Skip to main content

A Thought Experiment on Transgender Identities, Gay Marriage, and Mormonism

Tyler Perry

According to The Family: A Proclamation to the World, marriage is only authorized when it is between one man and one woman.  Sexual relations outside the confines of an authorized marriage are sinful.  Indeed, “man’s laws cannot make moral what God has declared immoral” [1].  Therefore, gay marriage is against the laws of God, gay sex is always immoral, and the only options for a gay member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are to stay celibate for the rest of their lives, enter into a mixed-orientation marriage (which can be extremely damaging to all parties involved), or exit the church.

Furthermore, we learn that gender is characteristic of eternal identity, and that gender as defined in the Family Proclamation as “biological sex at birth” [2].  Therefore, if an assigned female at birth (AFAB) individual were to transition socially and physically, even though their behaviors and physical features, and I mean all of those physical features *wink wink*, would be masculine, they would still be a woman.  If a transgender member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints were to make such a transition, it is likely that their membership status would be in jeopardy.  However, the General Handbook: Serving in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints 38.2.3.14 does indicate that non-Mormon transgender individuals may be baptized, though their ability to participate in rites, callings, and ordinances that have a gender-based component would be restricted [3].

I want to run through a bit of a thought experiment, using these guidelines, policies, and doctrines as the basis of our study.  I hope that it will be clear that I am not trying to trivialize the struggles of anyone going through any class of challenges with these issues.  My hope is that we will be able to realize that there are logical failings with this paradigm that necessitate a review and revitalization of the teachings.

A Little Diddy About Jack and David

The story we will be going through is the story of Jack and David.  Jack was raised in a traditional, pioneer-stock Mormon household in Sandy, Utah.  Jack was a smart kid, so he rooted for the University of Utah against BYU, but he also graduated from seminary, held leadership callings in all his priesthood quorums, and served a faithful mission in Monterrey, Mexico.  Jack was an excellent missionary who was a zone leader for almost half of his mission.  When Jack returned home from his mission, he started attending the University of Utah, studying pre-med, but he eventually switched to nursing.

While at university, Jack decided that it was time to reveal a secret that he had been hiding from everyone.  He was gay.  He had hoped that faithful missionary service would cause God to bless him to find a woman that he could fall in love with and marry for time and all eternity in the temple, but after much fasting, prayer, and temple service, he realized that his sexuality was not changing.

However, he still loved Mormonism, and he wanted to make it work.  Shortly after coming out to his family and friends, Jack met David, another gay man studying at the U who was not a member of the church.

David was gay, but he had an additional secret.  David, a northern California native who had moved to Salt Lake in his early teens, had been born Denise.  He had come out to his progressive and affirming non-Mormon parents when they still lived in the Bay Area, and he decided to socially transition and go on hormone blockers before the onset of puberty.  At the age of 18, David began the long and painful journey of physically transitioning, including top and bottom surgeries.  Apart from surgical scars, there was no physical evidence of David having been AFAB.

Jack and David met and immediately hit it off.  Though Jack was trying to stay active in the church, he found himself falling for David.  Before long, what had started as friendship turned romantic.  Jack insisted on abstaining from sexual activity until after marriage, and David was willing to honor that request.  After a courtship of six months, David proposed to Jack.  Jack said yes, and the wedding plans started immediately.

Jack’s bishop, Bishop Gibson, was concerned, though.  He had been working with Jack since the young man had moved into the ward about a year and a half ago.  Jack had refused to attend a Young Single Adult (YSA) ward because he felt uncomfortable there, instead opting to attend the regular family ward that he lived in.  Jack had explained his challenges with sexuality and had expressed his desire to stay active and in good standing with the church.  To Bishop Gibson’s knowledge, Jack had not taken any action that would have made him unworthy of a temple recommend.

So, when Jack announced his engagement to David on Facebook, Bishop Gibson felt it his ministerial duty to give Jack direction and guidance on how his marriage to David would impact his standing with the church.

After sacrament meeting the next Sunday, Bishop Gibson asked Jack to join him in his office.  “It’s Sunday School this week,” Jack said to David.  “Will you be all right?  Or are you just going to wait for me in the car?”

“I’ll be okay,” David answered.  “I’ll just tag along with Elder and Sister Jensen,” he explained with a laugh, as he motioned at the senior missionaries.

Jack followed Bishop Gibson to his office and the two sat across each other on opposite sides of the bishop’s desk.  “Jack, I asked you here today because I saw your posts on Facebook this week, and I am concerned that you are going down a path that will adversely impact your standing in the church,” Bishop Gibson explained.  “Same-sex marriage, as you know, is against church teachings, and homosexual activity is against the commandments.  I know that we have discussed ideas for how you can stay strong and active in the Gospel.

“I will admit that I have been concerned about your relationship with David since I first saw you two spending time together.  However, I was willing to set it aside because you were coming to church regularly and fulfilling your callings.  I never saw any sign of any behavior that would be explicitly contrary to the teachings of the church, and you provided faithful answers to the temple recommend interview questions.”

“And I have been helping the missionaries to teach David, as well,” Jack interjected.  “He’s even agreed to live the Word of Wisdom.  I think the missionaries are talking with the mission president about petitioning to the First Presidency to allow David to get baptized.”

“If he is actively trying to enter into a same-sex marriage, then I think that is going to hurt his chances,” Bishop Gibson cautioned.

“Well, according to President Oaks, we would not be entering into a same-sex marriage,” Jack countered.  Then, he clarified, “David is a trans man, and that means that according to the teachings of the church, David is a woman.  Technically speaking, it just isn’t possible for David and me to enter into a same-sex marriage according to the church’s own definitions.  Sure, David is 100% a man to me, but to the church…  Well, to be honest, David was hurt by the idea that the church would think of him as a woman, but he is super supportive of me and my goals to remain active.  And I think he loves the church otherwise.  We both hope to see change, for sure, but we are content with being faithful in our own way until God sees fit to provide new revelation to the Brethren.”

“So, you see your marriage as being between one man and one woman, in line with the doctrines of the Gospel?” Bishop Gibson asked incredulously.

“Well, no,” Jack answered a bit meekly.  “I see our relationship as a loving, monogamous, and faithful bond between two men who love the Lord.  But I also realize that the church would definitionally have to view our marriage as being between one man and one woman, unless they want to affirm trans identities.  They should affirm trans identities, but David is willing to accept less-than-ideal circumstances if it means that he and I can be together.”

“You realize that you would not be able to be sealed together?” Bishop Gibson wondered.  “Your marriage would only be for this life.”

“Well, yeah, but our children would be able to do the proxy work for us.  David could be taken through the temple vicariously, and we could be sealed then.  Better yet, God could reveal new truths that would allow David and I to be sealed in this life.  At least this way, though, for now, we can be married in a way that conforms with the teachings of the church, even if it is a bit unorthodox.”  Jack’s leg was bouncing up and down with nervousness.

“You may be putting your exaltation on the line,” the bishop observed.

“You have promised me on multiple occasions that God would set everything right in the eternities.  I love David.  I love God.  I trust that God will find a way to ensure that David and I can find eternal happiness together.”  Jack was still nervous, but he felt sure of his answers.  He felt a warmth in his chest as he testified of his love for God and for David.

Bishop Gibson sat back in his chair and looked at the ceiling for a long moment, as though he was lost in thought.  Finally, he said, “In the New Testament, Jesus calls the scribes and the Pharisees hypocrites because they were observing the letter of the law to the detriment of the spirit of the law.  Perhaps you are correct that, according to the letter of the law, your marriage to David would be in line with the teachings of the church.  However, I think it runs contrary to the spirit of the law.”

“Are you accusing me of acting like a Pharisee?” Jack asked.

“No, not necessarily,” the bishop replied defensively.  “But I think you may be playing with a dangerous thought process here.  You said that you think of your relationship with David as a homosexual relationship.  That tells me that in your mind and in your heart, you are doing something that is contrary to the teachings of the church, even if it does happen to be in line with the letter of the law.”

Jack considered this for a moment, and then he asked, “Well, where’s the line?  I mean, we frequently draw these lines arbitrarily of where the letter of the law ends, and the spirit of the law begins.  Tithing is defined as “ten percent of your increase” in Malachi, and the definition of increase has changed over the years [4].  So, spirit of the law seems to govern there.  But the way we follow the Word of Wisdom is absolutely backwards.  I mean, you only ask me about how I do with the “don’t’s” of the Word of Wisdom, but what about the “do’s”?  I have never been asked in a bishop’s interview if I only eat meat “sparingly”.  And how is Diet Coke okay, but coffee and tea are not?  With the Word of Wisdom, it is all about the letter of the law.  And we see those attitudes all over the place in the church, Bishop.  So, where’s the line?”

“Chastity is much more important than the Word of Wisdom, though [5].  Wouldn’t you agree?” Bishop Gibson proposed.

Jack shook his head and answered, “No, I wouldn’t.  Sure, the repentance process for slipping up on chastity may be more difficult than for slipping up on the Word of Wisdom, but the consequences are basically the same.  If I do pot, I lose my temple recommend.  If I have sex, I lose my temple recommend.  I think sexual sins are more likely to call for a disciplinary council, but apart from that, no, the consequences for both are basically the same.  And the eternal consequences are pretty much identical too.  If I get hooked on cocaine and refuse to change that, I can suffer just as much damage to my testimony and eternal reward as having premarital sex would cause.  And the temporal consequences for safe sex, even outside of marriage, are probably a lot less severe than the consequences of many Word of Wisdom violations.

“But I would contend that what David and I are about to do is not even a violation of the law of chastity.  If you say that it is, then it means that gender and biological sex at birth are not the same thing, which runs contrary to what Elder Oaks taught.”

“But if I say that it isn’t a violation of the law of chastity, then I am allowing a gay man to pattern his life after a gay lifestyle while still attending the temple.  Does that seem consistent with the teachings of the church to you?”

“If you say that it isn’t a violation of the law of chastity, then you are agreeing that the Gospel has shades of gray for us all to figure out what is right and wrong,” Jack countered.  “Just like how we can decide if we pay tithing on our net or our gross, or how we can decide if watching sporting events on Sunday is a violation of the Sabbath without needing to be compelled in all things, I think that there is some gray area here.

“I have studied this issue and prayed about it a lot, Bishop.  That includes many hours in the Celestial Room, praying about this.  I feel good about it.  I feel like God is telling me that I should be pursuing this relationship with David.  Are you telling me that the spiritual promptings that I received in the temple are wrong?  Or are you telling me that your revelation for me is better than my revelation for me?  If that’s the case, then what was the point in my receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost at all?”

References

[1] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2013/10/no-other-gods?lang=eng

[2] https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/10/02/dark-day-transgender/ Weird how I can build my whole argument using the Family Proclamation and Elder Oaks talks.

[3] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/38-church-policies-and-guidelines?lang=eng Scroll on down to 38.2.3.14 to see for yourself.

[4] https://wheatandtares.org/2015/12/27/tithing-have-you-considered-paying-on-surplus/

[5] Compare Alma 39 to Doctrine and Covenants 89.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Without the Mask (But There’s a Pandemic, Charlie!)

Tyler Perry Introduction In late 2019 or early 2020, I was having lunch with my gay mentor, my gaytriarch, if you will.   I was expressing my concerns with a current relationship, as well as my hopes and fears about my plans to come out to my family.   He asked me a couple of questions that have stuck with me ever since. “Have you accepted the fact that you’re gay?” he asked.   There was no judgement in his voice. “Yes,” I answered, without hesitation.   I had come a long way in the last year.   I was in my first real relationship, and I knew that I was happier because of my decision to date. He considered my response briefly.   Then, in a nurturing tone, he asked, “Have you embraced it?” I paused.   I had not expected the question, nor had I really considered the concept before.   “I’m not sure that I have,” I finally answered.   “I know that I’ve accepted that I am gay, but I think that there is still a part of me that is scared about that.” He nodded understandingly.

Attack on Dogma - Part One: Radicalization

  Attack on Dogma: The Critiques of Radicalization, Nationalism, Dogma, and Otherizing in Attack on Titan Part One: Radicalization Tyler J Perry Spoiler Warning: While I will endeavor to avoid manga spoilers for the last nine chapters of the Attack on Titan manga, I will discuss themes that are not related to the finale. Furthermore, I will freely discuss anime spoilers through Season 4 Part 2, to include items in the currently unreleased winter cour finale. I have been studying Japanese since approximately April 2017. As part of my language study, I often read manga in Japanese, usually after I have familiarized myself with the associated anime. The Western equivalent to this would be reading the Infinity Gauntlet comic after watching Avengers: Infinity War , albeit, anime adaptations of manga tend to be much more faithful to the source material. Ahead of the season 4, part 2 premiere of Attack on Titan , I set a goal to read the entire manga, a total of 34 volumes, before

DezNat and Why the Fight for Affirmation Matters

  Tyler Perry Update: After speaking with Hanna Seariac, she has denounced the DezNat movement, and I have apologized for the insinuation that she is a part of the movement. This article has been changed to reflect that. Update: There is a factual historical error that indicated Churchill, not Chamberlain, practiced the policy of appeasement. This error has been corrected. My gut instinct is to classify Deseret Nation, a group that codes itself with the hashtag DezNat (which looks like DeezNutz lol), as a hate group.   It is certainly a fascist bunch of right-wing ideologues wrapped in the vestments of Mormonism and pseudo-intellectualism.   They view LGBT affirmation as a step toward apostasy, and apostates are to be the most hated of all. If I were to compare DezNat to other fascist movements, I would say that they are looking for a solution to the “apostate question”.   This is seen in the memes they share, the comments they make, and the videos they post. I am a little bit co