose a different glory doesn’t make it any less. Just as the people are no lesser either.
Where the hell does it say we will be broken up from our families?
“Of all the gifts our loving Heavenly Father has provided to His children, the greatest is eternal life (see D&C 14:7). That gift is to live in the presence of God the Father and His Beloved Son forever in families. Only in the highest of the kingdoms of God, the celestial, will the loving bonds of family life continue.” – President Henry B. Eyring, August 2016 First Presidency Message
I could find more.
“I can go to the temple and participate in Celestial activities and go meet my non-recommend holding family for dinner right after.” True, but they can’t participate in those Celestial activities with you. So, it’s really only working out for you.
What I believe vs what the Church believes are two different things. I clicked on: “Sinful: A Problem that will be solved in the afterlife” as the Church’s most likely position, recognizing that some individual leaders may hold a stricter or more liberal view. For myself, I have no clue, beyond the prevailing attitude that same-sex attraction probably has a biological basis, then having those feelings is not sinful. I remember Boyd K. Packer’s edited conference comment that “Why would God make someone that way?” may be more correct than he thought. I doubt seriously that the Lord would have specifically singled out individuals to come to earth with LGBTQ tendencies, any more than He would select certain people to die of cancer or heart attack. Biology is a roll of the dice, and agency can’t be denied. Some people have same sex attraction. Some have blond hair. That’s the best I can come up with.
If you truly can’t repent in the next world then I fear for so many racists in the past including of course our own leaders. And I worry for all of us. I worry for me. No one dies perfect. We all will have lots of repenting to do after death. Or we will spend lots of time in a very crowded hell.
“Very crowded hell”
Aka “the good place,”.
Can’t wait for the next season. 😉
If I hear the Celestial Kingdom referred to one more time as a “place”, I’m gonna lose my mind. In Primary, fine. As a shorthand, fine. But in a serious, touchy discussion about eternal progression? Gimme a freakin’ break.
The church does not accept the existence of gays. It refuses to see being gay as a valid identity. Gays simply struggle with same-sex attraction, and they refuse to acknowledge being gay as a sexual orientation.
Can someone please make a case for options 5 & 6? I don’t see how they can possibly describe the Church’s position on homosexuality, and yet they were selected by nearly 10% of respondents.
From what I understand, homosexuality is treated the same as heterosexuality before or outside of marriage. Christ taught that if you look upon a woman then you commit adultery in your heart (I assume the same goes for a man.) So how does the Church look on heterosexuality outside of marriage?
Sinful: Grievous and to be avoided at all costs
Sinful: A Problem that will be solved in the afterlife
Neutral: A Disease that will be cured in the afterlife
Neutral: A Mental Illness that will be cured in the afterlife
Positive: Just another way of being; will not be cured in the afterlife, but straight folks can be in celestial kingdom (just not highest degree)
Positive: Just another way of being; will not be cured in the afterlife and straight people can go to the highest degree of glory
It is hard to answer that question. It depends what level of heterosexuality you are experiencing before or outside of marriage. Some level of heterosexuality has to be okay, or dating would be very difficult. What if you are watching a movie and you experience heterosexuality towards an actor/actress? Are you doomed for having the thought? Can you pray away your heterosexuality? Some straight people seem to be able to handle their heterosexuality, but others have serious heterosexual addictions. Is that a sin, a mental illness or a disease? Why do some people have stronger heterosexual impulses than others? What about people who were never taught about heterosexuality outside of marriage being a sin? Is that their fault? Will they ever be able to make it into heaven? Is heterosexuality just another way of being? Will heterosexuality be cured in the afterlife? Honestly, I have a hard time seeing God being attracted to Goddesses who aren’t Heavenly Mother. Will gay people who have never experienced heterosexuality all of sudden have to learn to correctly deal with their new-found heterosexuality when they see an attractive God/Goddess of the opposite sex? Sexual attraction just has to be different in the eternities.
I don’t even know how to answer the question for heterosexuality outside or before marriage, much less homosexuality. I would say homosexuality is just the direction of your temptation and is no different than heterosexuality.
DD,
Since I wrote them I’ll give it a go. I think that #6 is the fantasy-land option that some people wish the church would go to but that it currently doesn’t. I chose #5 on the basis of 1) Same-sex orientation not being inherently evil or sinful (which does appear to be the actual stated position of the church right now); 2) as such, it doesn’t need to be changed in the next life, but since they won’t be having kids in the next life, they’ll be more like ministering angels. Now I want to state that this isn’t what I believe or what I want to believe, but I do think it is what the church believes. That #5 is so low is telling some sort of story, although I’m not sure what it is.
Fix,
You don’t face possible excommunication for getting hetero-married, even when it is outside the temple. There are real differences in the treatment of hetero vs. queer folk.
So many people above are certain about what is required to enter the celestial kingdom, and then the highest degree. I think we might be surprised at the judgement.
I believe the Lord does not create 5% of his children so that they are unable to live a fulfilled life. And create .001% of his children to set the rules of how the 5% should be treated.
I also believe we are here on earth to have joy, and that we do that by loving our fellow man as God does. This does not allow us to discriminate against anyone. If I am right, those who think they know who is going to the highest degree, may themselves not be. And loving gay couples could very well be.
We keep trying to forget our history with marriage of more than one of each gender, or we gloss it over with “they’ll just have to pick one”. We’re a theology that believes in polygamy (both polygyny and polyandry) and allow for potential group marriages, sealing everyone to everyone they married at some point in their lives.
We also tend to look far beyond the mark in deciding who is and is not qualified for Celestial Glory. We do -not- believe that this life is all we get before that judgement is made. We believe that -everyone-, even who we would consider to be the most vile sinner, can accept the covenants we do for them by proxy in the Temple. The emphasis on being ready for the judgement after the next judgement is causing us to create divisions with each other based on what we believe that final judgement to be. Privileged to be married to someone of the other gender, even if you can’t stand being in the same space as each other? At least I’m not single, or gay, or just can’t bear the thought of being around anyone, I’m sure they’ll be happy with whatever Glory they get.
We’re like children discussing what we’ll do when we’re retired; it’s a nice thought, but it has virtually no bearing on what life will happen in the mean time.
I was sealed in the Temple to my wife. We’ve made covenants and want to be together forever. If we get to the afterlife and we are both female (as I believe us both to be), what does that mean for us? Should we be made to divorce and find someone else, going with the belief that it’s required for Celestial? This is currently the preference in the Church for same-gender couples where one has transitioned. Not always forced (anymore, thankfully), but the pressure is there.
Can marriage be wonderful? Sure, but it can be also difficult, frustrating, and tiring. No marriage is a constant state of bliss and we have no guarantee that we’ll want to stay married to whomever we’re privileged to find in this life as we and they grow and change through two lifetimes.
As for the idea that anything will be “cured” in the next life – we’re not far removed from the ideas that having non-lily-white skin colour or just being female will be “cured”. It’s arrogant to think we’ve finally found the real line in the sand.
More like a birth defect for true SSA.
John C,
I didn’t mean to imply everything is the same. Obviously, the Church views marriage differently. I was referring more to the idea of homosexuality being a mental illness or disease or something cured in the afterlife. The Church has taught against that. For me, option 5 is not positive. Anything but the upper third is eternal damnation. If the whole purpose of the Church is seal families together forever, then I refuse to believe that the Church serves no purpose for me. The Church clearly teaches that homosexuality is not chosen. I cannot believe that our Heavenly Parents would send any of their children to this world without providing some way for them to inherit the upper third of the Celestial Kingdom. To knowingly damn your kids does not sound like the God I know and love.
I have never heard anyone from the Church suggest some of God’s children will not ever be able to be exalted no matter how faithful they are. The Church used to teach that Blacks could go to heaven, but they couldn’t go to the upper third because they couldn’t be sealed in families. Option 5 sounds a lot like that.
John C., I don’t particularly like what Jared shared either, but I don’t think it’s helpful or appropriate to attempt to silence him rather than engage with his argument or ignore him at a minimum. This is a Mormon-based forum, so it seems only reasonable that quotes from the standard works should be considered fair game. Also, one thing I think we have to take seriously is the fact that many members do not feel comfortable or justified ignoring (or flat-out rejecting) portions of the standard works. I personally no longer feel obligated to structure all my reasoning and conclusions within the confines of the standard works, but that is a luxury that took considerable time and effort to achieve. Many do not have that or even believe such a luxury should be desired, and I think it is a mistake to scorn them for that. I’d like to believe we are all attempting to live lives of integrity and to communicate that which we currently feel most justified in believing.
I love voting its a god given right! About the effects of evolutionary dead ends