A perfect match: The Mormon Tabernacle Choir and Trump’s inauguration

We teach a standard of moral conduct that will protect us from Satan’s many substitutes or counterfeits for marriage. We must understand that any persuasion to enter into any relationship that is not in harmony with the principles of the gospel must be wrong. From the Book of Mormon we learn that ‘wickedness never was happiness’….There are those today who not only tolerate but advocate voting to change laws that would legalize immorality, as if a vote would somehow alter the designs of God’s laws and nature. A law against nature would be impossible to enforce….To legalize that which is basically wrong or evil will not prevent the pain and penalties that will follow as surely as night follows day….If we do not protect and foster the family, civilization and our liberties must perish.”

 Under this backdrop and literally across the street and one block from the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City, I was invited to present a keynote address to the delegates at the Eighty-First Annual Convention of the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association on April 16, 2011. I titled my address, “Homophobia: How We All Pay the Price,” based on the notion that homophobia — sometimes referred to as “heterosexism” (prejudice and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender [LGBT] people) is pervasive throughout society and each of us, irrespective of sexual or gender identity and expression, is at risk of its harmful effects.

Following my keynote address, a number of the convention delegates came to the podium to talk about how much they had gained from my remarks. In particular, I was enormously touched by the words of three delegates who literally moved me to tears.

A woman approached me with moistened eyes and tears running down her cheeks. Unable initially to speak, she hugged me and sobbed on my shoulder. She ultimately expressed how much my words had moved her, and through her sobs, told me the story of how her stepson, a young gay man, had killed himself three years earlier, and how members of her religious community, the LDS congregation of her small rural community, had shunned and scorned her when the young man’s sexual identity had become known.

Words failed me as we continued to hold and comfort each other.

Looking on was another woman who joined us. “I have a nine-year-old son, whom I am quite certain is gay,” she told us, as tears also streamed from her eyes. “I am forced to make a decision,” she said with urgency in her voice. “I must leave my LDS church and save my son from a possibly tragic fate if I remain. My son is the most important thing in my life, and I refuse to lose him to the narrow views of the people around me.”

While sad, she also now felt somewhat empowered in her decision to separate from what she considered as abuse and misunderstanding from her church community.

As I was on my way out of the large conference hall, I noticed a man, red eyed, who beckoned me. “I am a professor at Brigham Young University,” he explained. “Until your talk, I had never truly understood the hurt the LDS policy has on real people, but you personalized the issue for me.” With a tone of deep sincerity in his voice, he said: “I commit to you that I will bring this message to my campus when I go back to work on Monday.” 

Racism

Yes, the LDS “revelation” on sexuality and gender expression has, indeed, hurt and damaged real people, but looking back historically, other LDS “revelations” have negatively affected real people while damaging the Church’s reputation.

Then LDS president, Brigham Young, instituted a policy on February 13, 1849, emanating from “divine revelation” and continuing until as recently as 1978 forbidding ordination of black men of African descent from the ranks of LDS priesthood. In addition, this policy prohibited black men and women of African descent from participating in the temple Endowment and Sealings, which the Church demands as essential for the highest degree of salvation. The policy likewise restricted black people from attending or participating in temple marriages.

Young attributed this restriction to the sin of Cain, Adam and Eve’s eldest son, who killed his brother Abel: “What chance is there for the redemption of the Negro?,” stated Young in 1849 following declaration of his restrictive policy. “The Lord had cursed Cain’s seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood.”

While making a speech to the Utah Territorial Legislature in 1852, Young further asserted: “Any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain]…in him cannot hold the Priesthood, and if no other Prophet ever spoke it before, I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it.”

In another instance, Young continued: “You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind….Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. That was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin…that they should be the ‘servant of servants’; and they will be, until that curse is removed….”

Joseph Fielding Smith, Tenth Prophet and President of the LDS Church wrote in 1935 that, “Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness, he became the father of an inferior race. A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures….” And in 1963 he asserted: “Such a change [in our policy] can come about only through divine revelation, and no one can predict when a divine revelation will occur.”

It seems that the Twelfth LDS Church president, Spencer W. Kimball, who served from 1973 to his death in 1985, was touched with such a “vision” and, therefore, reversed the ban, referring to it as “the long-promised day.”

We can ask today whether “revelation” or mere pragmatism was the determining factor in permitting black people full membership rights in the Church at a time of ongoing and heightened civil rights activities in the United States and an increase in LDS missionary recruiting efforts throughout the African continent. We can also ask whether “revelation” or mere pragmatism was the motivating consideration for abandoning its promotion of polygamous marriages at a time when the United States Congress demanded this as a condition for the admission of Utah as a state within the United States.

How many more times will the LDS hierarchy refuse ordination to women? How many more times will LDS members shun people and their families? How many more young people will injure and kill themselves due to LDS exclusionary and discriminatory policies? And how many more families will grieve the loss of loved ones before the LDS Church leadership receives its “divine revelation” to welcome and grant full membership rights, privileges, and responsibilities to people of all sexes, sexual identities, and gender identities and expressions?

Anti-Jewish Oppression:

Reports came to light in 1995 that LDS was secretly inflicting forced and unwarranted posthumous “baptisms” onto Jewish Holocaust victims, including my European relatives whom the Nazis murdered. After the practice surfaced, LDS promised to discontinue these ritual baptisms, but reneged. LDS disclosed in 2011 it had “baptized” Daniel Pearl, a reporter who was Jewish for the Wall Street Journal whom terrorists kidnapped and killed in Pakistan in 2002, and also Anne Frank, whom LDS baptized in 2012.

So, no, I cannot sign the petition asking the Mormon Tabernacle Choir not to perform at the future Fascist-In-Chief’s coronation since they are a perfect match!