“And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually” —D&C 1:30

The phrase “the only true and living church” is a treasured one among members of the LDS church. If true, it lends legitimacy to the church and its claims.

However.

Latter-day Saints have a tendency to focus on the words “only” and “true”. Together, these two words mean our church is God’s church, a claim unshared by anyone else.

But in all the discussions I’ve heard or talks I’ve listened to, very little attention is given to “living”.

Something that’s living, breaths. It grows. It adapts. It makes mistakes. It has successes. It moves. It engages. It interacts.

Something that’s living isn’t stagnant. It isn’t stationary. It isn’t rigid. It isn’t static.

The only true and living church. Yet it feels so lifeless. Someone needs to check its pulse.

To know God, and through that relationship live the best life one can lead, is at the centre of many religions. As one of the prominent religions on the planet, Christianity has evolved into different expressions of faith across all points of the globe.

Two places that are geographically close can have incredibly different outlooks on spirituality. Marshall Shelly, director of Denver Seminary’s Doctor of Ministry program, recently set out to explore the way that people from all over the globe differ in their expressions of Christianity relative to the brand of faith seen in the United States.

For Christians and non-Christians, Shelly’s findings are an eye-opening and refreshing reminder of how nuanced the topic of faith is, and how easy it can be to forget that your approach to religion isn’t everyone’s.

Surveying the globe

Shelly spoke to pastors from Mongolia, Korea, Guatemala, and Africa who have immigrated to the United States and practiced the faith. His reflections on what they had to say offer a diverse pallet of Christian practices and outlooks, which he shares in “What Christians in the US Can Learn from Immigrant Pastors.”

What becomes apparent when you read Shelly’s thoughtful piece is that American Christianity has, in some ways, neglected the parts of Christianity that encourage believers to challenge themselves. Accepting some of what these immigrant pastors shared might require some followers to step outside of their comfort zone, but isn’t that worth a closer relationship with one’s faith?

The importance of community in faith

Young people are leaving organized Christian churches these days. To get them interested again, pastors are changing their approach, adopting a take that focuses more on doing good in the community and building relationships. It’s the antithesis of the megachurch culture that has influenced many American Christian organizations, turning them into informal pot lucks where no one actually knows one-another.

While big faith isn’t necessarily informal, Mongolian pastor Mojic Baldandorj, who now practices at Colorado Mongolian Church, contrasted the arms-length relationships of US churches with a system in Mongolia that clings to expressions of respect for the church, but also fosters stronger interpersonal bonds.

In Mongolia, for example, it’d be awkward to hear a pastor encouraging people to attend an event simply because it should be fun. Instead, the focus of a church event should be its value as a means of becoming closer to one’s faith.

The focus on relationships was echoed by Endashaw Kelkele, pastor of the Ethiopian Evangelical Church of Denver. To consider attending a funeral for someone you had never met seems alien to Americans. In Ethiopia, it’s thought of as very appropriate — a Christian lost has an impact on the entire community, and part of observing one’s faith is to help fellow Christians lift that person up.

The gospel around the globe

Another area of faith that Shelly’s research sheds light on is the approach to the gospel in the United States.

Mandy Smith, a pastor from Australia, shared with him that “it’s hard for the gospel to feel new here. Most people have heard some form of Christianity (from cultural references to it in the media). But they’ve often heard a perversion of it. So the resistance isn’t to the gospel as often as it’s to some misrepresentation of it.”

Smith’s point is easy to follow.

The misuse of organized religion has led to people to associate gospel with some kind of racketeering; a means to an end. In places like Guatemala, where respect for spirituality is heavily integrated into the culture, you see the evangelical side of Christianity more freely expressed, often in the form of people preaching the gospel. For example, a follower might share the gospel on a city bus or train, and there’s nothing awkward about that.

Grace and understanding

Practicing extroverted evangelism in the US might evoke different responses than it does in Guatemala, but the topic of grace is something American Christians can change their approach on at a personal level.

More than one of the pastors that Shelly interviewed cited an unwillingness to accept the self-critical side of religion in American Christians. As Shelly puts it “Resting in God’s grace is quite different from “work out your salvation with fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12).”

But these things are healthy to discuss, and less than they’re negative, they’re informative. In Christianity, there’s still room for balance, not everything is perfect, and practicing Christians have to be honest with themselves about that. It’s through this lens that Shelly’s observations become developmental, rather than critical.

Growing up gay in the LDS church is problematic enough. Identifying as a gender outside of the conventional binary of either male or female adds even further complexity to the challenges queer youth face in the church.

The LDS church strongly adheres to the typical gender binary. It’s reflected in their scripture stories, in their temples, in how they approach parenting, in leadership responsibilities, and so on. Segregation of the sexes begins at 8 years old, with boys being shipped off to weekly Cub pack meetings and girls being shuffled to biweekly Activity Days. This segregation continues into adulthood, right to the day one dies.

This is problematic for people who don’t identify as male or female. They feel out of place when forced to segregate, and the discomfort (to put it mildly) can lead them out of the church ultimately.

Few resources are provided to youth leaders to help them address the unique experiences of the non-binary youth they are asked to lead. This goes not only for young men and young women leaders, but bishops and stake presidents, too. So, it’s not surprising, then, that leaders do little to accommodate their non-binary youth.

I reached out to our gender-fluid child, Ash, who will be entering the youth programme next month, and we worked together to compile these 11 tips on how leaders can make non-binary youth feel welcome at church.

Some changes that could go a long way require institutional change (such as a universal priesthood, for example) and are beyond the purpose of this post. We wanted to focus on changes individual leaders could easily implement without having to stress about breaking any rules.

Here we go.

1. Use preferred pronouns

Often, non-binary individuals will identify with pronouns different from those they were assigned at birth. For example, when Ash came out to us earlier this year as gender-fluid, they told us they were using the “they/them/their” pronouns from now on.

If non-binary youth no longer identify as the gender they were assigned at birth, it can be distressing if others do. Using the pronouns you were used to using after you have been asked not to is called misgendering. If done purposefully, it can be seen as abusive.

By using your youth’s preferred pronouns, you show them that you care about them, that you value their comfort more that you value your own, and that you are willing to do what you can to make them feel more comfortable.

2. Use preferred name

Similar to pronouns, non-binary persons will sometimes choose a name other than their birth name. They may think their birth name is too gendered or want a new name to correspond to their newly discovered identity.

For example, when Ash came out to us, they chose Ash as the name they wanted to be known by. It took some getting used to, and we had many times when we’ve had to correct ourselves, but we keep trying.

Using the preferred name of your non-binary youth shows them that you value an important part of their identity. They will feel respected, which will go a long way to helping them feel included.

3. Use positive language

When speaking about their gender identity, use affirming language. Try developing sincere interest so you can learn more. Never treat it as a phase, a disease, or a sin. The Family Proclamation states that “gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” If gender identity is essential to who we are, we should remember that when interacting with our non-binary youth.

4. Dedicate a class to educating

If your non-binary youth is publicly out of the closet, consider collaborating with them on planning a class to educate the rest of your youth on gender issues, and how we can make non-binary youth feel welcomed. Remember, just because one of your youth has come out, doesn’t mean they are the only ones. Our own ward has had 7 LGBTQ people that I know of, only 3 of whom have come out publicly.

Holding a class will not only help make your non-binary youth feel welcome, but it might encourage other closeted LGBTQ youth to trust you with a secret they have been holding inside. It’s important to create a welcoming, loving environment.

5. Don’t out them without permission

On that note, if one of your youth has come out to you, don’t tell anyone else without their explicit consent. They trust you, and if you tell someone else without permission, you will destroy that trust. Don’t tell their parents, don’t tell your counsellors, don’t tell your spouse, don’t even tell the bishop.

Honour the trust they have placed in you. Respect their privacy. Help them develop trust in others and focus on ensuring they feel welcome in your meetings.

6. Provide gender neutral washroom

This tip probably better applies to bishops and stake presidents. Being able to choose between only a male washroom and female washroom can be distressing for non-binary youth. Try to provide gender neutral (or all gender) washrooms.

In our building, we have two single-use, gender neutral washrooms. One doubles as an accessible washroom, so it can be problematic for disabled people who can’t use it when it’s occupied by able-bodied people. The other one isn’t accessible, and people can use it regardless of gender.

Related to this, point out where all the washrooms are (including gender neutral ones if you have them), and let the youth decide which ones to use. Don’t tell people which washroom to use.

7. Don’t do boys vs. girls activities

Avoid joint activities that are boys against the girls. This can be uncomfortable for non-binary youth because it forces them to choose a gender. When you need to create teams, try numbering the youth off or assigning team captains to fill the team roster.

8. Don’t police clothing

If your non-binary youth don’t wear typical gendered clothing, don’t make a big deal about it. If someone in your young women class, for example, typically wears slacks, don’t comment on how pretty they look when they wear a dress.

9. More co-ed activities

Even though third-block classes are segregated, it’s no reason to continue having segregated activities all the time. Try to plan co-ed activities more than once a month. Creating more non-segregated activities can help your non-binary youth to feel more comfortable. On that note, try to avoid decorations and themes that perpetuate gender stereotypes (for example, pink for girls and blue for boys).

10. Avoid reinforcing societal gender roles

It’s easy to focus on stereotypical gender roles in the church. Try to avoid it though.

Encourage youth in your young women classes, for example, to serve missions. Talk to the youth in your young men classes about being a stay at home parent as a legitimate choice. Avoid such things as trying on bridal gowns for a young women activity or shooting guns for a young men activity.

Related to this, try to avoid gendered language. Use youth instead of young women or young men. Use parent instead of mother or father. Use spouse instead of husband or wife. Use child instead of son or daughter. And so on.

11. Include them in activities and leadership

Include your non-binary youth in your activities. Invite them out. Plan the activities to be inclusive. Invite them to help plan the activities.

Call your non-binary youth into leadership positions. This will show them that their gender identity does not make them sinful or bad, and it may provide them opportunities to plan activities and reach out to other youth.

Do you have experience with being a leader of non-binary youth? Let us know in the comments below things that you have found useful in making those youth feel comfortable at church.

Watch

We’ve turned this post into a video you can share.

Download

• Download our 11 ways booklet (PDF, 164 KB). It has a lot of colour, so you may not want to print it out. But please email it to your family, friends, ward members, presidency, bishopric, and stake presidency.
• Use our Google Slides presentation, complete with speaker notes. Takes about 10–15 minutes, but you can provide additional time for Q&A.
• Download and print our leadership binder insert (PDF, 48 kB). Share it on Pinterest.

The good works of holy disciples have always been a point of pride for religious organizations. While it might seem like a touchy subject in today’s polarized America, faith can provide opportunities to contribute, even for those with non-traditional views.

The church is nothing without people, and many of those responsible for inspiring a return to community service are young people. Spurned by what they feel is a commercialistic approach to faith — the televised megachurch approach — new church leaders are opening up to new ideas and promoting community involvement for people from all walks of life.

Here are a few great examples.

Project Gateway delivers career training in Africa

South Africa has struggled with civil unrest for many years, but like so many places, its people are vibrant and eager to rise above the conflict. Many have left the country to seek careers elsewhere.

Whether they choose to stay or emigrate, Project Gateway offers real-world training that can change lives. The Christian service organization provides shelter and safety, trains attendees in computer literacy and even offers programs on the fashion industry.

City Bible Forum builds homes in Mexico

The team from City Bible Forum isn’t even concerned about what faith you are. This new-age Christian group takes a literal approach to the term “forum,” as their website is an open discussion. Part of what they do is inviting whoever wants to go to come and build homes in Mexico. That’s not so hard to get behind.

Healing Haiti

If you’d like to travel to a beautiful island, make new friends and help some friendly people at the same time, Healing Haiti could be a good fit for you.

This Christian organization organizes missionary trips to Haiti at a reasonable price that makes it accessible for everyone. Not only that, but they offer different packages for groups, families and individuals.

The Christian Left

You can’t turn on the news these days without hearing about the Christian right, but is there somewhere a Christian with liberal beliefs can belong? The answer is yes. The Christian Left has made it their mission to fight for a progressive view in the world of Christianity by supporting many feminist and LGBTI+ events.

Jewish Service Corps organizes year-long projects in 11 countries

JSC fellows can partake in service works around the world. Destinations include China, Argentina, Israel, Russia, Turkey and more.

St. Christopher’s Inn

Offering a safe place where all are welcome is a virtue that spreads across any faith. The St.
Christopher’s Inn offers just that, as well as rehabilitation services to those in need. Residents can receive primary health care, spiritual counseling and chemical dependency therapy. The “Brothers Christopher” keep the Inn as a ministry of the Franciscan Friars of the Atonement.

Keeping Kids Fed Through the Church

Multiple schools and churches in Vermont have teamed up to distribute bags packed with a week’s worth of lunches to local schoolchildren. Recipients can look forward to fresh produce and the occasional book or toy in their bag. The program relies 100% on local funding and help from volunteers.

Islamic Relief USA

Regardless of your religion or belief, this humanitarian aid organization is willing to help. They support literacy and health and distribute foodstuffs worldwide. Currently, they are working with flood survivors in Afghanistan.

Fighting Bullies

The Sikh religion is less well known than more prominent western faiths, but this group is working to give marginalized Sikh children a voice. The New York-based operation works to end bullying in schools and promote freedom of religion for all people.

Since the beginning of recorded time, faith has been a force for improvement in the community. Our community has grown from a local one into a global one, but there is still work to be done. Rather than let the media define your relationship with faith, choose to be part of a positive movement with one of the groups mentioned here or the hundreds like them.

Christians in today’s society have been given a bad name, often because the loudest, most judgmental ones are the people who capture the headlines and make others think that all people who subscribe to the faith are against entire demographic groups, such as the LGBT community, Muslims, or even women.

However, Christianity is a more diverse religion than you may realize, and it’s important not to become overly closed-minded and make assumptions by getting too focused on the downsides when examining the faith.

There are numerous admirable things associated with Christians, some of which are outlined below.

1. Christianity teaches that moral obligations are higher than laws

If you have ever participated in the act of civil disobedience, consider that the early Christians paved the way for your modern actions. The Bible includes mentions of how early followers of Jesus didn’t take part in rituals of sacrifice to the emperor, which was seen as shunning Roman leadership.

Later, Martin Luther King, Jr., who was a church leader during the Civil Rights Movement, recognized that if laws were not based on morality, they should be protested. It was that belief that propelled many of his sermons and subsequent actions in support of equality for African Americans. Also, U2, the Irish band that has members who follow the Christian faith, mentions that “love is a higher law” in one of its hit songs.

2. Christian movements and organizations have been instrumental for education

Historians agree the positive impact Christianity has had on promoting better access to education goes back to the 16th-century Protestant Reformation period. Later, societal groups urged reading the Bible frequently, which is widely believed to have furthered literacy on a mass scale.

Schools set up in the United States and run by branches of the Christian faith, such as Catholics and Quakers, have played a substantial role in educating people within the country, especially immigrants. Also, in less-developed areas, including sub-Saharan Africa, the missionaries who go there to share their faith often simultaneously increase educational opportunities for residents.

3. Many hospitals and health-promoting initiatives are Christian based

Think back to the name of the last hospital you received treatment from, and there’s a high likelihood it was set up by people or groups who followed Christianity. That’s especially true if the name includes the word “saint” or “mercy”.

Clara Barton, the founder of the Red Cross and a nurse who was instrumental in providing humanitarian aid during the Civil War, was influenced by the Christian faith because her family was heavily involved in it and known for their beliefs in the local community. Even before that, Christian organizations formed to help others by treating ailments such as the bubonic plague or serving on war-torn battlefields in earlier generations.

That health-related work is still happening today through dedicated Christian organizations that believe faith drives everything they do. Many boldly focus on underserved areas of desperate need in places like West Africa, South Asia, and South America. Short-term disaster relief efforts, crisis pregnancy centres, and health clinics are also organized through these faith-motivated groups.

4. Some Christians try to live their lives as Jesus did

While noticing a preacher with a megaphone standing on a busy city street and targeting certain groups of people, you might wonder how that person aligns personal beliefs with those that Jesus held. Although Jesus shook up society in his day and caused a stir among the population, it was largely because of how he stood up against the religious leaders for being too ritualistic.

He also encouraged people to love themselves and others. Notably, he mingled with society members who were seen as sinners or unclean people, such as lepers and prostitutes. Living as Jesus did is precisely what the Progressive Christianity or Christian Left movement tries to do.

Although there are substantial variations within the sector about specific beliefs, people try to conduct their lives similarly to how Jesus did during his time on Earth. That means they often focus on people who have otherwise been overlooked by wider society. Also, members of the Christian Left usually don’t rely on fear-based tactics to lure people into joining the movement.

As you can see from this list, thinking that all Christians are associated with only bad things in the world is grossly stereotypical. Sometimes it takes a bit of effort to notice the goodness that people who aren’t of our own thinking can offer, but it is certainly present.

(Kids these days and their FaceSpace, amirite?)

From a Deseret news article about Elder Ballard’s talk:

“Drawing on the scriptures and the words of the prophets, [students] will learn how to act with faith in Christ to acquire spiritual knowledge and understanding of His gospel,” he said. “And they will have opportunities to learn how to apply the doctrine of Christ and gospel principles to the questions and challenges they hear and see every day among their peers and on social media.”

Applying the doctrine of Christ to questions of church doctrine makes sense. Is it true and is it helpful? Does it follow the golden rule?

Elder Ballard continued, comparing faithful interpretations of history to vaccinating the youth against topics that are “sometimes misunderstood” — a polite way of saying, negative toward the church.

You know, we give medical inoculations to our precious missionaries before sending them into the mission field, so they will be protected against disease that can harm and even kill them. In a similar fashion, please, before you send them into the world, inoculate your students by providing faithful, thoughtful and accurate interpretations of gospel doctrine, the scriptures and our history, and those topics that are sometimes misunderstood.

And in a praiseworthy show of transparency, Elder Ballard listed a few topics which in some circles (or at least in the not so distant past) would have been considered anti-mormon.

To name a few of such topics that are less-known or controversial, I’m talking about polygamy, and seer stones, different accounts of the first vision, the process of translation of the Book of Mormon [and] of the Book of Abraham, gender issues, race and the priesthood, or a Heavenly Mother. The efforts to inoculate our young people will often fall to you CES teachers.

Perhaps if I’d been further inoculated as a youth, I wouldn’t have found these topics so difficult to digest when I finally found them too hard to swallow. So roll up your sleeves while I share with you what I remember being taught about this list while at the same time you’re going to get inoculated.

Before you run off searching high and low looking for how far the rabbit hole goes, Elder Ballard warned of the dangers of access to too much information:

It was only a generation ago that our young people’s access to information about our history, doctrine and practices was basically limited to materials printed by the church. Few students came in contact with alternative interpretations. Mostly, our young people lived a sheltered life. Our curriculum at that time, though well-meaning, did not prepare students for today — a day when students have instant access to virtually everything about the church from every possible point of view. Today, what they see on their mobile devices is likely to be faith-challenging as much as faith-promoting. Many of our young people are more familiar with Google than they are with the gospel, more attuned to the Internet than to inspiration, and more involved with Facebook than with faith.

For the sake of Elder Ballard’s concern about Google, I’ll only use church approved sources for the inoculation and I’ll stay far away from Facebook.

…

In church I was taught that Brigham Young and the LDS population as a whole started practicing polygamy on their way west after Joseph Smith died. I was taught that Joseph Smith did not practice polygamy. I was specifically taught that The Nauvoo Expositor, a newspaper that published only one issue, on June 7, 1844, was printing anti-mormon lies about the Prophet Joseph Smith and that it needed to be shut down.

If only there was some way to look up the contents of that newspaper… Also, at church the word polyandry was never uttered, just the more generic term polygamy.

The church now teaches that Joseph practiced polygamy. It doesn’t bother with timeline details between when these marriages started and when the revelation on polygamy was given but it does point out that at least one of the lucky ladies was just few month shy of her fifteenth birthday. https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng. The church also admits that he practiced polyandry.

I was taught in church that Joseph mostly used his seer stone for money digging but that it was something he regretted. It was a part of his wayward youth; folk magic being part of the culture of the time; something he did before being called to restore the gospel. I was taught that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon from golden plates written in reformed Egyptian into English using some kind of, never that clear to me, looking-glass shaped device called the Urim and Thummim.

The church now teaches Joseph used the seer stone and other instruments to translate the Book of Mormon. The church teaches that Joseph didn’t look at the plates while translating, instead, “Joseph looked into the instruments, [and] the words of scripture appeared in English”: https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng&_r=1

I was taught about the different accounts of the first vision in church but I was told there were only 2 or 3 different versions. I was taught that they were given to different people at different times and that the different details were because of different audiences and their different needs. I was told not to worry about it.

The church now teaches there are seven nine different accounts of the first vision story and the details within those various narratives isn’t exactly the same but that they all follow the same basic story. The details over number of visitors or their identities isn’t a sign of fraud because, “Joseph’s increasingly specific descriptions can thus be compellingly read as evidence of increasing insight, accumulating over time, based on experience.” https://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng&_r=1

What I was taught about the Book of Abraham at church: “A translation of some ancient records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.” It was on my mission that I learned the controversy of Ancient Egyptian translations not matching the Book of Abraham. I was suspicious of the antagonistic pastor telling me this, but all the same, I was very curious about the truth behind the Book of Abraham’s origins, and specifically why this guy figured he had a “silver bullet” against the church.

Now the church teaches that the phrase “by his own hand, upon papyrus” can be understood to mean that “Abraham is the author and not the literal copyist”. Also, the church teaches that while “the word translation typically assumes an expert knowledge of multiple languages”, but in this case, “[b]y the gift and power of God, Joseph received knowledge about the life and teachings of Abraham.” https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng&_r=1

As for gender issues, I’m going to assume Elder Ballard is talking about lesbians and gays (though not strictly a “gender issue” at all).

I was taught that gays were bad and I openly talked about how being gay was wrong and probably said other horrible things that mercifully — for my own feelings of guilt — I can no longer recall. I remember that feeling of self-righteousness as a Mormon when I proudly declared my prejudice against gay people. I’m sorry for what I thought and said.

The church still doesn’t get it when it comes to the biological realities of same sex attraction nor to the impact that their stance has on so many members of the church. I specifically feel bad for the heartache that Kim and his family have been put through. The church still proudly rolls out The Family: A Proclamation to the World as a response to why being gay is sinful. https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&_r=1

The church’s stance with race and the priesthood was never something that bothered me until after I stopped going. Probably because growing up in Southern Alberta, I never encountered very many (any?) black people and I certainly felt that God knew what he was doing. I never thought about what it would mean to belong to a church that emphasized eternal marriage, families being together forever, and the importance of temple ordinances but then banning a certain group of people from said ordinances because of the way they looked. I read in Bruce R. McConkie’s book, Mormon Doctrine, that the reason for the ban was because they had been fence-sitters in the war-in-heaven and were now cursed to be descendants of the most wicked person on the face of the earth, Cain.

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse. https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng&_r=1

Lastly on Elder Ballad’s list of topics to be inoculated against is Heavenly Mother. When I was in the church, I was taught that Heavenly Mother was also divine (a goddess not unlike God) but that we didn’t know her name and it was forbidden to pray to her. This sat just fine with me.

It was on my mission that another missionary pointed out to me that Jesus’ mother Mary, was in fact our Heavenly Mother. This didn’t sit well with me, especially when they pointed out what 1 Nephi 11:18 was getting at by saying, “Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.” You’ll have to imagine my shock when I realized what the manner of the flesh means. God did what with Mary?! And how exactly does that square with the biblical emphasis that she was a virgin?

The church still teaches that you shouldn’t pray to Heavenly Mother (perhaps a way of delineating themselves from churches that do pray to Mary). But, it’s pointed out that, “[t]he fact that we do not pray to our Mother in Heaven in no way belittles or denigrates her.” https://www.lds.org/topics/mother-in-heaven?lang=eng

I’m not sure inoculation against these topics that are sometimes misunderstood is really going to affect the youth in the way they expect. In fact I think it might have the opposite effect.

I’m reminded of the agonizing guilt Huckleberry Finn felt over his failure to turn in his raft-mate Jim. Jim, who was attempting to escape from slavery, is betrayed by someone else, and Huck has to face what he is doing. Realizing he is incapable even of praying because of his sinful compliance in a slave’s escape, Huck gives in to his conscience and writes a note to Jim’s rightful owner, revealing his whereabouts.

I felt good and all washed clean of sin for the first time I had ever felt so in my life, and I knowed I could pray now. But I didn’t do it straight off, but laid the paper down and set there thinking—thinking how good it was all this happened so, and how near I come to being lost and going to hell.

Unfortunately for Huck’s peace of mind, he kept on thinking. After recalling all the good times and misfortune they’d shared, and Jim’s gratitude for saving him from capture, he looked down, noticed the letter and made his decision.

It was a close place. I took it up, and held it in my hand. I was a-trembling, because I’d got to decide, forever, betwixt two things, and I knowed it. I studied a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself:

“All right, then, I’ll GO to hell”—and tore it up.

It was awful thoughts and awful words, but they was said. And I let them stay said; and never thought no more about reforming. I shoved the whole thing out of my head, and said I would take up wickedness again, which was in my line, being brung up to it, and the other warn’t. And for a starter I would go to work and steal Jim out of slavery again; and if I could think up anything worse, I would do that, too; because as long as I was in, and in for good, I might as well go the whole hog.

I’m also in for good, and there’s no better way to say it: I’m going whole hog.

According to a report by KUTV, The Church has issued a statement responding to a bill on Utah’s Capitol Hill that would toughen penalties for hate crimes against “ancestry, disability, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, national origin, race, religion, or sexual orientation”. The church doesn’t want it to pass because it thinks it shifts the balance too far away from religious liberties in favour of gays:

“The Utah Legislature achieved something extraordinary last year in arriving at legislation that protected both religious liberty rights and LGBT rights,” said church spokesman Dale Jones in a statement Wednesday afternoon which was released in response to media inquiries. “Interests from both ends of the political spectrum are attempting to alter that balance. We believe that the careful balance achieved through being fair to all should be maintained.”

I’m trying not to have a knee-jerk reaction here, but the article points out that according to the Utah Department of Public Safety, the rates of reported hate crimes are staggeringly more likely to be based on religious intolerance rather than homophobic bigotry. I’d say this is a clear case of cutting off the nose to spite the face. I just don’t get it.

Despite the implied message in that charged, clickbait headline, I’m not staying because I feel pressured to.

I’ve been busy over the last week or so. I’ve been reading dozens of blog posts, listening to dozens of podcasts, watching dozens of videos, responding to dozens of private messages, and reviewing hundreds of Facebook comments. I’ve been ruminating on it all.

So why am I staying?

For years, I’ve been exercising autonomy in my religious beliefs, believing what I wanted regardless of whether it was conventional or traditional. I’ve refused letting anyone else dictate what I could believe.

A few days ago, Mary said something that reminded me of this. She determined that she’s staying because she won’t let some men decide whether she stays or goes. I’m staying because I’m exercising my autonomy.

I’m not staying because I was told to, because I was told I was needed, or because I was told that I couldn’t be Mormon while not attending. I’m staying because I chose to.

As someone else said this week, if I leave, my voice diminishes. If I stay, my voice remains. Although, I haven’t been in a leadership position for nearly 7 years, I’ve still had opportunities to speak my mind. I’ve been a teacher for over 4 years now, which allows me to control the rhetoric. Even though I often feel alone, I still have hope that I can change dialogue, and new dialogue leads to new values, priorities, and paradigms. And when I’m no longer teaching, I can still share my thoughts and opinions. If I leave, all I have left for a voice is online (here, social media, etc), and the only ones who’ll listen are those who already agree.

I’m not just any Mormon. Despite not being born in the church, I consider myself Mormon culturally, not just spiritually. The Mormon sacraments are an important part of my life. The ability I have to participate in them as not just a recipient but a bestower allows me to participate in the sacraments of my children not as a bystander, but as a conduit. Something my Catholic ancestors couldn’t do.

If I left, I miss out on baptizing half of my children. I miss out on remaining my son’s hometeaching companion. I miss out on escorting my sons through the temple and seeing my daughters go through. I miss out on serving a mission with Mary. These are all milestones I find value in as a cultural Mormon.

I’m also staying because what became apparent to me this week is that there exists in the church many people who understand and fulfill their baptismal covenants to mourn with and comfort those who grieve, free of judgement and bias. I want to be one with them. While it’s a challenge to be unified in building true Zion in a church that’s so pharisaical, knowing that there are loving, compassionate people in the church makes me want to be part of it. Certainly, I can do that outside of the church, but I believe opportunities exist within the church for me. And the church certainly needs more communists.

Another reason I’m staying is because the esoteric aspects of Mormonism appeal to my heart. Deeply. And while I lament that much of the esoteric that was common in the early church of nearly 200 years ago has disappeared or been minimized, I recognize that the temple still contains it. While some might find it odd, I find it satisfying, and it serves as my connection to a time when angels visited the earth, people saw visions with stones, and spiritual fire engulfed entire buildings. By staying, I still have access to the temple.

It’s an odd circumstance. The Mormon church is one of the few Christian churches that puts restrictions on who can enter religious facilities, which forces me to follow their rules if I want to use those facilities. I stay, completely aware of this.

So why am I upset?

I’m upset because the new policy is abhorrent.

Let’s just set aside the fact that the policy was written by the church’s law firm and not the prophets, seers, and revelators. (That’s a blog topic on its own.) It’s ridiculous that the church now says that anyone in a same-sex marriage is apostate. It makes no sense. Gay Mormons can be supportive of the church in every other way (paying tithing, keeping the commandments, serving in a calling, home teaching, living the Word of Wisdom, and so forth), yet if they marry someone of the same sex, somehow that’s considered a turning away. If you’re going to list marriage as a sign of apostasy, why not list living common law as a sign of apostasy?

In addition, it’s hypocritical to mandate church discipline for marriage when there are far worse things (rape and child abuse for example) for which church discipline is optional.

Finally, limiting the children of gay parents from fully participating in the church’s sacraments is wholly unfair. The church is not actually concerned with protecting children; it’s using that as an excuse to punish its gay members who are parents. If the welfare of children was truly important, then things that actually damage children would be addressed. For example, making church discipline mandatory for those who abuse children or labelling child abuse as a sign of apostasy would be a start. By not taking action on things that actually harm children, the church shows us that its stance on protecting children is empty and meaningless.

The so-called clarification letter issued by the church certainly improves the lives of children in straight families with gay parents or children in gay families who have already received ordinances. But let’s not lose sight of the fact that this policy still targets a group of children in the church: those of gay parents.

And the policy clarification changes nothing for our situation. Our bisexual daughter, should she choose to marry a woman and have children raised in the church, would still be a target of the policy. I would still never be able to to bless or baptize those grandchildren.

And that hurts. My church has hurt me.

Last Thursday, it felt like my church sucker punched me in the gut. Today, those bruises are not gone. I don’t feel less angry. My decision to stay is not an admission that the policy was right. No, I categorically reject the policy. It is entirely wrong. I’m staying despite the policy.

Speaking of my daughter, some have suggested that I need to take steps to protect my daughter. That just stinks of patriarchal sexism. My 17-year-old daughter is an independent, strong young adult getting ready to go out into the world on her own. She needs no protection from her father. She can take care of herself, and she has done so.

So where does this leave me?

Well, I’m staying in the church with some conditions. I will not be silent. I’ve been a supporter of LGBT rights in the church for at least 12 years, but it has mostly been silent support. This summer, when our daughter publicly came out, I used it as an opportunity to publicly declare my support for marriage equality, that people should have the right to be in a monogamous, loving relationship raising children in a stable, nurturing home regardless of the sex of their spouse.

I will remain a strong supporter of LGBT rights in the church. LGBT Mormons need safe places to practise their religion. LGBT youth need support and encouragement, not rejection and being told by their leaders and parents that they disgust them and there’s no place for them in heaven. It’s bad enough that our society rejects LGBT people. Followers of Jesus shouldn’t reject them, too.

I’m not sure how sticking up for LGBT members will work in practice with my social anxiety, but I’ll try my best.

For the last six months, since my grandmother died, I have not been sharing anything on Facebook other than status updates. That’s changing as of today. I will return to sharing articles on my feed, especially ones that are critical of the church, that challenge conventional Mormon views. People need to regularly take inventory of how they view the world around them; they need to check the tint of their glasses. I no longer care how that affects the way people view me. I’ve made Mormonism work for me and I’m at peace with my relationship with God. What others think of me changes neither of those two things.

I worship God according to the dictates of my own conscience.

Since the church’s policy change regarding same-sex marriages was leaked on Thursday, my Facebook feed has been like a firehose regarding reactions to the changes. I tried to read so many thoughts, article, and blog posts in an effort to help me figure things out.

It didn’t work that well.

Instead of direction and guidance, I received anxiety and depression. There were times on Friday and Saturday when trying to respond to claims or viewpoints that I found myself shaking and had to stop.

Even going to the temple Friday night didn’t help. In fact, my endowment session felt like a two-hour stupor of thought. I drove away from the temple as lost and depressed as ever—a far cry from the guidance and inspiration I had received the week before.

A lot of emotions have run through my heart and mind. I’ve been upset, confused, hopeless, lost, abandoned, hurt, sad, lonely, disgusted, sick, and so many more.

As a parent of an LGBT child, I’ve struggled to know what to do. My daughter left the church earlier this year, but the changes still hit me hard, and I’ve been seriously considering throwing in the towel.

Before this weekend, I never fully understood what people go through when they wrestle with the decision to leave the church. Something I’ve learned is that it’s a complex decision with no easy answer.

In fact, two years ago, President Dieter F. Uchtdorf addressed this very topic in general conference:

Sometimes we assume it is because they have been offended or lazy or sinful. Actually, it is not that simple. In fact, there is not just one reason that applies to the variety of situations.

Some of our dear members struggle for years with the question whether they should separate themselves from the Church.

I can say with frankness that the last paragraph describes me. As the church as grown more evangelical and my understanding of the actual Gospel has become more Christ-centred, this growing divide has become problematic for me.

But there are aspects of Mormonism I love and that I can find in few other places: an anthropomorphic God, a feminine divine, the masonic temple rites, seer stones, visiting angels, continuing revelation, and the list goes on. Scriptures like D&C 18:10, D&C 93, Mosiah 4, and 4 Nephi 1 resonate with me.

So I continued on, focusing on what is right.

But this policy change and how it could affect my future grandchildren feels like the proverbial last straw that broke the camel’s back.

And I find myself once again contemplating leaving. This time, however, it feels so intense. I find parallels even to the faith crisis story I shared 8 years ago.

But here it is three days later, and I haven’t found it any easier to decide what I’m going to do.

There are so many factors at play in me head. As I’ve commented several times, the church is like a cherry pie: it tastes so good, but it has pits.

Here are some of the things that make it taste so good to me:

• The symbolism in the church found in baptism, the endowment, the Sacrament, and various other places.
• The temple
• God being a resurrected, glorified man who is our father
• Having a mother in heaven
• The example and teachings of Jesus (arguably this could easily be found elsewhere)
• The unique teachings in Mormon scripture, specifically how we should treat others
• The brotherhood of a quorum
• Continuing revelation
• A personal relationship with God

I’m not going to list out all the pits, but I will say there are many, and some of them are big. Despite the common rhetoric found among its members, the Mormon church is not perfect.

So I find myself in the middle of various forces pulling me in these two directions: all the positive trying to keep me in and all the negative trying to push me out.

But there are some other things that are making it difficult to make a decision:

• I worry about not being able to baptize my three younger children
• I worry about not being able to be an escort when my two boys go through the temple
• I worry about Mary and the children following me
• I worry about leaving Mary to take the role of a single mother at church on Sundays
• I worry about never being able to go to the temple again, the one thing remaining that ties us to the esoteric church of 200 years ago
• I worry about not completing temple ordinances for my ancestors, something I have been working on for 25 years.
• I worry about others having to come to my home to give Mary and our children blessings
• I worry about being the last person in my family to go on a mission despite being the first
• I worry about what it would mean to my parents, who were my pioneers
• I worry about what it would mean to those I taught and baptized on my mission
• I worry about not being able to give my boys the Melchizedek Priesthood, something my dad was never able to do for me.
• Related to that, I worry about not being able to be ordained a high priest by my dad, the last chance I have to get my priesthood lineage from him
• I worry about satisfying those who already expect me to leave

So, for anyone wondering what I’m struggling with, it isn’t about trying to reconcile my beliefs with the new policy to rationalize it. I think it’s wrong. Period.

No, I’m struggling with so much more and with something far more complex.

And I don’t know how long it will take before I have my answer, nor what will happen when something like this happens again.

What I do know is that it’s not an easy decision for those who decided to leave the church, and we should be careful about judging them when they do.

When Hezekiah started his reign, he inherited a kingdom from his father and grandfather, who each had reigned in unrighteousness. They had disrespected the temple and let it get to a state disuse and misuse.

His first order of business was to gather the Levites together to sanctify the temple. Once the temple was back to working order, he invited all of Israel to come together to celebrate the Passover, something they hadn’t done for a long time.

This brings us to 2 Chr. 30:17–20:

For there were many in the congregation that were not sanctified: therefore the Levites had the charge of the killing of the passovers for every one that was not clean, to sanctify them unto the Lord.

For a multitude of the people . . . had not cleansed themselves, yet did they eat the passover otherwise than it was written. But Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God, the Lord God of his fathers, though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary.

And the Lord hearkened to Hezekiah, and healed the people.

I found inspiration in these verses. To me, it was a reminder that we should be welcoming to those who might not be perfect but whose hearts are in the right place and who want to be there.

Visitors welcome.