Anti-Gay LDS Activities     

About 30 people met at the Westwood Chapel on January 16, 1998 in Los Angeles for the Third Friday Group meeting, an outreach by the LA Stake to the LDS gay and lesbian community. It was to be the last meeting of the group. Howard Anderson, the former Stake President who initiated the group, read the following letter from the current LA Stake president. The letter was written to a member of the LA Stake with the understanding it would be shared.

Here's the letter:

Dear [name omitted]:

You have suggested I write a note explaining why the Third Friday Group is being disbanded. I am grateful for this opportunity. If I had addresses for all of the participants, I would write to all of them-and you are certainly free to pass this note on to any of them willing to read it.

The decision to disband the group in its present format has been one of the most difficult and wrenching of my Church service. I know of some of the good things the group has accomplished. I know of the love and compassion that have motivated its leaders. I understand something of the symbolic importance of the group to many, including members who do not participate in the group but take comfort in its existence. I know that no matter what I say or do, some participants will feel rejected, angry and hurt. I deeply regret this, particularly as they no doubt have already felt much of [sic] rejection.

Please understand that the decision has not been taken lightly, quickly or in a vacuum. It has been a long time coming, and has followed much prayer, consultations with my counselors, consultations with LDS social services leaders and trainers, and consultations with various general authorities, each of whom has demonstrated an awareness of and sincere interest in the challenges of group participants. All of this has led to our strong, spiritual conviction that the time has come to move in a different direction.

I can say unequivocally that we are not disbanding the group because we do not love, or the Church does not love, members who struggle with homosexuality. On the contrary, our hearts go out to such members and their parents and we recognize the need to continue to minister to them, express our love and the love of God to them, and issue repeated and patient invitations to come unto Christ and be perfected in Him. I urge group participants not to decide in advance how the Lord or His Church should or must manifest their love, and then reject everything else that might be tried. Our decision does not result from an absence of love . . . it relates to an approach, and the effort to better harmonize our efforts with Gospel principles. We are not abandoning you, we are abandoning (for the time being) a program we feel must be rethought in light of present circumstances.

When inspiration and judgment are at the heart of a matter, it is not easy to explain tangible reasons, and it may not be wise to make the attempt. Nevertheless, I know there is a hunger to know the considerations, so here are some of our feelings and concerns (and not in the order of importance):

First, the group presents problems as a matter of Church government. It began as an effort of the Los Angeles Stake presidency to reach out to stake members. It soon grew to include many members of other stakes, some far away. The problem with this is that I hold the keys of the priesthood (and the obligation) to minister only to the members of my stake. My ecclesiastical authority and jurisdiction do not extend to other members, who have their own stake presidents and bishops. Those leaders in turn have their own authority and obligations (and, perhaps, their own plans and inspirations on the subject). We have not been appointed, and cannot appoint ourselves, to supplant these leaders, or compensate for whatever shortcomings their members see in them.

I pause here to note that the Church is doing more and more to train stake presidencies and bishops concerning homosexuality and the challenges and potential of those who have homosexual desires. These efforts are intended to help leaders respond with understanding, love, encouragement and inspiration. Over time, such training will help our stake and other stakes provide an appropriately welcoming environment that may help more disaffected or struggling members to take some chances and venture back to some level of activity or contact within their own wards.

Second, the group in its present format can be and has been misinterpreted as an official sanction of homosexual conduct, or at least a manifestation of the softening of the Church's position on the subject. Indeed, some group members have so characterized it within and outside the group. Because the law of chastity remains a central Church doctrine for all Church members, regardless of orientation, the Church must be careful, in trying to send to members a message of love, compassion and acceptance of the individual, not to send a message of acceptance or blessing of actual behavior in violation of the commandments. This has proven difficult to accomplish in the context of the current group structure.

Third, and on a related point, priesthood leaders can, in ministering to individuals, accept them where they are, encourage whatever spiritual progress is possible for them, work with them patiently, and make sure at the appropriate time and in the appropriate way that a distinction is established between tolerance and love on the one hand, and license on the other. This kind of differentiation is difficult or impossible in a large Church-sponsored group, and the failure to make it properly may create a comfortable environment for some participants, but may deprive others of things they need. It also exacerbates the second issue referred to above.

Fourth, despite the good will and the efforts of group leaders and many group members, there have been obvious problems in some group meetings. I think most group members can accept that this is an issue, at least on some level. Standing alone, it might be fixable, but as part of an overall set of difficult issues, it is to us another evidence of the need to try other things.

[name omitted], I have tried to put this letter together quickly. Given more time, and more opportunity to consult with my counselors and others, I could probably produce a more elegant and complete (perhaps even shorter) explanation. The bottom line for us, however, is that we have faithfully followed the answer-getting processes described in Sections 6 and 9 of the Doctrine and Covenants and have the clear feeling that the decision is right, reasons and counter-reasons aside. At the end of the day, we must be true to that feeling, however much we may be tugged in a different direction by empathy or the sincere desire to avoid disappointing anyone. In giving a glimpse into our "study-it-out" phase, I do not expect agreement from all participants (indeed, I understand the many counter-arguments), but hope for some increased understanding on the part of a few.

We do not intend to simply disband the group and do nothing else. We are exploring the possibility of a restructured group designed to avoid some of the perceived problems, while preserving at least some of the benefits for at least some existing or future participants. I cannot promise that such a group approach will receive the necessary approvals, but I am cautiously hopeful. Incidentally, I hope interested parties can suspend judgment (and speculation) on this, until we have something concrete to offer. We are also thinking about things we can do in our stake on a more individual, or smaller-group basis. I have invited, and continued to invite, ideas on this subject, all while recognizing that there may be some positive aspects of the group that we will not be able to duplicate under any combination of alternative measures.

Finally, I urge patience, faith and restraint, in the face of understandable disappointment. Indeed, I pray all group participants might be able to "press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope . . . " (2 Nephi 31:20). I invoke the blessings of the Lord on all group participants, that they may be comforted, that there may be a healing of the hurt they have felt, that they may be reassured of their status of beloved children of God, and that their grip on the iron rod may be made more sure through prayer, scripture study, association with the saints and cultivation of the influence of the Spirit in their lives.

With warm regards,

Michael J. Fairclough

The meeting was approved by the Stake President and the bishop, and was intended to be a "safe" place for gays, lesbians and straights of the church to meet and learn from each other. Meetings had around 30 people in attendance on average, about half straight, half gay. The 2nd counselor in the bishopric, a great man named Mark Nelson, lead the group. The rules were few and simple: no bashing of anyone, no attacks, only respectful listening and sharing. There was no agenda whatever to convert anyone to anything. It was a positive experience because it helped participants overcome stereotypes and learn greater trust. It also provided a place for people who felt alienated from church to be involved in community-based spiritual activity. More than anything, there was a strong sense of welcoming, which many GLB LDS miss and want. Everyone was invited, never pressured, to participate in other ward activities too, and be as out as they wanted to be. When participants described the experience they said "it was actually quite exhilarating, going to church with members and leaders who knew the truth and for whom it was no obstacle; you were respected and accepted as you were."

Unfortunately, the support structure for this type of experiment fairly quickly began to erode. First, the bishop decided not to make any more public announcements. This was the result, he said, of tremendous negative pressure he was getting from other bishops and stake presidents in the area, who thought he was committing a terrible error. Members challenged him, asking how long he thought any ward activity would survive if it received no publicity.

He thought that somehow those who needed the group would just find out (as though we have not only "gaydar" but also gay-ESP). Apparently he was struggling as a straight LDS man used to following authority and trying to support the effort but feeling utterly alone in a sea of hostile voices. Finally, word came that the group itself would be dissolved because the ward could no longer face the risk it was causing. What risk? The bishop and staff had been regularly receiving hostile, threatening phone calls from "upstanding members" of the stake and that the last straw was a bomb threat called in for the night of the weekly meeting (the caller identified himself as LDS too). The bishop said that in light of the danger and hysteria, he could no longer keep the group going. It ended. And the voices of hate prevailed.

Despite this, the San Diego North Stake President attended the devotional at the 1993 San Diego Affirmation Conference. There he expressed his profound regret that in the face of such massive hostility he was unable to keep the group going. He also made this intriguing statement: had the meeting been in a ward in a gay area, like Hillcrest, he would have resisted and fought harder for the group. He meant that had more gays been more vocal and been more involved, there would have been greater reason for him to take a stand. Perhaps in his eyes Sodom was not worth saving for only 10 good men, so to speak. A kind, compassionate and good man, like the bishop, he too needed more support and backing when he found himself alone and surrounded by rabid wolves.

What is the moral of the story? Are the wolves now too many and too frenzied by hostility? They attack and overcome even the few good shepherds who would feed and attend to the sheep. The wolves devour those who stand in their way. Pretty rhetoric masks their predation, but in reality all they want is for us to be gone.