No, President Oaks. You're wrong about D&C131.

 In President Dallin H. Oaks’s April 2022 General Conference address he said:

Fundamental to us is God’s revelation that exaltation can be attained only through faithfulness to the covenants of an eternal marriage between a man and a woman. That divine doctrine is why we teach that “gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”

The source of this fundamental doctrine he identifies in a footnote as D&C 131:1-4, which thanks to Early Morning Seminary, I have memorized. It reads: 

In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees and in order to obtain the highest a man must enter into this order of the priesthood, meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, and if he does not he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other but that is the end of his kingdom. He cannot have an increase. 

I actually really appreciate this part of President Oaks’s talk because I’ve banged my head against a wall for years wondering where on earth the church’s anti-LGBTQ positions come from. And here’s president Oaks reaching out his judicial finger and pointing at specific verses in the standard works and saying, “here. Here it is. This is the fundamental doctrine that justifies this.” Finally, he gives some kind of scriptural reasoning for why he and other leaders  “oppose social and legal pressures to retreat from His doctrine of marriage between a man and a woman, to oppose changes that homogenize the differences between men and women or confuse or alter gender” at every possible opportunity, regardless of that doctrine’s lack of prevalence in our canon. 

So here’s how the logic plays out: 

• God wants each of his children to be exalted. 

• Marriage is essential to exaltation. 

• Marriage requires both a man and a woman. 

• Therefore, heterosexual marriage must be protected and promoted at all costs.

But, D&C 131 doesn’t actually mention gender. It doesn’t say that marriage is only between a man and a woman. It doesn’t even mention women at all. Go back and re-read it if you have to. President Oaks is simply and fundamentally wrong about those verses justifying the church’s stances on gender and sexuality. 

Maybe President Oaks would have had better luck directing the church to D&C 132 instead. There we actually find the same claim that marriage is essential to exaltation (albeit in much more complex and legalistic sentences), and there we actually see both genders represented in the described marriage covenant. I think he likely didn’t reference 132 for two reasons: 

1. He knows that D&C 132 is difficult to read and lacks clarity. 

2. He doesn’t want to draw too much attention the polygamy bits of that section, which both damage the church’s PR and undermine any attempt to see that particular section as doctrinally binding. 

Also, like most scriptures and even the Family: A Proclamation to the World, D&C 132 does not say that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman. I’m totally on board with the idea that “marriage between a man and woman is ordained of God.” I’m actually happily in such a marriage, and I’m glad that we have a canonized stamp of approval on our union. But I don’t see any reason to read the approval of one kind of marriage as automatically disallowing other kinds of marriage. Certainly, for example, the section’s ordaining of plural marriage does not implicitly condemn monogamy. 

So why does the church harp so damn much about being anti-LGBTQ when it’s not in our scriptures at all? The most compelling argument I’ve heard from those who believe it is that it’s not in the scriptures because it wasn’t common when the scriptures were written, and now that it’s more widespread, prophets have been called upon to preach against it. This is, they claim, one of the benefits of having living prophets: they can receive new revelation on how to respond to new social and political trends. 

But here’s my problem with that argument: Why hasn’t God actually provided new revelation about LGBTQ people in his eternal plan? And why aren’t our leaders more transparent about what they don’t know by revelation about the Lord’s will concerning LGBTQ people? 

In another controversial talk in April’s General Conference, Elder Dale G. Renlund said regarding what we know about Heavenly Mother, “You too may still have questions and want to find more answers. Seeking greater understanding is an important part of our spiritual development, but please be cautious. Reason cannot replace revelation.” 

But reason replacing revelation seems to be exactly what folks like Oaks have done with the scriptures on gender and sexuality. They have reasoned into the revelation stuff that isn’t there. 

Elder Renlund continued: 

Ever since God appointed prophets, they have been authorized to speak on His behalf. But they do not pronounce doctrines fabricated “of [their] own mind” or teach what has not been revealed. Consider the words of the Old Testament prophet Balaam, who was offered a bribe to curse the Israelites to benefit Moab. Balaam said, “If [the king of Moab] would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the word of the Lord my God, to do less or more.” Latter-day prophets are similarly constrained. Demanding revelation from God is both arrogant and unproductive. Instead, we wait on the Lord and His timetable to reveal His truths through the means that He has established.

But this principle seems to only apply to doctrines that don’t align with the biases of the brethren. When scriptures can be interpreted as supporting heteronormative and patriarchal bias, the brethren seem to have no issue pronouncing doctrines fabricated of their own minds. 

In all fairness, here’s what I think is happening:

I don’t think that the general leadership of the church is knowingly and intentionally making stuff up to fill in the gaps between the revelations to justify anti-LGBTQ doctrines. Rather, I just think it’s hard to quiet one’s biases and assumptions. If you’re a straight man, married to a straight woman, and you are so secure in your straighness and your manhood, that you can’t even imagine what it would be like to be gay or transgender, it is really hard not to see the word “marriage” and assume it means “marriage only between a man and a woman.” The brethren aren’t being malicious. A biased viewpoint on the scriptures has just accumulated over 2 centuries such that it has not only become an entrenched standard, but a rallying cry for ever more bold opposition to the lifestyles of those deemed “other.” 

Realizing how messy revelation and inspiration can be, even at the highest levels of the church is a huge–and for some, a destructive–paradigm shift. But I don’t think it needs to be. The miracle for me is that even though God works through weak, biased vessels, he still is able to accomplish a tremendous amount of good the world over. 

And liberal mormons like me aren’t exempt from the influence of personal bias either. When I read the scriptures, I’m often tempted to read into the gaps life-affirming truths about LGBTQ people. In reality, the official revelation we have says hardly anything about LGBTQ people. 

And I actually disagree with Elder Renlund on this next part. I think it is actually a productive, faithful act to demand additional revelation from God on this matter. Let’s take the example of the Biblical Jacob who wrestled with God all night, saying, “I will not let you go, unless you bless me” (Genesis 32:26). 

On Exodus

I’m a little behind on my bible study. Luckily there’s essentially a week off for Easter in which to catch up. I do have one thought about the Exodus so far as well as a theme that I see developing. 

The most difficult question I’ve been wrestling with in Exodus is why did God harden Pharaoh's heart? I think I’ve always assumed that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, or that it was initially hard against the Israelites and just stayed that way, but several times God says something like this: “But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and I will multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 7:3).

I don’t think I have a super satisfying answer, but the text seems to give us an unsatisfying one: God wanted to show the signs and wonders of the plagues in Egypt. This doesn’t feel great since so much seemingly needless suffering happened in Egypt because of the plagues, affecting many innocent people. But I do think it’s true that Israel needed the wonders to look back on and know that God has their back. It was and continues to be a great boon of faith. It even inspires Nephi (1 Nephi 4:2). Maybe this is also why LGBTQ saints have seen such a hardening of heart from the church toward them. Maybe the Exodus (which, literally translated means “coming out.”) is nigh. 

The theme I’m seeing is the Exodus story, that I’m still developing more comprehensive thoughts on is seeing the Exodus as a metaphor for a transition between religious paradigms. Israel flees the religious system of Egypt and covenants with a newly discovered God. I think there’s something there for those of us trying to deconstruct the toxicity in our faith traditions and find newly reconstructed faith in what’s left. I’ll hopefully have more on this to come.