Eric Reeves is the son of LDS Relief Society General Presidency Member Linda S. Reeves and former LDS mission president Melvyn Reeves.
In this episode Eric discusses:
- His early years in the church, his loss of faith in the LDS church,
and how he handled this process with his very faithful family, - His analysis of the recent changes to the LDS policy for “same-gender marriage” and children of same-sex couples,
- Why he vehemently opposes the parallels made between same-sex marriage and polygamy,
- Why he is speaking out publicly against the new LGBT policies, and
- Why he is encouraging church members to openly oppose these policies.
Finally, Eric requested that we post the following open questions for the Church regarding the new policies:
- Why is same-sex marriage considered “apostasy” but same-sex cohabitating is only a “transgression”?
- Why does the Handbook of Instruction distinguish between same-sex cohabitation and marriage but refer to polygamous relationships as “marriages”? Was this intentional or negligence?
- Why can an infant with a parent who has practiced polygamy be named on church records and receive a blessing but an infant with a parent who has practiced same-sex cohabitation or marriage cannot?
- Why can minors with a parent who has practiced polygamy receive approval to be baptized and become church members but there is no such exception for minors with a parent who has practiced same-sex cohabitation or marriage?
- In short, why is the Church coming down harder on same-sex families than on polygamist families? What is the social or doctrinal motivation?
Episode Transcript
Host: John Dehlin · Guest: Eric Reeves
This transcript is machine-generated and lightly edited for readability. The audio is authoritative. Please excuse occasional errors in names and spelling.
Introduction and Episode Overview
Eric Reeves [00:00:00] Foreign.
John Dehlin [00:00:04] Welcome to another edition of Mormon Stories podcast. I'm your host, John Dehlin. It is the date is November 12, 2015. And today we are interviewing Eric Reeves to give you a little background. Many of you will know that last week, so about seven days ago, November 5th, about the LDS Church changed their handbook, one of Handbook of instructions for their leadership, where among other things, they added same gender cohabitation or marriage as a mandatory criteria for apostasy. And they also implemented a policy that said that children of gay or lesbian people who are in same gender relationships either cohabitating or in a marriage cannot receive a baby blessing, cannot be baptized, cannot receive the priesthood, and cannot serve missions unless they reach the age of 18.
John Dehlin [00:01:20] And then it requires first presidency approval. Now, a week has gone by since that was released and the entire sort of Mormon Internet has exploded. And also it's become an international news story. You know, I've personally spoken with New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Huffington Post, LA Times, like it's a big, big story.
John Dehlin [00:01:46] And so, you know, there's a lot of things that we've done to try and be a part of this. We did a review of this, these policy changes on Mormon stories last Friday and we released that over the weekend. We've started putting together a website called suffer the little children.org where we're assembling stories of people affected by these policies. And that website is now live and we're proud of that. And what I now want to do just today and tomorrow really is release just a few interviews with people who have been affected by this policy. And the first person that I'm interviewing is Eric. And Eric is, you know, what makes Eric's story maybe particularly intriguing and maybe why some of you have tuned in is that Eric is the son of Linda and Melvin Reeves, but his mother Linda is in the is in the Relief Society General Presidency, I think is what it's called.
John Dehlin [00:02:57] So for Those who aren't LDs, the LDs has three women who sort of stand at the head of their entire Relief Society organization of women all throughout the church. And Linda Reeves is in that presidency. She is first counselor. No, no, no, sorry. She's second counselor in the release cited General Presidency. And so, and so Eric, you know, we're going to get into this, but Eric felt strongly about wanting to talk about these issues, you know, fully aware that, you know, that his mom is in a high profile position with the church and that neither he nor I have any particular interest in being exploitative of this situation.
John Dehlin [00:03:43] But, but something about Eric's situation made him want to reach out to me and see what we could do. So with that big old, lengthy introduction, Eric Reeves, welcome to Mormon Stories podcast.
Eric Reeves [00:03:56] Thank you. Thank you for having me.
Eric Reeves: Background and Family Context
John Dehlin [00:03:58] Now, let's just begin our. Tell us just a bit about, just at a really high level. You like, you know, are you single, are you married? Or, you know, where do you live? And just sort of tell. Tell us just a bit about you at a high level right now.
Eric Reeves [00:04:13] Yeah, I am single. I currently live, meaning I'm not married. I currently live in New York City. Was born in the Los Angeles area and lived there until just before my teenage years when our family moved to the Salt Lake area. Been back in the California region again since then. I served a mission in Nicaragua 2004-2006, and ended up out here in the city after school.
John Dehlin [00:04:49] In New York City.
Eric Reeves [00:04:51] Correct.
John Dehlin [00:04:51] Okay. And you're one of how many siblings?
Eric Reeves [00:04:56] It's a big family. I am one of 13 children. I fall almost in the middle on number eight and eight girls, five boys. It's a very great family. I love every one of them a lot. And everyone's married but me. But, yeah, it's a great family.
John Dehlin [00:05:22] And I don't know if this is an inappropriate question, but are all the children biological or some adopted?
Eric Reeves [00:05:27] All biological. All from my mother and father.
John Dehlin [00:05:31] Wow, that's in 2015. That's sort of remarkable.
Eric Reeves [00:05:35] Yeah. Even within the Mormon world.
John Dehlin [00:05:38] Yeah.
Eric Reeves [00:05:38] So quite an exception.
John Dehlin [00:05:40] That's amazing. Okay, so what I want to do is talk, you know, just talk a little bit about your background and your family, just to give us a sense for your upbringing and who you are. And then we'll go to what sort of what led to you. You know, we'll talk a little bit about what it's like to have your mom be called to such a calling and how that. How that happens and what that's like. And then we'll talk a little bit about your journey and what would lead to you feeling strongly about this issue to the point where you'd want to talk about it.
John Dehlin [00:06:15] And then we're going to actually talk about, you know, your. You have a lot of thoughts about this policy, specifically to the attempts that Elder Christofferson made to sort of connect this to polygamy. So we'll talk about your thoughts on all of that, and then we'll end with sort of your final thoughts. Does that sound all right?
Eric Reeves [00:06:35] That sounds good. So, yeah, my family, obviously has been very. Maybe not obviously, but they have been very strong in the Church for at least several generations. If you follow one line on, you know, both sides and some more recent converts back a generation or two on both sides. You know, several family members have been in leadership positions and you know, I only mention this, you know, mostly in an attempt to show that, you know, I don't think that we should use excuses to speak out on this issue. I think it's important that, that we voice our opinions. As you mentioned, I certainly don't want to exploit my mother's position in any way, but I obviously realize that as a matter of fact, it is something that's significant and relevant to the issue at hand. But, you know, we've all been very involved in the church. There's been several callings and bishoprics.
John Dehlin [00:07:40] Let me ask you real quick, where'd your parents grow up? Did they.
Eric Reeves [00:07:44] They grew up in Southern California.
John Dehlin [00:07:45] Both of them?
Eric Reeves [00:07:46] Yes. Southern California still have families spread out between California, Utah, Idaho, Colorado, different places.
John Dehlin [00:07:57] Did they go to BYU or what did they do for school, your mom and dad?
Eric Reeves [00:08:01] They did. They attended Brigham Young University. I attended BYU for a few years. Almost everybody in my family spent some time at byu.
John Dehlin [00:08:12] Okay, so your parents met. They met. They, they did or didn't meet at byu?
Eric Reeves [00:08:18] They had met beforehand. Okay. My father served a mission and yeah, so, you know, strong Mormon family through and through.
John Dehlin [00:08:29] And so what's your dad's profession, if you don't mind? What is.
Eric Reeves [00:08:33] He's, he's been. He's done several different things. Yeah, several different things. Sometimes self employed, sometimes not. And my mother, obviously with 13 kids was pretty busy at home. She had a full time job, plus a lot just dealing with that.
Eric Reeves [00:08:54] So again, last thing I think I'd want to say about this is just that just to make it perfectly clear that my mother is a wonderful person. I know it sounds cliche, but she's not only the best woman that I know, but she's the best person that I know. And I did reach out to her and let her know that I had gotten to a point where I just felt like I couldn't stay silent on this issue any longer and that I wasn't going to remain anonymous. And you know, that's for a specific reason, which is we can't remain anonymous on this anymore. It's gotten to a level that I think is it's imperative that there be discussion that even if your views are opposing views, especially if they're opposing views, we need to speak up.
Eric Reeves [00:09:49] I've said to several people that I've long had a personal policy that I wouldn't ever let my personal beliefs get. Get in the way of my family and relationships with my friend. Excuse me, with my friends. But now it's gotten to a point where that trade off just isn't worth it to me anymore. I certainly don't want any fallout with anybody. And I know that lots of members of the church feel this way, and I don't see any reason why there has to be fallout. You know, it's just we need to be honest, we need to be open, we need to be genuine. And if that's the case, let's talk.
Eric Reeves [00:10:31] And again, I express these things to my mother. And again, just for the sake of clarity, I'm obviously not speaking on her behalf in any way whatsoever. Everything that I'll share are my personal views. But I will point out that she has been, you know, extraordinary in the literal sense of the word when it comes to dealing with my position on certain things. We've had heart to heart conversations at different points and she's always been exceptional when it comes to understanding and being loving. And I think that she is in many ways an exemplary member of the church and leader in the church. And that's something that not everybody in the church has, regardless of any family member positions.
John Dehlin [00:11:20] That's great. That's great. So how does it. And this will just be kind of a quick line of questioning and then we'll just get to your journey itself. I just want to. So, you know, I was raised in the church and my mom served in various callings, but never did I envision that my mom would ever, you know, be called into the General Relief Society Board. Are there, you know, and a lot of times there's sort of, you know, there's sort of a feeling that a lot of the people that reach the status of sort of general authority in the church, it's because they have deep family or friend connections, sort of relationships with other general authorities.
John Dehlin [00:12:05] And that that's, you know, very much how it happens. To what extent is that relevant to your situation or not? And how does it happen that a woman gets called into the general presidency? Do you have any idea how that works?
Eric Reeves [00:12:25] Going from California to Utah is an interesting transition in several ways. But we ended up at a place in Utah that has several prominent members of the church, great people. I mean, that ward that I was in was amazing. Still is amazing. So many good people that are there,
John Dehlin [00:12:47] like somewhere down Salt Lake. You don't have to tell me the
Eric Reeves [00:12:49] area, but just kind of, yeah, bountiful Suburbs of Salt Lake and, you know, several impressive people in every area of life, not just in the church, but politics and business and every area of life. And it was a great environment to grow up in and spend my teenage years in.
Eric Reeves [00:13:11] But, yeah, I do know personally, I had friends who had parents or grandparents that were general authorities. And, you know, it has been interesting mostly since then, actually, to see that, you know, several of these families do know each other.
Eric Reeves [00:13:32] I wouldn't, you know, we don't have to go too far into that. But, you know, for whatever the reason, I think that, you know, my father did serve as a mission president in Southern California after we lived in Salt Lake for quite a while. And then, you know, in any case, my mother's merits certainly stand on their own.
Eric Reeves [00:13:58] But it is interesting to see those relationships and, like I said, great people all around. And again, at the risk of being repetitive, I have to state that I hope that none of those relationships change. But that concern is obviously something that's very familiar to members of the church, particularly when you start to have certain views that don't fall in line with either the teachings or the policies of the church.
Eric Reeves [00:14:30] And like I said, so many of us, most of us, would rather remain silent than disrupt any of those relationships that mean so much to us. And so, again, the only reason that I think it is significant to point out some of these relationships is because I honestly would like other people who I know that have ties to immediate ties to people very high up in the church who may share similar views or may not be completely on board with what's happening. I hope that in some way, even if it's just one or two or a handful of them, that this might encourage others to speak out, because, you know, we have that luxury to either remain silent or to be vocal.
Eric Reeves [00:15:18] What this new policy does, one of the reasons why, in my opinion, it's so dangerous is because there's been a whole group of people that's been identified that doesn't have the option of remaining silent unless it means completely denying a very fundamental part of their nature and not expressing their sexuality.
Eric Reeves [00:15:40] That is now the only option if you would like to remain in good standing in the church. Literally the only option. And so I think it's, as I said, imperative that those of us that do have the luxury of either remaining silent or speaking up. I think it's imperative that we do that. We place ourselves in that same category.
Eric Reeves [00:16:04] And, I mean, that's where it's gone, and we need to recognize that. And I think that obviously many people have and are doing something about it.
John Dehlin [00:16:15] No, I think it's super courageous. And I, you know, I know a lot of, of people in positions of power and influence or related to people in positions of power and influence who just are terrified to speak openly and honest. And I, I don't judge them. I can see why. But I can also understand how courageous I think it is that you're willing to do that. Let me just ask you. When you're, when you're, when, when your mom was called were so apparent, I'm guessing that maybe you wouldn't describe yourself as sort of a orthodox believing Mormon at this point. Right.
Eric Reeves [00:16:54] Myself, personally, no, I am pretty much the exception when it comes to that in my immediate family. Not entirely, but I won't get into that either. But, yeah, I have for a few years now held certain views that, like I said, it's a very strange realization when you first acknowledge that if you were to be vocal, I mean, you'll understand this as well as anybody.
Eric Reeves [00:17:28] As soon as you have any views that would jeopardize your membership status were you to be vocal, you. You're suddenly subjected to this strange dual life, and you still feel the same way that you've always felt about the people that are around you, but this reality comes crashing down on you that you are, at least in your own mind, a black sheep.
Eric Reeves [00:17:55] And on that note, this, what I would call a crisis that the Church is undergoing right now is, is a good opportunity to be honest about a lot of these things that have been the case for years and decades, if not for the entire history of the Church. And it's a good opportunity for us to come out and speak openly about several of these things. And again, we owe it to the group that is now being targeted specifically.
John Dehlin [00:18:23] Sure. So knowing that you're, you're not orthodox in your belief, I'm just curious if, if that started happening before, before your mom was called into the presidency or during or, you know, after and what that.
Linda Reeves Called to General Presidency
Eric Reeves [00:18:42] Yeah, it was before.
John Dehlin [00:18:43] Okay. So I'm wondering what that, what that's like to be struggling and then to have a member of your family called into a, a position like that. Is that weird? Is it hard? Cause I'm sure all the eyes are on your family as, like, I don't want to say royalty, but like people of status in the Church.
Eric Reeves [00:19:01] It certainly made me, I think, less inclined to be open with others or to speak publicly than I would have otherwise been. Although that pressure certainly exists, no matter who you are in the church, it wasn't terribly surprising or shocking. And for me, when she was called, I think that part of that had to do with the fact that, like I said, I know a lot of people who had relatives that were in significant positions in the church. And another part of it was that my mom is just such a wonderful person that in that sense, it wasn't surprising either.
John Dehlin [00:19:39] Yeah, but was it weird for you to be struggling with your faith?
Eric Reeves [00:19:44] I'll tell you what was weird was that when I first had a faith crisis, I don't even like calling it a faith crisis. When I had a paradigm shift or when my beliefs shifted, I was living in the mission home. And that, oh, wow. I mean, I was going out with the missionaries two or three times a week.
John Dehlin [00:20:07] Holy moly.
Eric Reeves [00:20:08] We were baptizing a lot of people. I made several friends in that singles ward. It was a great time of life. I was heavily involved in the church, 100%. I'd been off of my mission, I suppose, at that point, maybe a couple years. And like I said, I was teaching with the missionaries several times a week. And it was a very interesting thing. You know, I didn't so much plan on talking about this, but I guess it's as relevant as anything else.
Eric Reeves [00:20:39] You know, ultimately, what it was that I studied several things, history and philosophy and so on, that, you know, I was never afraid to question. You know, I was 100% convinced that any question would ultimately come back to the underlying truth that the gospel is true, the church is true.
Eric Reeves [00:20:59] And so that gave me a certain level of confidence in pursuing any question that I was curious about. And I never really had had a fundamental crisis of faith. There did come a point maybe a year beforehand in which it got pretty close, and there were a lot of things that didn't seem to add up.
Eric Reeves [00:21:27] And yet again, I said, you know what? I've never. It's always come back to the same thing. I had a very strong testimony of the Book of Mormon. I had a very strong and powerful experience with the Book of Mormon, with Moroni's Promise specifically.
Eric Reeves [00:21:44] So that, you know, that was all very familiar to me. And it was something that I talked about a lot. It was the basis of my testimony. It's what I always came back to. And, you know, so again that year, period prior, I sort of doubled down, as so many of us do. And, you know, I had a personal goal for most of my life. Life since I was. I shouldn't say most of my life, most of my adult life, of reading the Scriptures at least an hour a day.
Eric Reeves [00:22:16] I was, you know, I prided myself in being well versed in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants and so on. And so in that sense, it was completely out of nowhere for me as much as anyone else. But at the same time, fortunately for me, it wasn't.
Eric Reeves [00:22:37] It wasn't such a difficult thing, personally, when I underwent this large shift in fundamental beliefs. And for a lot of people, it obviously is. So it wasn't met with sadness, it wasn't met with depression, it wasn't met with fear until I started to realize the social implications of what had happened.
John Dehlin [00:23:03] Was it just. Was it church history, stuff like, you know, polygamy and all that?
Eric Reeves [00:23:06] It actually wasn't. It actually had very little to do with church history. And part of the reason was I had a very good church history teacher while I was at byu, Bruce Stewart, who teaches or taught at the Salt Lake Center. He's a great, great guy. He's a great historian. He's probably retired now, but he was extremely open, is more open than anyone else I've ever seen in the church who was active. He was very open with the historical problems in the church. He stated from day one that he cited statistics about people who leave the church and how by far the biggest reason is historical problems.
Eric Reeves [00:23:55] And so he had, you know, his mission as an educator was to, among other things, was to prepare students to deal with these historical problems. And so, you know, I know several people who attended that class as well. They didn't all end up where I did. So I don't cite that as an impetus for the change. Eventually, it certainly opened me up to the true nature of the church, that's for sure. But I think in a good way, I think that a lot of members, I wish all members could undergo something like that, even if they stay 100% active. Because again, it wasn't what got me out.
Eric Reeves [00:24:34] I was actually more or less bulletproof when it came to history. Because, you know, since this big change, this transformation in beliefs, there are other things I found out about church history that are certainly troubling. But again, at the time, I was more or less bulletproof. And then as it relates specifically to this issue, LGBT issues, you know, I canvassed in California for Prop 8. I did have.
Canvassing and Early LGBT Advocacy
John Dehlin [00:25:10] What does that mean? What does that mean to canvas?
Eric Reeves [00:25:12] Went door to door, knocking, asking people to how they were voting, encouraging them to vote in favor of Prop 8. As most of us are aware, that's where the church's involvement against gay rights became gained mass public awareness in the aftermath of that.
Eric Reeves [00:25:35] And I did have sort of nuanced reasons for why I didn't necessarily want to be doing that. But I unfortunately can't say that I was in favor of gay marriage at the time. I wasn't. And part of the reason this is a problem, I think, in the church is that I didn't know anyone who was openly gay. Literally not a single person. Here I am, young, 20s. I didn't know a single person who was openly gay. I obviously knew gay people. Looking back, not to suggest that I'm speaking of any individuals, but obviously in my life, as anybody must, I knew gay people, but they weren't open.
Eric Reeves [00:26:12] They couldn't be. And it wasn't until I came to New York City. I have several gay friends now. And you realize, wow, you know, these are great people. This is a part of their identity that is real, as real as anything else.
Eric Reeves [00:26:27] And those are things you can't. It's difficult to come to that realization when you are in the bubble of the church. And even though I was in California at the time, going back and forth from school, you know, if you're in the Mormon context, it's very easy to block out a lot of things that are going on, including legitimate intellectual progress on certain issues, including this one.
Eric Reeves [00:27:00] It just from afar, from the inside the church, it looks like it's chaotic, random moral relativity that has no rhyme or reason to it. But that's not the case. There's sound historical and intellectual progress that's occurred, but this schism has grown wider and wider. I was encouraged that the church was starting to actually acknowledge that homosexuality might be inherent to some extent. There's several. You know, there was an enzyme piece, I believe, by Elder Holland that was more or less acknowledging of that, if I'm not mistaken. And it was filled with language of love and, you know, a call to be more, to treat these people better.
Eric Reeves [00:27:48] Right. And, you know, Boyd K. Packer's talk where he suggested that God wouldn't create people with gay tendencies? You know, that was edited before it was printed to remove that mindset. So there were these promising signs, because that is what it comes down to in my mind, not just in the church, but that was the wider struggle in the nation was acknowledging. Because until you acknowledge that it is inherent to whatever extent, until you acknowledge that, it doesn't seem like a rights issue. And that's how it was for me, it was. No, this is an argument about lifestyle and what the best lifestyle is.
Eric Reeves [00:28:35] But that, of course isn't true. It's an argument about rights. It is. You know, and it's so. Again, that was encouraging. This policy, however, is seems so retrogressive. I mean, it's institutionalized. I don't know how to put it except that it's institutionalized bigotry. I mean, it is. It's extremely discriminatory. In fact, it's the most discriminatory policy the church could have implemented short of saying even if you're not acting on your tendencies, if you are gay, you're not welcome in the church. Yeah, it's the most discriminatory thing possible short of that.
John Dehlin [00:29:25] Now, let me just, let me just really quick. I want to jump into that. But I'm. I love stories and I'm just. There's a cliffhanger. Are you comfortable talking about. And you could even do it in a minute or two. Just what did lead to that transformation for you, if it wasn't history?
Eric Reeves [00:29:42] Sure. It was mostly philosophy. I started studying philosophy. And I know that sounds bad to any member of the church listening, but
John Dehlin [00:29:49] philosophy, philosophers of men, right?
Eric Reeves [00:29:52] I love philosophy. It was amazing. And so much of what we believe, or even what I believed as a member of the church, I realized, had come from our philosophical heritage in the West. And it was very strange to realize that you read enough of these books that are dedicated to philosophy and you start to realize, okay, that talk that that person gave was 80% Aristotelian ideas, and it was 20%, you know, 15% biblical ideas and 5% Book of Mormon or whatever, you know, and those are things that you don't pick up on typically, but. And it obviously doesn't just apply to the church, it applies to politics, it applies to anything else in our culture.
Eric Reeves [00:30:36] And it was more or less philosophical ideas that, like I said, had initially started me on a path of wondering if there wasn't more to this than just the church is true. Absolutely. And the only truth. But ultimately it was actually studying the Bible in Hebrew that did it for me. I had a couple classes. I took Hebrew for a couple semesters and then I took a class on the Torah. I took a class on the Tanakh more generally. And when I started to study the Scriptures in its original language, I mean, that was so mind opening and at first just amazing. From the standpoint of fortifying my testimony and enriching my testimony, you could verses that you were familiar with for your entire life suddenly took on new meaning in a good way.
Eric Reeves [00:31:32] And again, at this point, I'm thinking there's nothing I could possibly inquire about that would lead me away ultimately from the conclusion that the church is true, even if there seem to be detours along the way. And, of course, why would studying the Scriptures in its original language lead to any other conclusion? But that is, if I had to pinpoint any one thing, it would be that. And we could talk for hours about that, and maybe we will sometimes.
John Dehlin [00:32:02] So stuff like theodicy and the problem of evil, stuff like
Eric Reeves [00:32:08] broad questions like that, but more specific linguistic issues. Because, of course, the underlying premise of the church is that the original truth of God has been restored, and it's the same truth that was had in the time of Christ, and it was the same truth that was had prior to that. And so if there are issues that are ingrained that are exposed by the very language that the Scriptures were written in, and it's not that somebody changed it later, it's not that, because there are several ancient civilizations or cultures that had similar things written into the language itself that preclude the possibility of, you know, they didn't have the same worldview we have, and there's no way to get around it.
Eric Reeves [00:32:53] And it's. When I. When I came to that realization, you know, that was. It was like. It literally did come down to one night, by the way, where the million questions I had, which is usually described as. People talk about putting things on the shelf that you can't reconcile, and eventually it gets so heavy it buckles under its own weight and the shelf comes crashing down. It wasn't like that for me. It was more, you know, I had a million different questions that were on standby and required a million different answers in order to conclude the church was absolutely 100% true.
Eric Reeves [00:33:35] Or there was one answer that explained everything, and that's that the church wasn't 100% absolutely true. And so when it finally all clicked, it was as though the analogy I use, it was as though I had crossed a huge chasm. Like I had built a bridge. And all I knew was that I was asking different questions and I was looking for different answers. And suddenly I looked down and realized I was on the other side of this chasm, and it was just one small step off of that bridge.
Eric Reeves [00:34:07] And like I said, it wasn't until later that I realized what that chasm meant in my personal life, as far as my relationships with other people were concerned. And unfortunately, I chose silence rather than deal with the reality that I was on a different page.
Eric Reeves [00:34:27] But it was. It Came down to one night, and one moment it was. Chris, it was New Year's Eve. I was in the mission home. And what year, let's see, it would have been. It was either 2010 or 2009, I believe.
John Dehlin [00:34:48] Okay.
Eric Reeves [00:34:50] But I remember.
John Dehlin [00:34:51] So five or six years ago.
Eric Reeves [00:34:53] Yeah. And I was answering. There was a question. I was actually turning in something late for that semester in school. And one of the questions was, it was about Galileo and having been under house arrest by the Catholic Church. And it was some question that was effectively, you know, why, more or less, what does that scenario tell you about science and religion? And it wasn't such a loaded question as I can't remember what exactly the wording was, but it was like.
Eric Reeves [00:35:28] And that was something I'd considered a hundred times. But for some reason right then, I thought, you know what? For people in that context, in that time, they were in the true church, and it was 100% absolutely true.
Eric Reeves [00:35:44] And they were trying to grapple with new information, and they were trying to fit that into their framework and how they viewed the world, and it didn't fit. And I realized I was no exception, that my insistence that I had the truth was no different from theirs. And for whatever reason, who knows, There's a billion factors that go into this. But it just clicked in one moment.
John Dehlin [00:36:12] And for you, it wasn't some awful, terrible, sad, depressing thing. It was. What?
Eric Reeves [00:36:16] No, I said, oh, if anything, it was just a moment of relief, you know, but the next day I felt fine. It's like, oh, yeah, I went and hung out with my friends and family that were over celebrating New Year's and.
Eric Reeves [00:36:33] And. But just, you know, and I was. I was the same person. And that's another thing that's hard to. Hard to realize. When you're in the church and you're active and you've been active your whole life, is that inactive? People are not different. They haven't changed. Their views have changed, and maybe their lifestyle has changed because their views have changed, but they're the same person.
Eric Reeves [00:36:55] And one of the great things about the time that we're in, of course, is the Internet and how open communication is now. Whereas for decades it was so easy just to cut people off from the church, and that was it.
Eric Reeves [00:37:09] Rather than deal with any issues that people might have, any legitimate issues, just cut them off and move on. And that, of course, is what we're seeing now, but on such a huge scale, it is almost unbelievable. But now we can't be ignored.
Eric Reeves [00:37:28] We're all on the Same websites. We're all using the same social media. We're in close contact with our friends and family, even if you're halfway across the world. And that, of course, is a game changer, not just for the church, but for society as a whole.
Eric Reeves [00:37:47] And that's what is most encouraging for me now. And, you know, we talked about how my position places me in some sort of a unique circumstance, but really, it's, you know, it. It doesn't matter. The point is we all need to speak out. We are all in a unique position to change the way that things work.
John Dehlin [00:38:07] Sure.
Eric Reeves [00:38:07] And I think it'll happen.
John Dehlin [00:38:10] So. And this will tie into the LGBT theme after you realize you didn't believe anymore and. But then you thought about the familial and the social implications. Did you. Did you remain in the closet for a period of time? Was there. Was there. What was that like? Was there coming out for you? And what was that like? And especially what was that like with a mom as a member of the General Relief Study presidency? That's a lot of questions, but just take us through that if you can. Yeah.
Coming Out and Leaving the Church
Eric Reeves [00:38:45] It became harder and harder every day, and that reality became more and more clear. Like, the next time the missionaries wanted to go out. Right. The next time it was my turn to testify, the next time that I was asked to confirm somebody I'd helped to convert, I mean, it was so hard because I, you know, I consider myself an honest person, even, you know, obviously, even still.
Eric Reeves [00:39:10] But here, somebody who cares about me and cares about, you know, that we've forged a relationship with is asking me to confirm them and I'm supposed to bless them. And, you know, these kind of day to day scenarios as a member of the church are. All of a sudden, I felt like I wasn't being honest. Right. That's where the dual life comes in. And you would like to be able to continue to do all of those things, but you can't do them and be honest at the same.
Eric Reeves [00:39:42] So I actually told initially my father, I let him know pretty early on because I didn't feel comfortable not telling them. It was, you know, and again, to their credit, my parents have been great in general, just great. So much better than so many horror stories that you hear about people coming out to their families with their beliefs.
Eric Reeves [00:40:07] But believe it or not, I had transferred schools, and so I wasn't at BYU any longer. I actually went back to BYU for a spring semester because it was my quickest way that was actually going to BYU in Provo was placing me In a less pressurized situation when it came to the church and gave me just a little time to kind of reevaluate everything, because, again, all these people I loved. I loved going out with the missionaries. I loved teaching. I loved. I was very involved in that ward. And it was from one moment to the next, it all changed. And.
John Dehlin [00:40:48] Yeah, yeah, okay. So you had to take some time to process it. Eventually you came out. Both your parents were loving and supportive.
Eric Reeves [00:41:00] Yeah, of course, they, you know, again, as so many are all too familiar, enters this new phase where some people that I was open with responded negatively. I had a very good friend who I'd met on the mission, not my mission, but the mission there in California. I had a very good friend say to me that they thought my life would become so miserable, I'd have to come back to the church.
Eric Reeves [00:41:28] And it's so strange because after having been a lifelong member of the church, you can relate to their mindset. You know what they're saying, and you know why they're saying it. And yet the reality was, here I was, my early twenties, huge decisions in my life, now bigger than ever because of the transformation I just underwent. And somebody who I would have hoped to be one of my biggest points of support was telling me they hope my life becomes miserable so that I come back to the church. When you're trying to make educational decisions and career decisions and are just going through the difficult things in life that anybody goes through, whether you're a member or not, and you're getting that kind of response to people you're trying to open up to, you start to close off, and you become more reclusive, and speaking out becomes scary, you know, and even the people who responded relatively positively, it changes everything.
Eric Reeves [00:42:34] Even if you never talk about how it changes, you feel it, it's unspoken. Something that I pointed out once to my mother was, you know, after years had passed, two or three years, I said, you know, do you know why?
Eric Reeves [00:42:50] Do you know why? I don't believe the same things I once believed. And she had to think about it. She said, I guess I don't. And I'm not throwing my mother under the bus. I'm just trying to show that even those who are extremely loving and even those who you continue to have good relationships with, they don't really. It's very hard for members of the church to understand how difficult it is to be inactive, or rather how difficult it is to change, to have a change of beliefs in the middle of a Mormon life. It changes everything. And I think that the leaders don't understand that to the extent that I wish they did.
Eric Reeves [00:43:32] And so there are several things that people say. There are cultural mindsets that are extremely difficult to root out because, again, it went unquestioned for so long. It simply was more efficient to deal with dissenters in a certain way. That now is impossible, at least, certainly to the same extent.
John Dehlin [00:43:55] Yeah. So eventually you come out and you're sort of graduating from school and becoming a professional. So tell us, you know, and you've already said that this policy really upset you. But talk about. Let's jump into the policy and just talk about kind of how you heard about it, how it hit you, and what was it about it that led you to feel like you needed to talk about it openly?
Eric Reeves [00:44:28] Well, I've gone through varying degrees of participation or just, you know, lurking, as it's called on online forums, particularly on Reddit. And so I actually, you know, and I haven't been as active as times past, but I saw it wasn't until late in the night I should have been in bed already. And all of a sudden I see this, you know, the leak, which actually, I believe the policy.
Eric Reeves [00:44:57] It's dated November 3rd, and it's effective immediately. So it was actually one or two days later that somebody leaked it. And I didn't sleep. I didn't sleep. It was unbelievable. I mean, it's like nobody was expecting the church to permit gay marriage within the temples anytime soon, for example. Right. Nobody was expecting that, but I don't think anybody expected this level of discrimination. I mean, this is so extreme. As I said before, it's almost the most extreme thing the church could have done, and it is the most extreme thing they could have done as far as people acting on their sexuality. And so it was.
Eric Reeves [00:45:45] It was just unbelievable. I was reading up on it as much as I could. There wasn't a lot of information at that time. I eagerly watched the next day, Elder Christofferson's, you know, interview with the public relations manager of the church. And, you know, I don't know what I was expecting per se, but the explanations that were given are just, well, we should go into them. They deserve to be picked apart because those are the explanations that members of the church are latching onto. Those that are okay with the policy, they're taking them up hook, line and sinker. But there are some critical problems with them. And that's what, you know, I'm eager to get into.
John Dehlin [00:46:32] Let's do it. So how do you. You lead. And I'll ask questions as you go, but sure.
Analyzing the New Membership Policy
Eric Reeves [00:46:39] Well, something that I think provides good context for what the policy actually means is looking at how membership works in the church. If you read the handbook, it states, you know, we're all aware that doctrinally we become members of the church at baptism and confirmation, but for the purposes of statistics and reporting those statistics, the church actually counts anybody who's been blessed and named as what they call member of record, I believe is the term they use. So you, a membership record is created once you are named and blessed, even before you're baptized.
Eric Reeves [00:47:21] Once you're 8 years old, you're expected to be baptized. If you are and you're confirmed, then you're, you know, you continue to be a child of record or a member of record. And they, there's a, there's a one year window until you're nine and then between age nine and 18.
Eric Reeves [00:47:40] And I'm going into this because it's significant ultimately, but between age 9 and 18, if you're not baptized, you're no longer considered a member of record and yet you nonetheless have a membership record. The hamburger is into these little nuances. But the point is that what this new policy accomplishes is that you cannot be counted on the roles of the church in any way whatsoever if you have any connection whatsoever to, to a gay family, to a same sex cohabiting or married relationship.
Eric Reeves [00:48:18] And that's ultimately what this is about, I think, I mean that's clearly what it's about effectively is that the church is refusing to officially acknowledge in any way whatsoever this newly legally sanctioned family in America, which is a homosexual, a family with homosexual parents, same sex family, or the same gender cohabiting or married relationship as the handbook refers to it.
Eric Reeves [00:48:50] That's what this is about. They either don't want to count as member these children, or they just are. They don't want any overlap whatsoever between church membership and gay families. That's what this is ultimately about.
John Dehlin [00:49:07] And I, and I, I heard reference to an interview on Gina Colvin's the Thoughtful Faith podcast. She interviewed an attorney who does a lot with family law. And maybe, maybe you've thought about this, maybe you haven't, maybe you'll see it fitting or not. But his theory is that if, if children are, I don't know, either in full custody or joint custody in a divorce, and those children are receiving messages that sort of teach hate or bigotry towards one set of parents.
John Dehlin [00:49:51] What this person theorizes is that leaves possibly the church open for lawsuits because in Some way, if they're teaching their kids, if they're teaching these children to potentially hate their parents, that can get on the wrong side of the law and lead to really messy problems with how divorce and ownership and custody and split families go. And so if they're never members to begin with, if they're never baptized, if they're not even allowed to be children of record, then a claim can never be made that the church is meddling unsafely with children in a way that can affect the parent child relationship from a legal standpoint.
John Dehlin [00:50:40] So many people are saying, crazy. They don't even let the, the baby be blessed. Like, you know, that's. That's actually explicitly part of the problem because as soon as they let the baby be blessed, then there's a record, like you say, and then that can be used in a court of law to say that the church is teaching its own members, its own. The children to hate their parents in some way. Now, that was a big, long ramble. Tell me if you think that fits into some of your concerns.
Eric Reeves [00:51:10] You know, I had heard somebody suggest something similar to that. It was more or less that if a judge was making a decision on custody, they'd be less inclined. It's safer if there's this stringent separation. The reason why I don't think that would be the case is in my opinion, any judge who has their head on straight would look at this and say, wow, you shouldn't, you know, if anything, that will be extremely detrimental for this child, for them to be associating. It doesn't help. The church's case to exclude these children is ultimately what I'm getting at.
John Dehlin [00:51:42] Okay.
Eric Reeves [00:51:42] I don't know how that helps the Church's case, but it certainly, you know, to whatever extent it has legal implications, which is usually what this all comes down to when it comes to the church with almost anything. I don't know. I'm not sure.
Eric Reeves [00:52:00] I've gone back and forth over the last few days as I've analyzed the specific language and the policies and looked at what Elder Christofferson said. There's no doubt in my mind, though, that hiding behind the children is very disingenuous. And it's not. And that becomes blatantly obvious when you compare the policy to the Church's policy on polygamy, which of course was the next justification that was given for this, that the church has long had a restrictive policy regarding polygamous families that is analogous to this.
Eric Reeves [00:52:35] I don't know why the church would want to draw attention to this comparison. But since they did, it's worth looking at. And you know, this is a long response to your question, but things that I wanted to get into anyway.
Comparing Policies on Children of Polygamous Families
Eric Reeves [00:52:50] When you look at the church's policy on polygamous, on children from polygamous relationships is how they term it, they actually separate it between adults and minors. There's a section dedicated to adults from these relationships and minors from these relationships.
Eric Reeves [00:53:09] And the, the exceptions that are provided for adults are rather lenient. The exceptions for minors are understandably stricter. But there are exceptions for minors. That's if you look at their bullet point, you know, their numerical outline of what needs to happen in order for a minor to be baptized.
Eric Reeves [00:53:37] The condition is they can't live in that home anymore, they have to disavow the relationship and they can be baptized if that's the case, if they receive approval from the First Presidency. Now something that is interesting and of utmost importance is acknowledging that the policy on polygamy does not say that these children can't receive a name and a blessing. It doesn't say that the policy on these same gender families is that any child that's coming from these families explicitly cannot be named or blessed. The Church makes no note of that for children from polygamous families.
Eric Reeves [00:54:22] So in other words, they are okay with these children receiving membership records. They're not okay with children from same gender families or families with same gender parents receiving a membership record. What they've done essentially is taken the exceptions for minors from polygamous families, made them more strict and applied them to adults coming from same gender families.
Eric Reeves [00:54:50] And that's where the language surrounding children becomes disingenuous. For me, it would have been very simple to simply state there are no exceptions for minors when it comes to same gender relationships. Instead it says exceptions for children are as follows. And the last stipulation is that the child be of legal age. In other words, not a child.
John Dehlin [00:55:16] Right. So children have nothing to do with this. Right.
Eric Reeves [00:55:21] Except that they are banned outright. No child coming from a same sex relationship has any place in the church whatsoever. An adult. And this is where it gets, this is where it's unbelievable for an adult. I mean, we're all aware this part is what's getting the attention, right? Is that you have to be 18 and you have to disavow your parents relationship. And then with approval from the First Presidency, you can be baptized. You can never be blessed or named under any circumstance. You can never be baptized before you're 18 under any circumstance. But the real kicker Is that if either of your parents have at any point in time lived in either a cohabiting or married same sex relationship, you cannot be baptized.
Eric Reeves [00:56:12] You cannot be named and blessed until you can't be named and blessed at all. And you can't be baptized until you're 18. So according to the language right now in the approved policy that the church has verified, if your mother, for example, cohabited with another female for a year in college, right, you can't be baptized. Even if she disavowed her own relationship and has been living in a straight relationship ever since and is an active member in good standing, you can't be baptized before you're 18, according to the way the policy stands.
Eric Reeves [00:56:52] And so that's where, I mean, to me that's where it really gets crazy because to whatever extent the church might have been willing to compromise on any of the hypothetical situations that have already started to arise in reality, joint custody and everything else that could possibly happen, I mean, they took, as I said before, the most discriminatory policy they could have possibly done.
Eric Reeves [00:57:20] And it's in response to, and despite what has happened in wider society, the level of acceptance, there's plenty to get into there too. But anyway, some of that people are talking about, some of it I haven't seen written anywhere. But what this is really about is no member of a same sex family is acknowledged by the church in any way whatsoever.
John Dehlin [00:57:49] Yeah, yeah, they just want. I don't know how to interpret it as anything other than they just want them gone. They want gay people out of the church unless they're mixed orientation marriages or celibate, and they, they want their children out. And I have to think that in addition to whatever legal liabilities they may be concerned about, there's also an extent to which proximity leads to sympathy. So, you know, if you look at the early 60s and the civil rights movement, what was causing riots? It was, it was black students wanting to sit at a lunch counter in Nashville that caused riots. It was a black student, a black man, wanting to attend the University of Mississippi that caused riots.
John Dehlin [00:58:40] It was Rosa park wanting to sit in the front of the bus just with other white people. And I think when bigotry is involved, it's an otherizing of a group of people saying they're lesser than, they're bad, they're sinful, they're dark, inferior. Inferior. And, and you have to keep them at a distance. You probably know this from philosophy. You have to keep them at a distance to be able to otherize them. Because if you bring them close and sit next to them and look them in the eye and talk to them and learn their story, then all of a sudden you get emotionally connected with them, you feel sympathy for them, you understand their point of view. And just like you had said, you had grown up how many years never knowing a gay person really openly an outwardly gay person.
Eric Reeves [00:59:28] Right.
John Dehlin [00:59:29] And, and I think the church wants to keep it that way because if they don't. Absolutely, then we're having sympathy for their children. Then we're having, then we're seeing that their children are healthy and happy in a gay marriage or in a lesbian marriage, we're seeing that the gay couple's happy or the lesbian couple's happy or is at least as healthy and happy as the rest of us.
John Dehlin [00:59:51] And all of a sudden everyone's going to say, why the policy? Why the exclusion? Why the plan of salvation leaves these people out? Why can't they go to the temple? Why can't they have callings? And then all of a sudden everybody's going to question the plan of salvation and they're going to question the authority of the brethren. Are they really speaking for God? And so, and I heard this word on an interview in the Thoughtful Faith podcast, this becomes an existential threat to the church because it unravels the plan of salvation and prophetic authority. If we come to love these children and same sex parents too much, what do you think about that?
Eric Reeves [01:00:29] Right. But I totally agree. However, it's important to acknowledge that not necessarily would it have to pull the entire plan of salvation into question. There is so much room, there was so much room for compromise here, and that's gone. I mean, if they had just left the policy how it was, which was leaving it up to the discretion of local authorities to do with gay members what they thought fit, you know that I thought, that's pretty reasonable. You know, we can't expect the church to just comply 100% with the rest of the world. But why not leave it like that?
Eric Reeves [01:01:10] That way bishops in congregations that are more friendly and compassionate towards gay people could have, you know, there could have been a healthy environment for these people to coexist in the church. And there are several congregations, I'm sure, where this will be so much more difficult than if you're in bountiful Utah. Right. And so for the church to say everybody has to fall in line with this new policy, given the strictness of it, I mean, the extremeness of it is just appalling.
Eric Reeves [01:01:47] And again, one of the reasons I want to speak up is to help remove the excuse that the inevitable fallout, right, that people are trying to avoid. Bishops should do what they think is best here. I mean, it's.
Eric Reeves [01:02:07] This is. I mean, you drew the parallel, the obvious parallel to the civil rights movement, which, by the way, to add to your analysis of why people eventually opened up to better race relations. A big part of it was television.
Eric Reeves [01:02:22] A big part of it was the news, the broadcast. Seeing what was happening to these people, particularly in the south and people in the west and people in the North, I mean, it was unbelievable to see what was happening. Most people had no idea. If you're in the south, of course, you were seeing it firsthand, but people had no idea the kind of things that were happening. And to take the parallel further, specifically, as it regards the Church, we had more or less begun to disavow, at least tacitly, so many. We stopped talking about the racist doctrines as much as we used to. I mean, if you compare the rhetoric in the 1850s versus the 1950s, it's two different worlds, right?
Eric Reeves [01:03:07] But the policy was in place already. And after the Civil Rights act, which required places of public accommodation and schools and places of employment to desegregate and not discriminate, but it didn't require religious groups to do so. And so even after the Civil rights movement, even though the Church stopped with most of the racist doctrine and teachings, it wasn't until 1978, I mean, 14 years later, that they finally said, okay, essentially will desegregate the temple is what happened.
Historical Parallels to the Priesthood Ban
Eric Reeves [01:03:53] Black families were banned from participation in the temple. We focus on blacks in the priesthood is the term that we always use. We focus on the men not being able to receive the priesthood. That's misleading because to most people in the world, the priesthood means the, you know, the leadership hierarchy. And they don't understand that in the Mormon Church, every male is expected to hold the priesthood. So banning the men from the priesthood was something more significant than not letting them into some kind of seminary or some kind of institutional leadership organization.
Eric Reeves [01:04:30] But, yeah, basically what happened is that after the Civil Rights act, the Church still held on to their right, their religious right, as they saw it, and as many people saw it in the country at the time, to still discriminate within their organization.
Eric Reeves [01:04:45] So the parallel now is very accurate. But this is the difference. Instead of slowly disavowing those teachings in the case of homosexuality, the Church has addressed it more. They have spoken out against homosexuality more. As the country is changing in their views on the issue, the Church is becoming more and more entrenched. That was not the case with race relations.
John Dehlin [01:05:14] By adding same gender cohabitation or marriage to the list of apostasy that's required. You know, rape and incest and murder does not require disciplinary counsel.
Eric Reeves [01:05:27] Yeah, by the way.
John Dehlin [01:05:29] Sorry, but same sex marriage does. Yeah.
Eric Reeves [01:05:33] And on that point, by the way, real quick, the, the handbook distinguishes between cohabitation and marriage. They're forced to acknowledge marriage now because it's an actual federally sanctioned legal term. Right. But they don't do that with polygamy. They refer to all polygamous relationships as marriages even though they're not legally sanctioned. And so the language is more lenient toward polygamous families. The policy itself is more lenient toward polygamous families. And that's why anytime that anybody speaks up in person or online and tries to use polygamy and the church's policy on polygamy as precedence and as an analogy needs to be called out and the conversation should go there.
Eric Reeves [01:06:22] But it should be, why are gay families under so much more of an attack than polygamous families? Right. Not to mention, of course, that it's disingenuous to make the comparison by the church because the stance on polygamy was in response to social pressure to comply with the wider standards in society. This is the complete opposite. And so just like I was saying with we're moving away from. We had moved away from the racist rhetoric in general before lifting the ban here. It's increased in the case of homosexuality. And it comes at, the ban itself has come at a time when the rest of society has accepted the homosexual family.
Eric Reeves [01:07:11] In other words, it's akin to the church first implementing their ban on black families from the temple after and in response to the Civil Rights Act. I mean, think about how embarrassing the church's record on race relations already is. Could you imagine how much worse it would have been if they were the most active and staunch group fighting against civil rights instead of becoming silent on the issue and eventually lifting the ban? What if they were at the forefront and placing themselves at the forefront of the fight against civil rights and had banned black people from the temples after the federal government accepted non discrimination?
Eric Reeves [01:07:54] That's what we're dealing with now. It's on that level. It's of that nature. And when we look back at this time, it will look that bad. It looks that bad now to me. And you know, this is extremely significant historically. And what's the social impetus for it? There's no doctrinal or social Justification or motivation for it to be this stringent.
John Dehlin [01:08:21] It's not in the Book of Mormon. It's not in the Doctrine and Covenants. It's not in the Pearl of Great Price. You can't find anything Jesus said about it.
Eric Reeves [01:08:28] Yeah. And you had made a point when we were discussing earlier. This is the opposite of the church's stance on heterosexuality, where sexual sin becomes less and less as you move toward marriage. You know, nothing's supposed to be happening outside of a monogamous marriage in today's church, A monogamous heterosexual marriage. With this policy, that's the worst thing you could do is be married. If you're married to someone of the same gender, local authorities are obligated to subject you to a disciplinary council. If you're cohabiting, they should probably subject you to a disciplinary council. It's recommended by the handbook. If you're just hooking up with people, you're not even. You may not. I mean, that's still fornication, adultery, whatever else, but it's still viewed less seriously by the handbook than cohabitation, which is viewed less seriously as. Than.
John Dehlin [01:09:32] Yeah. So if a gay man is having indiscriminate, random, unsafe sex with anyone they can find at any day, time or night, their child can still be baptized, still be confirmed.
Eric Reeves [01:09:45] Yep. They can still receive a name and a blessing.
John Dehlin [01:09:47] And so they're rewarding. They're totally punishing the wrong type of behavior.
Eric Reeves [01:09:52] Yeah. They're condoning more reckless and irresponsible behavior.
John Dehlin [01:09:56] Yeah, absolutely. That's awful. It is. I also just have to bring up that the church's policy regarding polygamy is that it may be in the. It may be in the United States. They have. They have had some policies about the children of polygamous people, you know, receiving ordinances. But if you read the policy carefully, if you know, and this has been true for years, if a child or a minor wants to be baptized in a foreign country where polygamy is legal, the policy actually allows for that. So it's another. It's another area where we're trying to draw a parallel that doesn't exist in the United States.
Eric Reeves [01:10:44] And by the way, trying to draw that parallel makes the church look so much worse. I mean, the policy was bad enough. Now you're drawing attention to your stance
John Dehlin [01:10:51] on polygamy, which the church caused, by the way. It was.
Eric Reeves [01:10:54] Right.
John Dehlin [01:10:54] It was the brethren that got us into polygamy. But I just want to make that point that we're trying to say we're Treating kids in same gender marriages the same way we're treating kids in polygamous families. That's not true in, in the Middle east, wherever there are Muslim countries, if a, if a, if a child or a minor wants to get baptized and they're from a polygamous family, they're allowed to. Now, if polygamy is legal in that country.
Eric Reeves [01:11:23] That's amazing. Yeah. It's the most discriminatory policy the church has ever had, period. Look at blacks for over a century. It was a terrible thing. It's an awful thing. But it was not this strict. You look at polygamy even now in today's church, it is not this strict. It's the most discriminatory policy the church has ever had.
John Dehlin [01:11:47] Yeah. Because the children of rapists or murderers and pedophiles can all still receive names and blessings and still be baptized.
Eric Reeves [01:11:55] Yeah. What about protecting those children?
John Dehlin [01:11:58] And also the children don't have to condemn the lifestyle of their cohabiting heterosexual parents, of their, you know, murderous parents or whatever. None of that sort of condemning the lifestyle of the parent applies to any of those other sins.
Eric Reeves [01:12:18] Yeah. And all of this, John, comes back to, as I said, a very long response to your question about legality issues. I think the answer is this is much more about politics than anything else. That's the only way that this scheme of, you know, of getting married being the worst thing you could possibly do. It's because that is the most opposed thing you could do to the church's stance on this issue. And so it's not about the children, it's not about legal matters, which, I mean, it may be to some extent, but what it's really about, in my opinion, is the politics of it. The church, especially since 1993 when they kicked off their involvement in Hawaii in reaction to the Supreme Court of Hawaii saying that denying marriage licenses to same sex couples was an act of discrimination and that the state needed to legislate on the matter.
Eric Reeves [01:13:19] And the church made a big push and formulated their political method that they then applied in several other places, several other states. And so, at least on a state level, I don't know if there's an entity that's been as active as the church in fighting against gay rights. And.
Eric Reeves [01:13:40] And now that that battle is lost, the church announced earlier this year its Fairness for All initiative in which it's backing gay rights in areas of employment and housing, for example, in exchange for the right to discriminate within their own organization.
Eric Reeves [01:13:59] And they're very open about this. And Christofferson did eventually get there in his interview, but in my opinion, that's what it really is. And the reason is that just how, in the same way that the church was wanting and actually was spearheading the movement against gay rights in America on a state level, they are now attempting to spearhead the movement of religious rights in the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling in favor of recognizing same sex marriage as a fundamental right. And so again, the analogy with the civil rights era is poignant.
Eric Reeves [01:14:38] I'll repeat it. It's as though if in the aftermath of the Civil Rights act, the church said, okay, fine, you are forcing us and other people to accept blacks openly in our other institutions, while we have a religious right to discriminate against blacks in our religious institutions.
Eric Reeves [01:15:01] That's what they're doing with homosexual rights. And it's appalling, it's inexcusable. And that's why for me, it's gotten to a point where silence is tacit. It implicates you. If you are silent on this matter, you are condoning that level of bigotry, that level of discrimination. And so we have an obligation to speak out.
Eric Reeves [01:15:25] We're all aware that thousands of people are and have been resigning over this. And that's certainly anyone's prerogative that feels that that's the best course of action. I would actually like to see people who are at that point not resign.
Eric Reeves [01:15:39] You know, people can do whatever they want, but I think it would be much more effective to say, if I'm unconcerned about where this heads from my own personal membership, I'm going to stand up for these other people who are being denied membership in any form in the church. And I'm going to voice my opinion, even at the risk of jeopardizing my own membership status because they deserve it and otherwise we are implicated in that discrimination. And so rather than resign because you're embarrassed to be affiliated with the church, why not demand that things be done differently? Why not demand that things be done on your own terms?
Eric Reeves [01:16:25] And if they want to get rid of every last one of us, so be it. But why not turn it into that witch hunt? Because here's the other thing, John, to provide a little more context, stuff that several of us are aware of. But in the same year that the church started to get heavily involved politically in Hawaii, Elder Packer gave that talk where he identified the gay and lesbian movement, as he called it, feminist movement and intellectual, so called scholars and intellectuals as the, as virtually the biggest threats to the church. To church membership. He said threats to leading away the membership.
Eric Reeves [01:17:06] And he referred to them. He said that he's citing those three groups in particular because they have already made progress in invading the church. In other words, what we are witnessing now is the culmination of more than a two decade long campaign to eradicate these three groups from the Church in terms of feminism and intellectualism. The casualties have been isolated, they've been spread out, they've been seemingly random. You're one of those casualties, K. Kelly. Yeah, Kay Kelly. And the feminist group is one of those casualties. Well, all of us so called scholars and intellectuals need to step up to the plate and say, come after me.
Eric Reeves [01:17:50] Because now you have taken the gay and lesbian group, you've packaged them up and you've excised them from the church. That's what the Church is willing to do to get rid of these groups. I'm of that group of intellectuals that has certain positions on the church that I, up until now have been willing to keep to myself because my family was that important to me. I no longer am willing to stay silent.
Eric Reeves [01:18:17] And if I need to be boxed up and shipped out too, so be it. But I'm not going to walk away easy. I'm not going to resign, because that's what they want. If every gay person walked away from the Church right now, and if every person who supported them walked away from the church right now, their job's done.
Eric Reeves [01:18:35] Their job is done. But if bishops have to subject gay families to, to excommunicative discipline, then why not all of us? Because we've been on that list for a long time. We've just been silent. And again, I'm getting repetitive. But that's why silence is no longer an option for me. And I'm going to speak out on several issues. This is just the beginning, but this is the most pressing one because of this new policy. And, and like I said, it shows what the Church is capable of. It shows what they're willing to do.
Eric Reeves [01:19:13] But whether they're willing to go after every last individual, I guess we'll see. But we shouldn't go down easy. I'm sorry to go off on a rant, but no matter what happens, no matter how we all come out on the other side of this, the Church will never be the same.
Eric Reeves [01:19:32] Because it will either have to be more stringent than it ever has been, literally, which is quite a thought by itself. But it's either going to have to be more stringent than it ever has been, or it's going to have to open itself up to more dialogue, it's going to have to open itself up to more deliberation before anything like this could ever happen again.
Eric Reeves [01:19:55] And there's no better time than now. And so everybody who's opposed to this needs to step up. They need to say something. Many people already have. But I'm trying to reach out to other people, to everyone who has any degree of opposition to this, because again, they've taken it to the extreme. You may fall on any point between that extreme to absolute full acceptance. But if you are in any way opposed, you should be speaking out, because otherwise you are implicated in this. And that really is the situation we're in right now as members.
John Dehlin [01:20:37] So what some people. I have a friend. I have a friend that wrote a letter or an email to his bishop and just said, I understand that the brethren have taken this position, that this is now policy. And I'm telling you, I disagree with the brethren. And if that makes me an apostate, that I want you to do what you have to do, what you have to do, is that something that you're considering?
Eric Reeves [01:21:07] I don't think it has to be that direct. I mean, that's great. If he feels, you know, if that's how you want to make your. Take your stand and make your voice known, that's great. But for me, it's. Speak up on social media when somebody compares this to polygamy. Point out how much worse it is. When somebody says that this is about children, point out how that's misleading.
Challenging the Church's Justifications for the Policy
Eric Reeves [01:21:32] Take all the excuses that have been given for this and turn them on their head, because the truth is that they are not valid excuses. The only valid excuse was the fairness for all comment. Right? That's what's happening. The church is reserving the right to discriminate in almost the most heinous way that it can. That's what this is. And I think that they're just. They're taking this stance on behalf of, as they see it, the rest of the religious community. But again, the terrible thing about it is it's akin to having taken this stance with race relations, you know, and. Yeah, it's unbelievable.
John Dehlin [01:22:13] Okay.
Eric Reeves [01:22:15] And sorry, just the other thing. So comment on social media. The other thing is speak up in church if you don't want to leave the church per se. If you wish that you could stay, stay. But raise your hand, bear your testimony, be open and honest, because again, we're all in this together now.
Eric Reeves [01:22:36] It's either if you're homosexual, do not act on it in any way whatsoever. If you have opposing views to the church, do not express them in any way whatsoever. They started to open up that possibility. Right earlier this year, Christofferson said that you could comment on social media without jeopardizing your membership status. But then he brought that in at the end of the interview last week as well, and reminded everyone that it's okay to have varying opinions, but not to advocate for them. In other words, it's not okay to have varying opinions.
Eric Reeves [01:23:10] The implication is that you can't question the church on this policy. They didn't say that per se. And until they do, why not question it? Why not oppose it? And the other thing is, until they subject all of these families to disciplinary councils, they are still members of the church. So if you're gay and you wish that you could remain a member of the church, stay, face the fire, face the music. And if everybody does it, then that will have the greatest effect, in my opinion.
John Dehlin [01:23:42] So would you consider going to your local ward congregation and speaking up? Is that something that you would do?
Eric Reeves [01:23:52] I wouldn't be opposed to it. I didn't have plans of going back anytime soon is part of the issue. They certainly know where to find me. But that kind of response would be excellent. I mean, if everybody showed up to church this Sunday in support of all the homosexual members, that would be a great thing. I think we're going to see a response in a variety of ways than we already have. And again, the great thing is now with the Internet, the ability to organize and the ability to communicate is greater than ever before.
John Dehlin [01:24:29] Sure. Okay. Well, I love not only your courage and your willingness to. To speak out, even as difficult as family and social ties might make it for you. I love it. How thoughtful you've been about this policy and picking it apart and analyzing it. I love how you're making a call for people to speak and to come out and to talk. So I've really loved this interview. Is there any. Before we wrap up, is there any other thing, point you want to make or statement, or any other parting words you would want to leave with us?
Encouragement and Call to Speak Out
Eric Reeves [01:25:15] I think we've gotten to pretty much everything I wanted to say for now. One thing I would say just to everyone who's directly affected by this, all the gay members of the church. I'm sorry. It's a terrible thing that's happening, and the terribleness of it is only going to become more and more apparent over time, and that's why it's so important for people to speak up now. You know, my biggest, probably the biggest motivating factor, me speaking out, was thinking about all my nieces and nephews and knowing that statistically there will be plenty of homosexual family members in my family if there aren't already. And to think that they're going to grow up in what is now, as of last week, one of the most discriminatory institutions in the country when it comes to this issue is a terrible thought.
Eric Reeves [01:26:05] To grow up with their parents, the people that they love the most, their leaders in the church, telling them that they are morally inferior, inherently inferior. It's a terrible thought. That is my biggest motivating factor. And for anybody to be more concerned about their personal relationships over that, I think is not okay. And that's why we need to speak up.
John Dehlin [01:26:35] How do you, if you do resist? You know, some would kind of look at your mom's position and even your dad and say, well, they're loyal supporters of the church. They're even in higher levels of leadership for the church. They're part of this. How do you keep, or do you from sort of feeling like your parents are behind this and part of it, or do you not see it that way?
Eric Reeves [01:27:03] Well, step one is to voice my opinion, which I'm trying to do now. That's step one. And also. No, but it's a valid point. As I mentioned, my mother is a great, great person. And that's why this is a difficult issue, because we're not suggesting that the church is filled with terrible people. It's not. But the fact that even good people and the collective involvement of good people could result in something like this is a huge problem.
Eric Reeves [01:27:33] And the fact that anybody at the head of that organization would suggest that varying opinions, if they're advocated for, are subject to discipline, that is a very, very concerning thing. So I'm hoping that this will actually result in a very positive change in the church. And it may not. You know, I may just get on here and rant and have my own membership terminated or something like that. But if I'm the only one to go down because of it, so be it. I cannot live with myself anymore without speaking up. But I think that there will be a positive outcome to this. I think there's light at the end of the tunnel.
Eric Reeves [01:28:12] And that's something else for the gay members of the church to keep in mind. There is light at the end of the tunnel. And I think that everybody needs to recognize the actual historical relevance to our time right now.
Eric Reeves [01:28:28] Think about our parents generation. Think about the fact that they Were the silent members in the 60s and the 70s. They were the people afraid of what might happen if they stood up. But imagine if they had. Imagine if the church was one of the biggest rallying voices for civil rights in that time period. Imagine the pride that we could speak with about our Mormon heritage if that had been the case, instead of desperately scrambling for any sort of half explanation as to what happened.
Eric Reeves [01:29:00] Right. That's what we're dealing with now. Do we want to give to the next generation of members a prideful heritage and said we stood up when it mattered most? We may not have done what we should have for the last 20 years, but when our own organization began to discriminate to that level, we stood up.
Eric Reeves [01:29:27] That's the kind of heritage that we can give to the next generation, and we have to, or it'll never happen. That's what's at stake, and that's the opportunity that's in front of us. And I, for one, will not fall on the wrong side of this.
Eric Reeves [01:29:46] Anyway, John, thank you so much for taking me on and listening. And I really do hope that others will consider doing the same that might have similar connections in the church, because I have personal knowledge that they're out there.
Eric Reeves [01:30:01] It goes up to the top. And again, if they've got to come after each one of us, so be it. But it's no longer acceptable to be silent.
John Dehlin [01:30:15] Beautiful. Well, Eric Reeves, son of Melvin and Linda Reeves, good guy. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts and feelings and your passion on Mormon stories. We really appreciate it.
Eric Reeves [01:30:28] Thank you, John. And thanks for everything you do.
John Dehlin [01:30:30] Thanks, listeners. Please join us@mormonstories.org if you want to leave comments or questions. We'd love to see it there. Thanks to all those who support us financially. You make this possible, Eric. Take care and please stay in touch, will you?
Eric Reeves [01:30:45] Thank you. Will do.
John Dehlin [01:30:46] John, good luck with everything.
Eric Reeves [01:30:48] All right, take care.
John Dehlin [01:30:49] Take care. Bye.
Transcript © 2026 John P. Dehlin. All rights reserved. Brief quotations are welcome with attribution and a link to mormonstories.org; all other use requires written permission.
86 Responses
My questions:
1) The prohibition of children of polygamist relationships to be baptized only applies in areas where polygamy is against the law of the land. Yet the opposite is the case for same-sex marriage, why? Also, the church did not care about same-sex marriages outside the united states or before this SCOTUS ruling, why, what has changed?
2) Whatever the rationale is regarding same-sex couples, why does the the same rationale and rule not equally apply to opposite-sex couples “living in sin,” mixed-faith scenarios, scenarios where one or both parents have been excommunicated, or any other scenario involving opposite-sex parents that might be considered “apostate” or in any way less than the ideal?
All intelligent and fair questions I ask myself.
As I’m watching this, it’s painful to see how hesitant he is in the beginning. Incredibly careful with his words. And this makes me sad. How did we get here? Or were we always here and I just never noticed it?
Thanks John and Eric. This is one of the best Mormon Stories podcasts ever, and I have listened to them all … every single one of them.
Thank you for this episode. This was an excellent discussion. I look forward to what else Eric has to say.
Thank you Eric so much for this, for your kindness, compassion and courage. I was one who was fooled once by the church. I accepted the idea that people of African descent were cursed or less valiant in the pre-existence, and I promoted those ideas at the time even though they were troubling. Now they are called “folklore.” I will not be fooled again by the church, and will stay true to my conscience this time. Thank you again for what you are doing.
The best articulation and call to action by a Mormon so far. Eric’s courage is inspiring and will not fall on deaf ears. i had made the decision to speak up this morning and this podcast gives me even more hope and courage to do so. I agree so strongly with Eric regarding resignation. This is my church and I have a right and a responsibility to stand and fight. The prophet cannot lead us astray if we won’t allow it. We are always the hand of God made manifest in community.
Best podcast, certainly top 5. Alongside Tom Phillips in significance and timelines
I understand your comment about it being “my church”. As much as I am very definitively resigned, and believe it is a benevolent lie, that owing to the nature of those leading it, is a malevolent lie, I am still culturally Mormon. I have given it 42 of my 44 years. But even those with just one month membership are equally culturally Mormon. The experience, or scars, are very deep
As much as I want it to fall, and participate in helping that fall even, and rejoice that the world and members are seeing a repulsiveness we experienced and understand, there is no joy in what this is.
Yes it has been the gift that keeps on giving, but it betrays those who work for the good the gospel is meant to represent.
Absolutely none of us have won in this.
The LDS Community needs leaders to speak for the voiceless.
Thank you Eric. It IS worth it.
Thank you so much for this podcast.
I do want to comment on the discussion beginning at 1:00:20, where the comparison between the priesthood/temple ban and this new policy occurs.
The question is asked what the the doctrinal impetus behind the new policy could possibly be. To me it is obvious:
As long as there are man/wife or man/multiple wife families, the doctrine of eternal marriage and the pattern of God/wives; gods-in-training/wi(ves) holds up. With families headed by same-sex parents, this internal logic does not apply, and the theology of marriage and sealings falls flat.
The church is simply trying to hold on to its unique selling point: super VIP heaven for familes headed by a man and wife, on earth as it is in heaven. Until the church figures out how families headed by gay families work in heaven (until they make it up), this ban will stand.
I think you have diagnosed the underlying reasoning perfectly.
“The church is simply trying to hold on to its unique selling point: super VIP heaven for families headed by a man and wife, on earth as it is in heaven.”
“. . . super VIP heaven for families headed by a MAN and [accompanied by a] wife, on earth as it is in heaven. Until the church figures out how families headed by gay families work in heaven (until they make it up), this ban will stand.”
Indeed. This is why gay marriage won’t pass muster ever (there’s no hierarchy at all if they both have the priesthood) and there won’t be any priesthood ordination that is an equal one – it’ll always be something secondary and “auxiliary” (because there’s no male dominated hierarchy if the woman has equal priesthood authority.
It’s hard-core patriarchy.
OK, so not really an LOL, but…yes…LOL. Until Revelation and newly written books (discredited by authorities) can demonstrate why this is as ironically (and painfully) funny as it is…well, LOL.
Great podcast. After everything that’s been written up in the past week I didn’t think anyone could bring up new insights but Eric does.
I just want to add something about the argument made by James Ord regarding legal reasons why the church might have done this.
Everyone draws the conclusion that it’s about custody. That is not Ord’s argument. His argument is that if a child is a member, the Church could be sued because its teachings disparaging the gay parent and such has been proven to be physiologically damaging. It is on that basis the gay parent would sue the church–and I’m not sure what kind of ruling one would be looking for, maybe James Ord could weigh in on that. If the child is never a member and the non-gay parent takes the child to church, that parent could be sued, but it removes the church’s liability. Custody is a separate issue.
But yeah, great insights.
Great podcast. After everything that’s been written this week I didn’t think any new insights could be brought out but Eric brings out several not before covered points.
I just want to add something about the argument made by James Ord in the Thoughtful Faith interview regarding the legal aspect of this policy. Everyone seems to draw the conclusion that it’s about custody. That is not James’ argument. His argument is that if a child is baptized and exposed to teachings that disparage their gay parent, something that has been proven to be psychologically detrimental to a child, the church could be seen as liable and sued for parental interference. If the child is never a member but the non-gay parent takes them to church and exposes them to the same teaching, the church’s liability is removed, it uniquely on that parent.
Custody is a completely separate issue from that and Eric rightly points out that a fair judge might actually be biased in favor of the gay parent if the other parent takes the child to a church that teaches them discrimination.
But, yeah, great insights Eric. And thanks for the rallying call.
Finally! I have waited and waited for courage and hopefully This will break the dam. Thank you and may the Force be with us as we go forward. Thanks, John and Eric, you are JUST the son to be achingly proud of.
First off, I want to thank you guys for speaking so openly about this subject. John Dehlin, I cannot tell you how much your warmth, kindness, not to mention your prolific abilities in podcasting and disseminating honest information have touched my life. Thank you for being who you are. You have helped me so much. Thank you Eric for speaking so candidly and from your heart. I know 1 million Mormon Mom’s just as awesome as you describe your Mom, and that makes me happy that you all can be very close and see things very differently.
Secondly, I am an “inactive” member with a TBM husband and not one, but 2 gay children. I am a stay at home Mom as well. Maybe you can imagine the agony I have felt as I have longed to leave this Church, but have stayed on the fringes for the sake of my husband and children and to give our family cohesion. I no longer believe in the Church, but for me, in my life, there is never going to be a way to escape it fully.
I absolutely love the members and have been willing to subject myself to the constant reminders, spoken and unspoken, that I am not quite where I should be or doing what I should be doing, That somehow, some way, I need to make improvements to myself and that they will secretly try to help me do that. This inadvertent and well meaning insult to my dignity is a small price to pay for the well being of my family My husband is the most wonderful man that I know, some how, some way, through many candid and painful talks we miraculously have been able to find a middle way.
When the news first broke about this new policy, that felt like the nail in the coffin for me. ‘ I’m done! I’m done! I’m done!’ is all I could think. i have never officially resigned because I know how much that would hurt my husband. I also have not wanted to cause my children unnecessary pain. My husband supports whatever the brethren say, and I for the first time absolutely and unequivocally cannot. As I have been processing this new policy I have wondered if my marriage could survive this. How can I, in good conscience, allow my children to attend, even for a nano second ,a church that would instruct it’s leaders in this way? How could I be married to a man who could support this? How in the hell am I supposed to protect my gay mormon children from this? I have never been in a more impossible situation.
As I have searched my soul, some ideas opened up to my mind that gave me great comfort and hopefully might be able to help someone else.
What I realized was that I am their primary teacher, or first teacher I should say, the church is secondary. I teach them that being gay is more than okay, it is beautiful and that God made our DNA in such a way that every human being is a unique, exquisite expression of wonder that science is only beginning to scratch the surface of. What an incredible, incredible thing! What an amazing time to be a human and be able to understand ourselves in such a way.
No matter what I do, I cannot protect them from bigotry and ignorance. There is no way they are going to be able to escape that message entirely in this life, but I can plant a seed in their heart. In little ways, I can show them positive messages about gay families, I can introduce them to one. I can share spirituality and science, and psychology with them that reaffirm who they are. I can show them by my example and by my attitude, another way to think. This brought me a lot of comfort.
Another story that came to mind happened In Rhwanda. If you can remember, there was a terrible genocide in 1994. Members of the Hutu majority spent 100 days slaughtering between 500,000 and 1 million Tutsi minorities. When it was all over ( and the US did nothing to help, but that is another story) and people had to go back to their daily lives, these Tutsi had to find a way to live with the Hutu. Which blew my mind. Can you imagine having to figure out how to live next door to someone who murdered your family? But they did it. I don’t know if this will help anyone else, but this story reminded me that we cannot escape each other no matter how much agony we cause each other. We need to find ways to live with each other and I want to have compassion for active believing member who are baring the weight of this decision as well. That doesn’t mean be silent about injustice, but to me it does mean remember that no matter what, the person next to you is made up of the same thing you are,
Love to all my earthly brothers and sisters. Thanks again John and Eric. I appreciate you more than you know.
ERIC you have a beautiful soul; a Christ-like soul. Thank you for your comments!
I believe the reason the handbook targets same-sex families more than polygamous families, as Eric references in this episode, is because polygamy is still a major part of the LDS heaven. It’s a little harder to discriminate someone for living in a family situation that mirrors that of an LDS prophet regardless of how long ago the prophet lived on the earth. I’m not saying it’s impossible. I just think the history of polygamy vs. the history of homosexuality in the church makes polygamy more complicated for the leadership to root out.
I see these policy updates as the beginning of more strict and intolerant policies to come. I can understand and relate to those that see this as a turning point in their decisions regarding their church membership.
Thank you Eric for being honest and true to yourself. Your passion gives hope for those of us in the shadows of living a double-Mormon life, to stand up for our own truths. I think many are ready to leave fear and doubt behind and move into the light.
Just yesterday there was a thread on the Mormon Hub about getting up at testimony meeting and bearing witness to the awfulness of The Policy. I am now galvanized. Also, while I admire those who are resigning from the church I am galvanized in the notion that the only way I’m going is if they push me out.
My paranoid untrusting side keeps wondering aloud in my head if this fight against homosexuals isn’t a dual strategic objective by the church to either on the one hand root out LGBT’s in the church once and for all (as is being said), or to conversely cause such a pointed public outcry that it forces them to accept LGBT’s in the church, which they would eventually have to do anyway . Either of these outcomes seem desirable for the church in each respect. On the one hand to rid itself of difficult theological questions about homosexuals from within it’s ranks, or on the other to provide an excuse for itself why it had to embrace LGBT without having to provide a theological justification for it.
I just can’t help but thinking that the blatant position against innocent children can have no other purpose but to indirectly force an equal or greater inevitable reaction of change upon the church itself.
What if this is just wagging the tail? I get a suspicious feeling that this has nothing to do with Homosexuality, it has to do with the truth claims of the church. The church cannot fix it’s past, so it picks a hot topic like Homosexuality that it can use to polarize people and take attention away from it’s history. Ultimately there are alot of issues with the church. In order to make great changes within the church, there must be a great revolution. The church isn’t running away from this fight, their instigating it to remain relevant, it needs this revolution just as much as anyone else wants it. This change will begin with a leadership change in the church, perhaps including letting a few apostles go. When the current pres. passes on, the next guy in line will “take it to the Lord” and approve all sorts of things like ordain women, and gay marriage. The revelation has probably already been written. The conservative half of the church can still defend the church as having no choice because of the public outcry, or they can believe in the revelation.
Then when the church changes it’s positions, all the people who have had an issue with the church will come back to the church to defend it because “hallelujah the church changed!”. They’ll have no choice but to return if the church changes in their favor.
The church will protect the money at all costs, everything else, EVERYTHING, is on the table. If you don’t think the church is devious enough to orchestrate something like this, just look at the current position they say God is taking against children.
No offense, but Eric Reeves (like alot of people) is falling right into the trap. The church wants this outcry, it needs it, no different than a child seeks discipline with bad behavior. And the church needs to be controversial in doing so, because to just change would cause people to disbelieve, and we see where that has gotten the COC.
My prediction is this: The church will change leadership, it’s positions on female ordination and gay marriage, they’ll ask for the return of all affected and intellectual members, and it’ll be the biggest membership boon since the dawn of Mormonism. Institutions like the COC will just be sitting there scratching their heads saying “we’ve been doing this all along and can’t attract new members”. Even Miley Cyrus knows that to stay relevant you have to create controversy to incite awareness about yourself. Time will surely tell.
I think you just may be correct.
Robin,
Like yeah! Doesn’t it cause pause, to think that such a profoundly stupid policy could be put forth? In the end, it will galvanize the progressives, and it will push the mushy middle of church members to become thinking beings who need to take a stand?
The notion that these aging geezers think that they are whipping the millennials into a more disciplined and believing generation — NOT! They are a thinking generation with integrity, thanks to the world wide web. They all have gay friends in their circles. No Church is going to tell them that they can’t be accepting and inclusive. If 1000 years of peace are going to be ushered in, it will be with a generation who wants love, peace and acceptance. Not a generation who marginalizes, and refuses to cross aisle lines.
The church leaders have it wrong on this one. How would you like to be working for the church public relations department right now? How miserable. It would be like herding cats., trying to keep up with the policy and back tracking announcements of these men who are ‘leaders’. It causes pause to think that 15 of them would all agree to this. They are men who come from business, retail, finance and academia. I can’t help but believe there isn’t a schism going on internally over this. A few senior members of the council, driving the pubic policy and statements. Crazy!
Mike,
I also believe the church is probably creating this firestorm purposely, for like Eric pointed out, it is one of the hottest buttons they could have pushed right now and they have to know that.
I highly doubt they think they can just get rid of all the LGBT’s in the Church, or that the problem will just go away. I believe they know very well that soon most members will support SSM because they will have LGBT family or friends, which causes most people to finally accept it.
Support for LGBT’s is like a growing tital wave coming quickly into shore and if the Church want’s to keep the lights on, then I believe it knows it will have to fully accept SSM and LGBT’s sooner rather then later.
They probably even have the ‘revelation’ already prepared that says God has once again changed his doctrine, just in the nic of time. (like so many times in the past, just when society was demanding it).
This is a wonderful podcast and I am spreading it around! I left the church in my teens though I have not had my name officially withdrawn. My entire family eventually left the church and my dad and I in particular love these podcasts and are concerned with what is currently happening within the church. I just wanted to thank you John and you Eric for speaking about this issue. It breaks my heart that people can think that policies like this don’t have a big effect and that they’re not hurtful. I’ve even heard members insist this is a policy from God. I think it is a travesty that people are afraid to speak up and question church authorities. As you mentioned, the church is full of wonderful kind people and they are taking part in something heinous by being afraid to speak out. We absolutely cannot allow for this discrimination to carry on and it really touched my heart to see how you clearly care deeply for your fellow human beings, Eric. I hope to see more podcasts with you both and I will continue to raise my voice and try to inspire others to raise theirs.
-Marisa
At approximately the 1 hour mark, the podcast discussion deals with parallels between the Priesthood/Temple Ban and the new Gay Parentage ban. Mr. Reeves wonders why this new ban could cause members to question the plan of salvation.
To me it’s clear: the discriminatory policies held by the church in the past were based on how the leaders envisioned heaven, or how they wanted the membership to view their after-life blessings and earthly church/temple experiences. When blacks were said by past prophets to only be eligible as servants forever, the man/woman model wasn’t threatened even though that idea was still discriminatory. Earth life simply mirrored the afterlife.
Lifting the priesthood/temple ban just meant that now there would be black and mixed-race (black/white) couples in the Celestial Kingdom. As on earth, so in heaven.
Similarly, forbidding polygamy on earth where spouses exist contemporaneously while allowing multiple sealings just means happy polygamous couples will live in heaven. There’s precedent for that. Dallin Oaks and his two wives will be a polygamous group in the Celestial Kingdom.
Unfortunately, the church hasn’t been nimble or creative enough to come up with a scenario on earth or in heaven where gay couples can fit theologically. From notating the parents on a blessing form to adding them on temple cards, these clerical issues have correlating theological implications. The church doesn’t want to come up with new or expanded ideas for how families headed by gay couples have eternal increase in the afterlife, so they’d rather exclude them on earth and throw them under the bus.
There just hasn’t been a precedent for families headed
Eric Thank you for your thoughtful and tender heartfelt comments. It is apparent in watching the podcast how heavily the LGBT issue is weighing on you,. I appreciate that you spoke from a place of respect for your loved ones yet had the courage to speak your own truth and insights. Anyone who has lived within the “active” reality of the Church understands without explanation the backlash in questioning and or speaking a reasonable position that does not lockstep with the ever changing “doctrinal” spin. Have courage and stand in your own truth.
The Church has historically, instituted by Joseph Smith, applied a policy of duplicitous doctrine both within its membership as well as the public. What is curious is the FEAR and CONTROL that almost every guest acknowledges they experience if they chose to speak no matter how heinous the doctrine. It gives pause that such an environment fosters the pure love and teachings of Jesus Christ even with all the very fine and kind people.
A few thoughts:
1. To speak out will not change the Church. i am not suggesting not to do it but it will have little impact except on your own life and those you love who have Church affiliation. The Church will only change or modify its policies because of direct public pressure that threatens the Church politically or economically.
2. Most people in the 60’s were not as much silent but “tossed a bone” and entrenched in the repeated message that it just was not the time and not that the Blacks were in any way inferior. Yet still there were people who left the Church when the Blacks were given the Priesthood. So it goes both ways.
3. I think the leaders do understand how difficult it is to change; That is how people are controlled.
4. I appreciate your bringing attention to the fact that truth is not being spoken. This policy is NOT the same as the children of polygamous unions in the ordinances that a child can receive. Yet it is as bad.
Please do not overlook or forget the fact that when Polygamy was introduced into the Church as eternal doctrine it was shocking to members and society at large. It identified women as inherently inferior.. If you did not accept it or participate the result was eternal limitation, excommunication, economic devastation, character assassination and for some even death. The initial shock of this doctrine has just been integrated and softened over the years. Where the LGBT policy is right in front of us.
5. True to the Church double talk its fundamental doctrine is based on polygamy. LGBT people do not fit.
6. It is unrealistic to have Bishops handle LGBT individually. A Church wide policy is acceptable. It is just tragic that when given the opportunity such a discriminatory policy is the Church’s solution. For such bigotry I hope the Church will not longer teach of being the recipient of persecution.
7. I have not been active in the Church for many years so I am not going to stand up in a meeting. But I also offer apology to all LGBT people for this discriminatory and painful policy. Some church members may applaud and sanction it but I do not believe it speaks for the majority. How the majority handles it is yet to be seen. I think there is major damage control concurrently being directed at members. “Don’t doubt”, ” Follow the Brethren” and stay away from unauthorized Church sources, etc. There is a lot of fear and pressure for members to maneuver.
I understand the loss of belonging and being a part of your cultural and religious community but such policies are so un-Christlike how can they represent God’s truth?
Eric, You are so brave, your story and words moved me. These are hard times emotionally for all us. Sending you LOVE! Thank you John for all your work on Mormon Stories, love too you too.
Eric, thank you for your tremendous courage and your eloquence in expressing this as a human rights issue. The LDS church continues to fall on the wrong side of history. Is there any organized, public effort (via petition or other method) whereby people of conscience (I personally fall into the deadly categories of “intellectual” and “feminist”) can show support, in writing, for LGBT members, by requesting the church abolish the new policy?
This interview may be a pivotal moment in the next phase of action against the Church’s harsh LGBT policy. Eric’s conversation begins at a simmer and gradually rises in information and emotion until a tear boils over. It is a very courageous thing Eric Reeves is doing in sounding the alarm, and literally calling out the relatives of General Authorities who oppose this policy and urging them to stand up and be counted in opposition. I watch with interest, now, to see who will answer his call and step forward.
Do they have the courage?
November 13, 2015
Dear Bishop
Have you seen and read the changes to the LDS Handbook 1 released November 3, 2015 and effective immediately? This was in the NY Times, Washington Post and CNN news and international news.
I understand why same gender marriage is not allowed in our faith, theologically this cannot change, but why is this reaching children of same gender marriages – preventing infants from receiving a name and a blessing, preventing children from being baptized until 18, and may prevent them from serving missions? The child must disavow a parent they probably love. While the child can acknowledge our Church considers same gender relationships a sin, this will put the child in an uncomfortable and harmful situation made from the Church. How is this going to effect the psyche of these children, or members that have gay family members? How is this going to spill over to the regular attending members that want fairness and love for all? What about our 2nd Article of Faith?
The amendment change is retroactive up until 18 years and effects 18+ members that desire to serve a mission. What happens if a regular couple are married for many years and had children. One of the spouses has struggled with gay tendencies and realize they cannot change. The couple divorces. The straight spouse continues to remain active and raise the children in the church while the other spouse cohabitates with their gay partner, might marry which is now a legal right. The children of the active parent is now going to be effected if the handbook is followed exactly because they have a gay parent. What if the grandparents raise the children? There are other scenarios to consider… This amendment was put into effect to protect the children that have a gay same gender relationship parent as stated by Elder Christofferson. We as a Church are telling these kids we do not want you to be baptized as our other children. Instead of protecting a child, it can and probably will cause mental collateral damage.
How can I as a member be expected to support this amendment? You as a Bishop and our Stake President are required to follow this handbook amendments invoked by the 12 and First Presidency. Is this not singling out the child that is trying to find their way in the world and may seek protection and growth in our Church? Childhood is difficult already. Add on having a gay parent, now add the fact they are being denied the blessings of the Church!
What did Christ say in Matthew 19:14….”Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” Is our church not the kingdom of heaven? Do we not want to look into the children’s eyes with love? The most important question is what would Christ say to all of this?
A child born from a parent with other grievous sins can have all the blessings of the church, but children of a gay same gender marriage are excluded? What does this mean? Do we not state our Church is the only true Church? How can this be allowed to happen to children? What purpose is this really serving?
Taking shots at the innocent is drawing the line. I will not accept this policy, nor support the Church’s decision. Tithing settlement is near and I was expecting to settle to become a member of good standing acceptable of a temple recommend. I will argue and defend the equality of any child or person in or out of the Church.
Obviously, the doors are not open to everyone. This is open hunting and archaic discrimination. Worse than 1978 and prior for people of Black color. It cannot be compared to the amendment of polygamous born children. How sad this is. A disgusting discriminatory policy!
Sincerely,
Its not the only true church , following Jesus and his teachings from the Bible is sound and solid , following what Joseph Smith said and did is not and still is not , it never will be . The root of this LDS tree is corrupt and bad and has been about policy changes brought on by pressure , not prophecy . Totally man made from top to bottom from the start to the present day .
Elijah Abel , black being ordained to a Elder by Joseph Smith in 1836 in Kirkland Ohio, yet Joseph said we should send the blacks back to Africa and sell the land they live on .
Abraham Lincoln said about Brigham Young ” he is the old wet oak tree that i cant cut down , but have to go around him ” Young was for the slavery and bringing them to Utah but allowed Elder Abel be grandfathered in to serve 3 missions .
And having a long and strong anti black doctrine which was taught , until it was called theories to be disavowed , as is the young child who now will do the same when he reaches 18 .
Still sound like something Jesus would do ?
Thanks Eric and John. What an inspirational message, Eric. I too learned about the policy late last Thursday night and was up until 2 am writing my first public Facebook post about my views on the church and my objections to this hate-filled policy. Ive stayed quiet for a number of years for fear of hurting my sweet mom, but like you, I can no longer stay silent. Thank you for speaking out!
Please read what the 1st presidency said today regarding this issue. Apparently there have been many calls and concern. Reading the article it is not a retroactive to any child, but only those currently living in same gender relationships not having any priesthood blessings. It is only half as bad as thought. Yes there is discrimination to those children under age currently in these relationships. But at least it is only half as bad and I previously thought. I think the more members speak out again this discrimination the more clarity will be given.
Atticus….”but at least it is only half as bad that I previously thought”.
I quoted you and yes, it is NOT the same, but ‘half’ the poison being poured out of the bottle, is still poison.
Dear Brethren and Sisters:
The Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles provides the following guidance in applying provisions on same-gender marriage recently added to Handbook 1:
Revealed doctrine is clear that families are eternal in nature and purpose. We are obligated to act with that perspective for the welfare of both adults and children. The newly added Handbook provisions affirm that adults who choose to enter into a same-gender marriage or similar relationship commit sin that warrants a Church disciplinary council.
Our concern with respect to children is their current and future well-being and the harmony of their home environment. The provisions of Handbook 1, Section 16.13, that restrict priesthood ordinances for minors, apply only to those children whose primary residence is with a couple living in a same-gender marriage or similar relationship. As always, local leaders may request further guidance in particular instances when they have questions.
When a child living with such a same-gender couple has already been baptized and is actively participating in the Church, provisions of Section 16.13 do not require that his or her membership activities or priesthood privileges be curtailed or that further ordinances be withheld. Decisions about any future ordinances for such children should be made by local leaders with their prime consideration being the preparation and best interests of the child.
All children are to be treated with utmost respect and love. They are welcome to attend Church meetings and participate in Church activities. All children may receive priesthood blessings of healing and spiritual guidance.
In response to the recent policy change by the LDS Church, I have this to say:
God is not asking people to stop loving each other, as loving the Lord thy God with all your energies and loving others as you love yourself are the two great commandments and they will never change. God is simply asking people to stop engaging in behavior that He will never condone and that all beings are very sacred to Him, as everyone has a divine purpose. We are all children of God, but people tend to forget that and pursue paths that eventually turn them against the Lord, thereby causing them to lose the Spirit of God and desire to do be a child of God. When people stop desiring to be a child of God, they make shaky choices that sometimes involves attempts to destroy others for their belief in God and His teachings. This is a response to those who try to destroy what God holds sacred. We all have things that we hold sacred and would be very offended if anyone tried to mess with them. This is God’s way of saying, “Don’t mess with my sacred stuff.”
Lehonti felt it was safe to come down the hill a little at a time and give a little at a time, but it killed him in the end. We can have tolerance, but we shouldn’t allow the tolerance to inhibit the rights that we do have and should cherish. I can see this being put in place to prevent or perhaps respond to a plea that same-gender couples might have to be sealed in the temple to their families.
One isn’t forbidden from entering the temple if they can meet all the requirements for a temple recommend; it has nothing to do with anti-homosexuality, it’s about meeting the requirements to get a recommend so that the temple can be entered. There is nothing in the new entries about children having to stop loving their parents, as God would never stop anyone or ask anyone to stop loving their families for being different.
There are man-made laws to protect same-sex couples, so why can’t God provide ways for those who follow Him to have a little protection for the commandments and other sacred teachings? We are asked to be tolerant of others’ beliefs, so why can’t tolerance be both given and received? Let’s not curse God and give up over THIS, as how will that help us? God has His laws and they don’t include withholding love over petty differences even if beliefs aren’t the same. We can continue to love others whether they be loved ones or friends even if we don’t agree with their beliefs. This is to prevent parents of a same-gender relationship from trying to use the same argument over being allowed enter the temple if baptism is allowed. It is about protecting what is SACRED.
At eight years old, kids are not threats and are mostly innocent, but those in a same-gender relationship that are parenting said child may demand to be sealed in the temple to each other and to their child and ask why they cannot have that right if their child has a right to be baptized? Not all parents would react that way, but some could and would easily manipulate a child that age into trying to assist in making a same-gender sealing possible in the temple. I have read about parents in fundamentalist religions manipulating their kids into doing things that aren’t necessarily good, but they do it because they will be seen as bad if they don’t.
Christ would protect what is sacred and He gave us the Atonement so that we could help protect what is sacred after we sacred beings were protected by His love. It says nothing about having to stop loving others just because of their beliefs. People can love each other and not necessarily believe the same things. This is a ‘love the people, not necessarily what they do’ sort of thing. It’s possible to love people without condoning their actions.
I wonder if this has something to do with the push on re-legalizing polygamy that the whole ‘Sister Wives’ phenomena has been pulsating ALONG the whole fiasco with Kim Davis over the marriage licenses. Anyone who reads the news knows about Kim Davis and the fiasco there, but not so many know about the ‘Sister Wives’ fiasco. It’s like this: a daughter of Kody Brown, the star of TLC’s ‘Sister Wives’, tried to join the Mormon Church and refused to denounce polygamy and was swiftly refused membership for her refusal to denounce polygamy. The same daughter went on Twitter and bashed the Church for some sympathy points. This has nothing to do with anti-homosexuality; it is about protecting the rights that people have within their religion and the fact Kim Davis made such a fiasco over the license thing when she could have simply quit if she wanted to protect her religious beliefs. The Kim Davis fiasco and the push on re-legalizing polygamy are creating such negative opinions that those with different beliefs need to find ways to protect themselves through peaceful means.
I believe the Church receives revelation from God. God never asked anyone to stop loving each other, but to stop messing with practices that He does not condone.
It also mentioned that children of such marriages may be baptized when they are of age, able to live on their own or separate from the household where the same gender relationship is, and willing to make such a commitment on their own instead of having their decision made for them. It does not say that love has to stop being given, as God would never ask that. God never said we had to stop loving others over the different beliefs we have.
God did not ask us to stop loving others because they are gay or engage in other behaviors He does not agree with. God merely asked us to stop engaging in behaviors that will impede our ability to hear and heed spiritual counsel He has for us. Those who already have the ordinances and blessings will not lose them and be able to progress as they are while others are given the opportunity to preserve the unity in their family by having to wait until they are old enough to make decisions on their own. God is protecting the love that a family should have for one another, as families and the love that should be within them is very, very sacred to Him and Christ!
Dear Lord. This is a troll. Surely.
I could draw attention to the irony, hypocrisy and newspeak of most every line.
Suffice this speaks enough
>”…One isn’t forbidden from entering the temple if they can meet all the requirements for a temple recommend; it has nothing to do with anti-homosexuality, it’s about meeting the requirements to get a recommend so that the temple can be entered…..”
Unless they are a teenager caught in Mormon Jesus 16:13, right?
No but it’s very condescending, the kind of love gays are grudgingly shown. We love our pets dearly but in no way do we see them as equals. Such is the case of an LGBT person in the LDS church.
Nancy, you’re right. People’s pets are thought of better than some think of LGBT people. Gratefully, those folks are few —- I believe.
Thinking of a great comedy club joke-
A Mormon turns to a gay guy and says: “Almost thou persuades me to be a Christian!”
Funny how tables have turned.
The premise that the church receives revelation from God is absurd. This premise negates the entire comment.
So brave. Thank you for being willing to share your story. I hope it inspires others.
I just read on LDS.org that children of LGBT couples that have already been blessed or baptized or whatever can retain that status, but the restrictions apply to new cases. Please explain how that makes any sense. I think they realize how bad it would look if they started to excommunicate children.
None of this makes any sense at all. I’m a lifetime member and my twin sons are gay. I feel betrayed and don’t know if I can remain even an inactive member. My name on the membership records imply I endorse this policy. And I do not.
Robin, very poignantly said. Your thoughts really touched me. I can’t imagine the journey you’ve had with your sons. And it isn’t over. Follow your heart and do what it tells you. Family over institution is what always matters. Have courage.
As Eric Reeves says, “speak up!” If they usher you out, you can go out kicking for truth!
I was axed 10 years ago and have been very respectful of the institution’s rights. No more. The line has been crossed. Your sons do not deserve to be put on a list with felons, pedophiles, and other criminals — then posted in the town square for all neighbors to further marginalize their neighbor. Really?!?
Have courage, you’re a good mom. You have permission to go out kicking! XO
In all of this I have a couple questions? Does anyone truly believe God endorses intimate same sex relations? What other sins would a child be taught in their homes are acceptable to God? Did not Christ love the sinner while disavowing the sin?
Another question I’ve got tired of asking, mainly because I’ve asked it so many times and no one can answer it, is why can a child be baptized when a straight parent is co-habitating with someone and having pre marital sex. A serious offense in the church and a mixed message it sends to the kid from what they learn in the church and what they see at home. I mean after all we have to protect the children, am I right apologists?
Love is the answer to everything. All are welcomed to the children and it is not taught to turn anyone away who wants to embrace the gospel. I empathize for the LGBT community but I do not support the decision to baptize children knowing full well that they are not taught at home the standards the child agrees to keep at baptism. Children should be baptized when parents want to show their children by example how to live the gospel of Jesus Christ as set forth by the LDS church. Why baptize children when parents are cohabiting or in a same-gender marriage? That is not okay because it will confuse the child. The child will struggle between two worlds. The one she sees at home and the one in the church. That will be a difficult task for any child to decide what side to take. The child will have some adverse affect going to the church and hearing the standards of the church and then going home to parents who are not embracing those standards. Only children should be brought to the church when the parents believe and practice the religion. I didn’t allow my little sister to be baptized until she was of age because our mom was non LDS when I joined the church at almost 18. Wisdom was on my 8 yr old sister’s side because she herself decided against baptism after being taught by the missionaries. She was promptly baptized at 18 when she could live the standards of baptism and drive herself to church. She is still active to this day nearly a decade later. So many child baptisms in non lds homes do not survive in the church so we need to be careful about placing such a huge responsibility on the shoulders of children to carry by themselves. So yes I support the decision of not baptizing vulnerable children. Adults not kids should come to the church to request baptism if they want regardless of how their parents live.
After this policy change I can’t imagine why any LGBT person would even want their child to be a part of the church – and that is exactly what the church is banking on. They don’t wan’t this “element” in their “kingdom”. If God is really in charge of the LDS church, don’t you think He is big enough to walk along every single child through any difficulty? Unfortunately the Mormon god has a small mind and a small heart. That is the lesson all of these kids are going to learn from this and I fear they will throw the real and loving God – full of grace and mercy – out with this filthy bath water. These so called leaders of the church are going to have some serious stuff to answer for before that God!
“But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:6
Michael, Wilbur’s son, very well said. I couldn’t have said it better. I’ve pondered the assumption that a gay or lesbian couple would want to worship with the “saints” after this is mind boggling — in the one and only true church of Christ. Nutzo!
A true story:
Twenty years ago, I had been invited to dinner with others, at a gay friend’s house. He had adopted a baby girl who was now two years old. She sat at the table with us and we did the usual fawning over how cute she was, as she threw her food everywhere. Dad announced that it was bedtime. He got up, took the sweet little girl in for a bath and bedtime.
A few minutes later, I quietly got up from the table and went upstairs to the bedrooms. As I walked pas the little girl’s room, I looked in to see a young dad kneeling beside his sweet little daughter teaching her how to pray, the same way he had been taught. It was sweet and overwhelming to see the sincerity of this young dad. A gay guy. I was touched deeply.
For those who think that being straight gives them a supreme space in God’s universe for being good parents, think again. I’ve seen so many beautiful examples of LGBT parents who have planned for and anticipated the new, wondrous life of a child communing into their home. As I’ve witnessed, these homes have love, discipline, normalcy and all of the normal things that people who worship The Declaration of The Family have in their homes. The exact same things.
For those who don’t understand, I would urge you to try to get to know some gay or lesbian folks who are parenting. Your heart will change.
Michael, well said my friend.
Eric, if I hadn’t already resigned, your impassioned plea for people to speak up would have pushed me to do so. I resigned before the church was ready to come clean with its history.
Sadly, I was of the generation that joined the church while the ban on priesthood and ‘believed’ it came from god. Let’s face it the ban had much further reaching implications than ‘just’ black men not being ordained (women and children – second class members as with the new policies).
I spoke out when you were going door to door in California regarding prop 8 and I have not stopped speaking out since on various issues, such as the one year ‘penalty’ for those who marry civilly and not inside the temple. My friend Michelle and I had a petition for the church to make changes to that policy and she went door to door in Canada even. John did a podcast on that issue and I SPOKE OUT.
We must speak out against these injustices or we stand in danger of being complicit. Thank you Eric. I hope the fallout for you is less than it was for me.
I Applaud the courage. Articulate, intelligent, integrity. The Church has lost the best and brightest. Is it Amy surprise it has regressed into such insensitivity and bigotry
Well done Eric. May others also say enough! And stand against marginalisation, humiliation and bigotry
(False) doctrine aside, active, New order, cafeteria, big tent, exmo, TBM…This is not who we are.
Thanks to you both for a great discussion and exposition of the actual significance of this situation. John, I don’t think you could have found a more articulate, thoughtful voice than Eric’s to explain what’s at stake here.
The point that had the most impact for me was Eric’s exhortation to sympathetic members not to remain silent and, most importantly, not to leave silently either. My suggestion has always been to simply ignore the Brethren and their toxic policies and practices; turn around, walk away and get a life. But I think Eric is absolutely right in that the most effective protest, maybe the only effective protest, that can be made is to force the authorities to hold a disciplinary council on every last “violator” of the policy AND every last sympathizer. I couldn’t agree more that what the Church wants is for people to shut up or resign—for all of the “undesirables” to simply leave. Now I hope that people who were going to leave anyway stick around and force the leadership to deal with them. That’s a much better idea.
“turn around, walk away and get a life.”
Here’s betting you will NOT.
I was a founding member of the Mormon Women’s Forum in 1993 (?), and, every 4-9 months or so, I check in just out of curiousity about WFT is going on about stuff.
I’ll be happy to bet $$ that you will NOT “walk away and get a life” about this issue (and will patiently wait for the electrons to show such).
Already did. Decades ago. This has been my advice to others. It’s simply my opinion. I’m aware of how hard this must be for people because so few do it. And there’s that old adage, “You can leave the church, but you can’t leave it alone,” which makes me wonder if anyone ever really leaves. I’ll be the first to admit that I’m addicted to EXMO podcasts.
So many good adjectives could be mentioned about this podcast. What comes to mind though is loving. That we should all care so much about each other in tearing down the walls of discrimination and the heartbreak of our brothers and sisters on this planet. There is no religious reason for such condemnation. People, we are in essence all the same. Let the children be the same,
I am of the generation right after 1978. I wish that I had used my voice way before then. I would love to join the choir of voices now and hope that there will be a song of change.
Thank you John and Eric
John and Eric, I appreciate this heartfelt and thought provoking podcast. Eric, thanks for this call to action. I am a gay, former Mormon, dad of 5, grandad of 10, former bishop, widowed.
I keep asking myself, “why do I care? I’m gay but not a member of the church anymore?” I guess it is because I never lost my faith in the basic principles of Christ’s gospel. I trusted that the organization that claims to be the dispensary of that gospel and love, somehow broke a trust with so many. We could banter on and on about how wrong this policy is on so many scriptural, rational and humane levels. The Mormon Mental Health Association is beside themselves about the damage that has been done, and will be done to human souls over this. I’ve been deeply touched at the outpouring of love and reaching across the divide, by good hearted people on both sides. It has been remarkable. Many people really get it, that the first two commandments are all that matter.
I was one of the little foot soldier missionaries during the 70’s in Brazil. We had to carry a sheet of paper in our back pocket, which had 21 points about how you can tell if someone had the blood of Cain. It was a dark time in church history. As I sat in a rickety wood and tin shack in a slum there, God spoke to me. I was sitting on the only piece of furniture, (a filthy wooden fruit crate) owned by an impoverished single mother of 6 children. Her warped floorboards rested in muck. The smell of sewage invaded the air. She was a humble, toothless, squatter in hellish conditions; trying to raise a family. At age 38, she looked weathered and old. Yet, she was cheerful. As I sat there, a voice from God came to me clearly, saying “this policy is NOT of God. God would not hold this woman responsible for the sins of an ancient ancestor.” In 1978 when this policy was lifted without so much as an apology to so many who had been hurt and wronged; ( families divided and denied) I went into a storage room at our office and knelt in prayer, crying and thanking God. It was because I literally saw faces of people who had been wronged, but who now were free; that I cried. Souls with faces. This period of life deeply affected me. I continually try to get over it. I’m embarrassed by it. I’m resentful that I was expected to be a foot soldier for it. But new and similar episodes that marginalize a new group, pop up. It’s like a pet scab that the church is addicted to picking!
I contrast this with a simple scene near the sea of Galilee. Pastoral care was unconditionally offered by The Shepherd there. Seeing others as having faces and souls — and feelings, faith, hopes for happiness and and love, informs our behavior. We must shine light in spite of pain and wrongs. Thanks for your kind work in helping us to listen to our inner voice and in walking with peace and love, yet not tolerating discrimination. Bless you.
One of my favorite podcasts ever. I found myself tearing up along with Eric towards the end. So powerful. Thanks so much Eric for your immense courage in making your voice heard. I hope your act of courage will prompt other members to step forward.
This week I came across Seth Anderson’s post from 2013 at Rational Faiths setting forth the timeline on Mormon thinking about homosexuality. Post can be found here:
https://rationalfaiths.com/timeline-of-mormon-thinking-about-homosexuality/
I think it’s so important that people both in and out of the Church understand the ideological pedigree of this current policy. It will help to show how misguided and abhorrent these policies are. I think once people understand just how pernicious the Church’s teachings and behavior towards homosexuals has been, then it will be harder for those both in and out of the Church to give them a pass on this damaging new policy. Here are a few snippets copied from Seth Anderson’s excellent post:
1. April General Conference, 1879– Apostle George Q. Cannon says that monogamy is “a false tradition” that leads to the crime against nature. He argued that allowing men to have multiple wives would decrease temptation to engage in sexual acts with other men.
2. 13 November 1965– Ernest L. Wilkinson, President of BYU says in a talk that BYU did not intend to admit any homosexuals to campus. He continued, “if any of you have this tendency and have not completely abandoned it, may I suggest that you leave the university immediately after this assembly…we do not want others on this campus to be contaminated by your presence.”
3. 1965– 5 BYU students commit suicide. All had been interviewed “by the counselor to homosexual problems at that time Spencer W. Kimball…”
4. October General Conference 1976– Apostle Boyd K. Packer gives his now infamous talk entitled “To Young Men Only.” He said some young men are “tempted to handle one another, to have contact with one another in unusual ways.” He commented that “such practices are perversion….Physical mischief with another man is forbidden.” Packer also essentially advocated anti-gay violence in his speech when he recounted the story of a male missionary who had “hit” and “floored” his mission companion, apparently for simply revealing his sexual orientation. Because Packer does not specify the reason for the violent response, the talk leaves interpretation open. Packer told the missionary, “Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it and it wouldn’t be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way.” Packer told his audience, “I am not recommending that course [of violence] to you but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself.” The talk was published and is distributed today.
(Again, all credit for pulling these quotes together goes to Seth Anderson. His post is well worth checking out and includes citations to sources.)
Incredible podcast. In 8 years since my shift in beliefs, this is the first time I have felt it might be time to speak up. I have a lot of thinking to do…
THANK YOU, Eric, for your brave, enlightening, powerful story!
Thank you for sharing this powerful and touching conversation. I am the daughter of a gay man and was raised in the church by my very faithful and loving mother. I have always felt my “otherness” at Church even though very few people knew the real story behind my parent’s divorce. Since Prop 8, I have felt that difference grow and now it seems to be a vast chasm. I still live the principles of the gospel – but have not attended church for nearly 2 years. I don’t feel that I have left the church – I fell that it has left me. I believe that we are all sons and daughters of God and that he does not make mistakes in our creation. As a group we make mistakes in accepting and loving others. My heart is broken.
Oh heather!
Jesus says that anyone who speaks in the name of the lord and proclaims truth and that truth even once does not come to pass, then they are a false prophet. Joseph smith fits that category. Don’t speak about gods proclamations and keeping his word sacred when the church has skipped over the very first that started it all.
Mormons aren’t familiar with the bible as much as they should. Jesus says to not just trust everything but to study it against his word. If more Mormons read the bible you would know that is all you need. God would never give us something that could be proven wrong time and time again historically or scientifically. There is nothing that says homosexuals is wrong only that God was basically telling people to stop sleeping with one another in their many ways. No matter what sexual prefrance you are. Sleeping with everyone anytime is what’s wrong not the act itself.
Go gay Mormons! And I do think Mike is right.
John, I’ve been a recipient of your work over the past 3 years. I have been in awe of your drive and desire to help Mormons-at-large, and the LGBT community. You have demonstrated courage in the face of opposition. You have with balance, tried to shine light on so many important issues; bringing the viewpoints of many to light. Your sacrifices are noted by so many of us that are found tossed to the fringes of the mainstream church to which we once belonged. So many of your podcasts have given me a spiritual uplift, courage and calm; to face daily life with dignity. They have helped me understand that I too have a place at the table of society and in God’s Kingdom. You’ve helped me learn that no ‘saint’ can deny me that. Continued thanks and deep gratitude I offer to you.
Eric, I was very moved by your sincerity, intellect and courage to speak out at this time. You are a wonderful example of a younger generation. You helped me walk with a lighter heart yesterday. lI applaud your desire for knowledge. You are well versed in historical knowledge and historical perspective. I appreciate the view that you put forth on how above all, the love that we exemplify to one another is tantamount. As a gay man, I am moved by someone has the courage to stand up for a fellow traveller who is marginalized on the road of life. I have been deeply touched by your words. I appreciate more than you can know, your call to action by other thinking Mormons, to stand up and speak out. Your goodness shined in this podcast as you respectfully discussed your love for family and humanity. You remind us that what is good for the one, is good for all. The bridge that you build toward equality and love, is a bridge that you may one day need. ( sound familiar?) I’m deeply grateful for your demonstration of decency and pure brotherly love.
Last night, I attended a private gathering of ‘saints’ in Logan, Utah to hear Terryl and Fiona Givens talk about the God Who Weeps, their wonderful tome on a loving and personal God. I had driven some 240 miles to attend. The gathering was held in a neutral space (an airplane hangar) that was generously donated by two individuals who cared that all would be welcome. The discussion about a God who is personal, caring, feeling, and who weeps with us personally and finds joy in our joys, was very moving and healing at this time of of bewilderment within the LDS church. There was a beautiful fellowship at this gathering, with much acceptance, love and inclusion. I was reminded of how odd it was that this gathering of ‘saints’ and interlopers could not be held in an LDS chapel. These were good hearted people who were simply in need of some mutual real time contact and discussion. They were wanting to be fed in more ways that the god of Facebook could give them. It was a beautiful thing. I went away feeling loved and included.
I question why at this time are leaders who should be offering pastoral care to the fold, be the cause of so much rancor and bewilderment??? This among their own flock. I question why they would set forth a policy that binds the hands of local clergy who know the needs of their flock so well? It flies in the face of reason.
As a gay man, I note that while I was asked to leave the Church some 12 years ago. I never gave up on my core beliefs and faith in the basic gospel of Christ. It has been so odd to me that some church members feel that LGBT people can have no spiritual thoughts, feelings, or inclinations. Some believe gays would rather be on a barstool, than on a church pew. We find ourselves at a pivotal time in history, now that the laws of our land ( in the U.S.) allow equal protections and opportunity for the same privileges and a path toward happiness and personal fulfillment. So many gay people simply want the same things in life that others do. We actually have very boring lives, like the rest of you all. We have homes, we have family, we doing normal things like house chores, vocational work, and community service hours. We help children, elderly and the poor. We’re not so different as some would imagine. Evil is not a part of the core of most gay folks I know or meet, anymore than evil that can also be found in some corners of the straight world.
I have spent the last week, since the leak of this pernicious church policy on the treatment of LGBT individuals, deep in thought. I did not initially react with anger, just bewilderment and disbelief, at a time when I thought a beautiful and peaceful co-existence was settling in with our neighbors. I found myself in sporadic moments of tears throughout the week —- not for gay people so much, as for the many straight LDS friends and neighbors who kept reaching out saying, ” I am so sorry for this. This is not what we are about. We love you!” I wept for so many who felt their institution of faith had knocked the legs out from underneath the table where they thought all were welcome — God’s table.
I wept thinking about new lives that would be taken over this. Both the young and older, who had lost their last shred of hope for understanding and acceptance of something that they simply don’t understand within their own being. After fighting the inner voices and demons of being inherently different; just wanting to feel like they could be part of a normal existence, like anyone else. Then to be pounded on yet again by a Faith that we theoretically believed was a dispensary of God’s true church and love; was shocking. To see the really good hearted, thinking, decent Mormons like you Eric, come out of the woodwork and rally over this thing has been remarkable.
I believe that this is a pivotal moment in LDS history, where the soft mushy middle will need to get off dead-center and realize that living the tenants of the Faith that you profess, requires a commitment to rubbing shoulders with and caring for the ‘lepers’ around you. The progressive Mormons already get it. They understand that creating classes of people who are marginalized speaks volumes about those who marginalize. This coming from a Faith that was marginalized in the 1800’s for being peculiar. A Faith that so desperately wanted and needed acceptance of society and of a loving God.
I wept at the notion of the ‘sifting’ of the saints to become a super class of holy individuals — really? It sounds like a precarious position to live in. Instead of a light on a hill, it sounds more like being a sepulcher full of dead men’s bones. Most Mormon neighbors of mine are kind hearted, average, workaday people who are trying to move through life, trying to avoid being peculiar, weird or exclusionary. Most are looking for meaning in life, like everyone else. I appreciate them.
You hit the nail on the head, that this policy is a flagrant legitimization of bigotry and prejudice — outright and open. It is such an appalling statement of what is in the hearts of a few. My hope is that it will start a dialogue among average Mormons about what they are NOT! And what they will not tolerate. Thank you for being a leaven in the bread, towards this end.
Thank you for setting this example of speaking up.
Thanks Eric for having the courage to speak up and call other members to do so. I hope many members will also follow your lead and choose not to go quietly but rather make church authorities stand up and drive you out if that’s what is truly in their hearts, and stomachs, to do. Those who continue to sit quietly in the pews hiding behind the often used, but ultimately dishonest premise, that even though they don’t understand everything ‘all will be made known in the end’ are implicit supporters of this misguided bigotry and carry every bit as much guilt and shame as any of the GAs. If ever there was a time for Mormons to stand up and “choose the right” now would certainly be it. Thanks again for speaking up buddy; you have already made a difference.
Dear “Moved To Action”,
If you are who I think it is (and I am sure you are, based on the introduction in your comments) I just want to express my love and appreciation for you and the impact you had on me as a youth. You were my Young Men’s President in the late 70’s and of all the
leaders I had in the church, it was under your leadership that I not only have the fondest memories, but the most Christ honoring. I find that to be very ironic in light of all of this. I left the church about 10 years ago precisely because I came to the conclusion – after much prayer, suffering and searching – that the church was not dispensing the true gospel of Christ. That does not change the fact, however, that I have very fond memories of my years in the church (especially my early years) with great leaders and people such as yourself. I am sorry for the pain this has caused and will cause so many precious souls. This policy is anything but Christ honoring! BTW – Our family moved to the Northwest in August of 2014 and are all happy and healthy.
Blessings and Peace to you!
Eric comes across as a very decent man who is passionate about what is right. Clearly this “policy” is wrong. Wrong for children. Wrong for LGBT parents. Wrong for LDS Members. The MOST disturbing fact about this policy is the attempt to hide it from members of the church. Without John and others exposing the change only leaders would know about it.
Eric’s plea to speak up needs to be embraced by people like Steve and Barb Young. A Huntsman. A Romney. ANYONE who can help members affect change in current leadership. Put doctrine and history aside, current leaders are making the same mistakes leaders were making in the 50’s 60’s and 70’s regarding race.
Eric and John,
Thank you so much for this wonderful podcast and for your genuine thoughts and opinions. To be honest, I have avoided looking into this issue all together mainly because it has just caused a lot of fear and confusion in my mind. I think people who feel uneasy about this (which I believe includes a LOT of TMBs) need to acknowledge there is a legitimate a reason for those feelings. It’s funny because the brethren are always saying when we receive uneasy feelings, that it is the Spirit trying to tell us a situation might not be safe or of God. However, if we are receiving those feelings as a result from what they are preaching, it is thoughts from the adversary trying to lead us away from the truth. We’ll how the HELL are we supposed to tell the difference? Being a Mormon essentially taught me to not trust in my own heart and mind and I am sick of it. This podcast is helping me to work up the courage to not only stand up for others but also myself. Regardless of whether we are gay or straight, this issue is about all of us!
I benefited greatly for having listened to this podcast. I have many doubts about the church, but I also have received many blessings and privileges because of having been baptized LDS. I am learning. That’s the important thing for me. Thanks so much John and Eric.
Thank you so much for your voices.
Although I don’t agree with him, I spoke with my TBM dad tonight about this, and he said that the crux is that same sex marriage is a threat to the family as is defined by the church. Families where parents are not married, or commit any other “sin”, there is still the potential for a “family” with a husband and wife. With same sex parents there is not. That is the why behind it, he said. Also he added that we cannot see the whole picture and therefore need a prophet to deliver God’s will and word.
Carlene,
I’m afraid your dad is going to be waiting a long time for a door-to-door personalized revelation to reach him. The current ‘mouthpiece for God’ is mostly homebound now with dementia. It probably won’t happen anytime soon.
Carlene,
Actually, unless the Church also doesn’t allow children of divorced & remarried couples or polygamists to be baptized too, then it is being totally unfair, for remarried couples can’t be an eternal ‘family’ either according to God. For Christ condemned all divorce and polygamy as adultery. So that proves the Church is just picking on gays and their excuses don’t make sense.
Eric;
One thing you possibly haven’t considered is the fact that The Church is a Corporation Sole, created in 1923 for President Grant, on the model of the Pope, wherein EVERYTHING that the Corporation owns is legally owned by The President of The Church of LDS, meaning every dollar and every stick and every square foot of land. Even the name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is nothing but the intellectual property of the President, and the legal name of the Church hasn’t the name of Jesus anywhere in it.
The Church is wealthy beyond measure, meaning that the President is wealthy beyond measure, but it also harbors a great weakness: what the State can create, It can also dissolve, and It has done it before to The Church, as you know. This is how President Carter was able to convince President Kimble to come up with the Revelation. He merely quietly threatened to dissolve the Corporation because of Its following certain illegal Civil Rights clauses, and that’s all it took.
President Monson is well aware that this could happen again, especially since same-sex marriage is now the law of the land. So, he got with his lawyers and asked for a policy that could preclude this. And this is what they came up with. The Church was vulnerable because the Blacks were already members of the Church while the discrimination was taking place, hence a law was being broken continually. But what if membership was not an issue? Would this not make the argument of discrimination moot? Well, sure it would.
Which is why all gay people and their children, in spite of the Scriptural prohibition of keeping the children away from the Savior, are being thrust out completely. President Monson doesn’t care about the kids. Or what the Savior said. Obviously!
Why would he? He already owns everything completely. He remains absolutely safe.
Eric;
One thing you possibly haven’t considered is the fact that The Church is a Corporation Sole, created in 1923 for President Grant, on the model of the Pope, wherein EVERYTHING that the Corporation owns is legally owned by The President of The Church of LDS, every dollar and every stick. Even the name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is nothing but the intellectual property of the President, and the legal name of the Church hasn’t the name of Jesus anywhere in it.
The Church is wealthy beyond measure, meaning that the President is wealthy beyond measure, but it also harbors a great weakness: what the State can create, It can also dissolve, and It has done it before to The Church as you know. This is how President Carter was able to convince President Kimble to come up with the Revelation. He merely quietly threatened to dissolve the Corporation because of Its breaking of certain legal Civil Rights clauses, and that’s all it took.
President Monson is well aware that this could happen again, especially now that same-sex marriage is now the law of the land. So, he got with his lawyers and asked for a policy that could preclude this. And this is what they came up with. The Church was vulnerable because the Blacks were already members of the Church while the discrimination was taking place, hence a law was being broken continually. But what if membership was not an issue? Would this not make the argument of discrimination moot? Well, sure it would.
Which is why all gay people and their children, in spite of the Scriptural prohibition of keeping the children away from the Savior, are being thrust out completely. President Monson doesn’t care about the kids. Or what the Savior said. Obviously!
Why would he? He already owns everything completely. He remains completely safe.
I wish that I could speak as well as you do.
Steven,
You are absolutely correct in your description of The Corporation of The President.
I remember the institute director at USC during the 70’s telling me that the reason the Church was losing it’s on-campus institute properties, was because any institution that denied total equality on a campus where federal funds were given, could no longer operate there. The Church lost a beautiful chapel and a huge building of dental labs where students could study and practice.
It was shortly after that, that an amazing ‘revelation’ came out, changing the Church’s open policy of discrimination toward blacks. Sadly, I had recently returned from Brazil as a missionary, being a little foot soldier that perpetuated this discrimination. At the time I was overjoyed at the reversal of this ‘policy’. Now I am embarrassed about that period and my involvement in it. In recent years, I was enraged that a small leak by Church public relations, simply stated online, that in any research that had been done, nothing could be found that it was ever a revelation to deny blacks full rights. I was angry and hurt that no one ever offered an explanation or apology about it to tens of thousands of people who were affected by it. Will this be the same thing regarding this bigoted policy toward this new second class of citizens in God’s kingdom: LGBT people?
As Dallin Oaks so aptly put it, “we do not apologize……”
Thank you for sharing, Eric. I related with your “paradigm shift”, and I relate with your views on this important topic. Especially interesting were your spot-on, informed comparisons with the SGA policy changes and the church`s handling of polygamy and racism in light of public dissent. Loved your comment about how embarrassing it would have been if the church had been at forefront of opposition for civil rights. Also how proud we might have been if church members had spoken out in favor of civil rights and equal rights within the church. Your comment about how we talk about Blacks and the Priesthood is misleading for those outside the church is definitely worth noting, too.
Before my paradigm shift my husband and others I knew would compare the church policy on SGA to earlier racism in the church, predicting that it would eventually end up the same. I couldn`t quite accept that because to me it meant the church would not be true, since prophets would not be prophets. It seems to me they`ve made it so clear over the years that heterosexuality is part of the Lord`s eternal law and it will never change, that to back down would be problematic for many. That said, I`m beginning to think John might be right in predicting that this is the hill the church will die on. (I think he said that :)
Inspiring! Thank you, Eric.
Eric and John, thank you. Eric, you left me weeping at the end of this incredibly important and powerful podcast. I’m a victim of the Mormon Church’s attack and open discrimination against its LGBT members. When I read the new policy by the church, I felt the same impact emotional impact as my own excommunication. In its excommunication letter to me in 1995, the stake presidency wrote, ‘In order to protect the church from people like you. . .” I was stunned, I felt brushed aside, dismissed, and totally demeaned. I couldn’t imagine the men, who were friends, neighbors, and colleagues, could so easily and callously toss me aside without any compassion for the gut-wrenching pain I was going through. I couldn’t believe that after I had served the church faithfully all of my life that I meant nothing more to the institution than that. I continue to agonize over the young gay children and adolescents who will have to survive in an even uglier hostile environment than I experienced. And the pain the church is causing gay Mormon parents as a result of this policy is truly unforgiveable. If the members and church leaders realized the depth of the damage I don’t know how they could continue. And if they do know but don’t care that they are causing harm to children and families, then there is no hope for the future of the church as a loving institution. The church runs the risk of being viewed as a nothing more than a mercenary institution more interested in money and power than in following the loving example of Christ.
Steven,
Thank you for the honest post. It harrowed up many of the same feelings in me, when this policy was announced. It was like having wounds from 20 years ago, hacked open. I am resentful that my family and married children are finding themselves in a position of defending our family unit, among their ‘loving’ LDS church members. I thought this had all passed many years ago. You are very correct in your assessment of the Church as an institution that has over $30 billion dollars in assists, and runs a global business interest.
I sat in a cottage meeting of about 60 progressive, active Mormons of all age, in Salt Lake, last night. In a discussion about this policy. About 80% of the people in the room were straight couples, many of which were grieving and heartbroken that the Church would ask them to choose between their children and the Church. Their faith limits have been tested to the limit. A conclusion that was reached, was that this policy will eventually go away, just like so many of the Church’s ill conceived policies of the past — but not without causing a lot of pain and damage among the members.
It was concluded by one faithful woman, that the toll that it will also take, is that members will no longer trust leaders. Many will no longer believe in their leaders as being inspired.
In our discussion, it was concluded that in the machine of an organization like this, so many policy matters are reviewed by the legal department, committees, public relations, and then rubber stamped by quorums. It’s all business and risk protection. So much for any of it being about Christ’s church of love and pastoral care.
We concluded that no institution can come between you and God or the Savior. You own your own relationship with a loving God and Savior. No institution can come between you and your family or friends.
We all have an inner voice. The reason this policy is causing so much distress among average, straight Mormons is that their inner voice is telling them that this is not of Christ. It’s been crazy that the old and young are not buying into it. Ultimately, it is causing people to become more galvanized in their love and acceptance of LGBT people. This is the exact opposite of what the Church wanted. It’s becoming laughable.
I sat last night
>>>‘In order to protect the church from people like you.
Just horrible. Why are people so cruel.
The irony is that there are no “people like you”, But there **are** people like **them**
Loved this interview so much!!
I just noticed on the lds.org website, the “talk of the week” is from Sister Reeves’ October 2015 General Women’s Session talk entitled “Worthy of Your Promised Blessings.”
In it she quotes Pres. Packer:
“Through the righteous exercise of this [creative] power, we may come close to our Father in Heaven and experience a fulness of joy, even godhood. The power of procreation is not an incidental part of the plan; it is the plan.”
Do you think this is a coincidence or a result of this podcast?
Great interview ! You guys nailed it :)
I just finished listening to this interview and was immensely impressed with this young man. People with this level of passion, commitment and leadership are very rare. Obviously he takes these things personally. I am not a Mormon (just a garden-variety Episcopalian) and I cannot understand the LDS Church or its teachings at all. But if I were, I’d hope I could demonstrate his kind of courage in trying to make it better.
Where to begin? I am transgender. I have two children with my current spouse. I do not have a legal same sex marriage. It may appear to those outside that I do. My children are young, eight and 6. My children want a relationship with Jesus and I have fought taking them to any church. As I got about half way through this episode I am thinking to myself what am I doing? Am I crazy? Wanting to return to church after 18 years of being away. I have talked to my parents often. They told me I was wrong when I told them about this policy change. Their first reaction was no this is it is just some anti mormon group trying to make problems. It was difficult for me to listen to this entire pod cast, but I am so grateful that I did. I am about to charge into the hornets nest head first. I have had family members and even the bishop tell me that I can’t change my gender it is eternal. I said I agree and yet from my earliest memories I felt it is wrong. And then they hit with homosexual tendencies. Eric your pleading for gay members to stay was very powerful to me. I have tried to talk my parents into standing up for me. They seem to think that their silence is standing up for me. I love the church. I do not understand this policy and after listening to this policy and hearing it in detail compared to other sins of parents such as predators and rapist and murderers I see this policy and totally more harmful to the church. I know I have touched people in the church and when they see me and my children and fall in love with I know this policy will seem more and more unfair un Christ like who said. I have fulfilled the law and you should love God with all your heart and soul and then love your neighbor as your self. Thank you for sharing this.
Hi, we’re Orozco’s family from Nicaragua Erick was a good missionary. We want to say thank you for all that he make for us and if someone have how to communicate with him or if Reece is reading this please communicate at this email bernavelamog@gmail.com