Share this Episode

Comments 17

  1. I’m a YW medallion recipient, seminary graduate, institute graduate, returned missionary & was married in the temple. I stopped attending church almost 2 years ago. The way the church treats & sees members of the LGBTQ community was one of many, but one of the big reasons my husband & I decided to leave the church. Meeting & interacting with lesbian & gay people at my husband’s work is what started to change my “mormon view” of the LGBTQ community. Once I had faces & names to put with views & policies, my espoused views & the church’s treatment of the LGBTQ community just didn’t add up or feel right. Thanks Dusty for your candor, compassion & bravery in doing this interview. As I listened to your story I couldn’t help but think that yours will be another real face, another real name for positive changes toward the LGBTQ community. Sending strength & love for your disciplinary council & warm wishes for continued happiness & peace.

  2. Your story uplifts and inspires.
    It speaks of God and love.
    Such a contrast to that talk from general conference.

    What a puzzle this Mormon thing is?
    Full of paradox.
    Yet many of us feel God there and choose to stay.

    For now we see through a glass darkly.
    All of us.
    But something feels sure.
    Charity.
    Never faileth.

  3. What a wonderful interview, Dusty, John. Incredibly honest and heartfelt. Unfortunately, there are tens of thousands of other Mormon Dusty Johns out there whose lives have been deeply impacted in horrible ways by the LDS church. Like Dusty, my wish is that those who are actively involved in the Mormon Church, who believe and accept the hateful rhetoric from the likes of Nelson and Oaks regarding the LGBTQ community, will change. Hopefully, the stories of these brave men and women will help them see the LDS church and its leadership for what they are. Thank you for putting yourself out there Dusty.

    There is one observation I have regarding a comment Dusty made numerous times I would like to address. I realize that he is at an early point in separating from the church and he seems to carry much of the LDS ethos still. Numerous times in the interview he made reference to “sleeping around” in a negative way. Of course, we all have different ideas as to what constitutes “sleeping around” but the term conjures up damaging LDS metaphors of chewed gum and licked cupcakes, and the accompanying shame and guilt that the Mormon church imposes to control its members. A healthy sex drive is nothing to be ashamed of nor is having responsible encounters with multiple partners. Sex is an important part of the human experience. “Sleeping around” may not be a choice Dusty or others make, but his multiple references to it came off as a bit judgmental. IMHO

    Best of luck to Dusty, Tate, and family. I can assure you that the best is yet to come!

    1. It seems that Dusty’s negative comments about people “sleeping around” were more about people’s hypocrisy rather than the act itself. He was angry that their were holier than thou LGBT members in these groups who were saying they were celibate, towing the Mormon line, when they in fact weren’t. That’s what was making him angry.

  4. Can anyone lead me to a resource about the time and location of the disciplary council? I’m in Colorado, but after listening to this, I can think of nothing I want to do more than make the trip to show my love and support for this brave family.

  5. You pose the question at the end of part 1: Who does the November policy protect?
    It protects brighamite polygamy, and only brighamite polygamy. It is tied to the ‘new’ revelation/claim that despite the complete lack of any clear scriptural support, (even the D&C can be read gender neutral and/or that gender is only temporal) the church is putting forwards, that gender is eternal. If gender is not eternal, same sex marriage is not opposed to gods plan, but then the brighamite polygamy doctrine is wrong. If polyandry and other type relationships that were practiced in Nauvoo had been continued there may be some room for the church to consider any number of non-traditional marriages by saying that human relationships are complicated and god hasn’t told us everything yet, but we can have faith that god will work it out in the eternities…then focus on helping people make and develop meaningful relationships that allow them to express and receive as much love and emotional support as they can in this life. Instead they cling to a policy of maintaining the doctrine, that marriage is only between one man and as many women as his wives as the church will give to him, and all of the hate and destruction of families that goes along with it.

  6. I find it curious that one of the Mormon church’s principal doctrines maintains that in the highest Mormon heaven designated as the ‘Celestial Kingdom’ there are three major divisions, and that only the highest of those three—the first degree—is only for men and women who will have eternal increase (spirit children), i.e., be eternally sealed to one another—’married’. However, for everyone else in that high heaven—in the other two lesser divisions or degrees—they are to remain separate and single for all eternity. If this is the case, then it certainly begs the question (for me at least): Do the current Mormon church leaders (those at the very top level) presuppose that all of the men and women who end up in those lesser divisions will be expected to live in some sort of loveless vacuum without any sort of loving companionship for all eternity? Do these leaders really think that those souls who lived good enough lives to merit the Celestial Kingdom (albeit not the highest part of it) will be somehow without the emotional well-being need to express and receive love? Again, if that’s the case then it sounds more like a hell than a heaven, let alone the highest one!

    What I am suggesting is that if according to the Mormon church marriage between a man and a woman (or rather one man and many women!) will be ONLY for very few in the grand scheme of things (remembering that there are still two more lesser heavens—the Terrestial and Telestial where ‘marriage’ supposedly will not be permitted), then why make such a big fuss over two men, or two women living together in the ‘here and now’ as married couples when obviously millions and millions of heterosexual married couples in the ‘here and now’ will not not merit the privilege of remaining as married couples in the ‘here-after’ either?

    At the very least the Mormon church could make prominent the teaching as being a practical doctrine in that everyone is welcome to be a member of the church, and remain a member no matter whether someone is single and/or wants to remain so, or is in whatever kind of marriage so long as it is monogamous. They could promulgate the teaching (in a tactful way) that the ‘here-after’ will operate under a different set of principles than the ‘here and now’ and that *some* temple ordinances, i.e., eternal sealing, are for heterosexual couples only. The ‘tactful’ aspect of this teaching could be simply “what the Lord has revealed thus far, and we can only speculate how it will be in the eternities what has not been revealed, although knowing that everyone has the opportunity to reside in the Celestial Kingdom so long as they are living moral lives in whatever kind of lawful marriage, or state of being single,” and leave it at that.

  7. Dusty and family: Thanks for sharing your story, There truly is beauty all around when there’s love at home and your boys are blessed to be in a loving one.

  8. My heart goes out to him. I could feel his pain each step of the way. I have been there.
    I have been with my husband for 10 years now and we have adopted a beautiful little girl. I hope he finds his peace and finds a place where they all belong. We finally did, and it has been wonderful.

  9. Thank you, thank you, thank you for sharing this. I am so grateful you took an understanding, loving, gentle approach. Anger solves nothing and I feel you are making quite a positive wake with this beautiful interview. <3

  10. Unable to sleep at 4 am, I listened to this podcast and heard the story of a close family member echoed in the pain and anguish of Dusty’s story! Thank you for the courage to share your story and life in such an honest way! I would like to echo all that Azul said!

    I

  11. This story is a sad but all too common commentary on another malignancy eating at the body of the church from within. A malignancy that is actively being encourged toward metastasis from those at the top it seems. How utterly disgraceful. Thanks for having the courage to go public with your story Dusty and Tate. It is sure to help many.

  12. Paul Anthony, I appreciated reading your thoughtful words about a potential way the church could better manage its approach to its own doctrine. It would seem that an organization which treaches to love one another would welcome an approach like this at the very least.

  13. May and mandatory disciplinary councils.

    What is missing there in your comments was the relevant time frame, or when the offense was committed. For example we had a guy who abused children in the 60’s , went to prison for 12 years, he was out for over 20 years without offending and was now confessing his sin to clear things up with God (as he said) so in his case it was decided to not hold a council since it would be pointless now (given that he has obviously repented years ago).

    But with those other situation where it is mandatory it is generally assumed that it is happening now or recently except for murder. Murder is mandatory because its considered outside of Christ redemption ie someone can’t turn to Jesus to seek forgiveness for murder and therefore can’t be a church member and must be excommunicated.

    But then again if a man was a member in the 70’s and inactive since then and now is in same sex married, then the church a- probably wont find out about him and b-won’t chase him down to hold a council. It only happens if they have some contact with church. Same with so called apostasy cases. It’s only those who have contact with the church and can influence other active members that they worry about.

  14. Re: “Pte Nelson can get on his knees and get revelation”

    His revelations have been many and they are all going towards getting even more stricter against gays and the LGTB agenda. Maybe you guys haven’t been keeping up with all this because you dream of a more benign church towards gays, but it is only getting worse for gays and anyone who supports them.

    In my opinion, this conflict will only increase. And I suspect that when a democrat gets back in the white house, they will be coming after all religions that are anti-gay, like the lds church, and try to limit them or ban them. That’s when the church will tell its members that everything has been prepared to be home based until they can get back to church. Its kind of obvious that things are going down that road.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.