Welcome and Episode Introduction

John Dehlin [00:00:00] Hello everyone, and welcome to another edition of Mormon Stories Podcast. I am your host, Dr. John Dehlin. It is November 17, 2021, and today I think we have a really important Mormon Stories podcast episode for you. And I think Elder Dallin H. Oaks agrees with me. And we're going to be talking about that in just a second. But basically, recently, the number two highest ranking Mormon leader in the world, Mormon Apostle and LDS Church First Presidency member, First Counselor Dallin H. Oaks, spoke at the University of Virginia Law School about, let's just say, equality, LGBTQ rights, and about religious freedom. And in that talk, there are a couple things that he did that were kind of really mind blowing. One was that he denied that BYU studied and researched and practiced electroshock therapy while he was president there during the 1970s while he was president of BYU. We are going to be covering that in detail tomorrow on Mormon Stories Podcast with Connell o' Donovan and Kyle Ashworth and Gerardo. So that's going to be tomorrow, but today we're going to be covering a couple other things. Basically, he claimed during this speech at the University of Virginia that this was perhaps the most important address he's ever given. And when you think about the fact that he's been giving talks at General Conference for at least 30, if not 40 years, that's kind of a really significant statement. So I'm going to play that really quick. This is Elder Dalnich Oaks during his University of Virginia address. He says, I don't mean to minimize

Oaks' Talk Framed as His Most Difficult Address

Dallin H. Oaks [00:01:46] the difficulty of what I'm advocating. I simply invite my audience who already understand the complexity of current divisions, to consider the possibility of reconciliation as I proceed with the most difficult address I have ever undertaken.

John Dehlin [00:02:05] So there you have it from Elder Oaks himself. This is the most difficult address he has ever undertaken. And so the purpose of today is to answer at least a few questions. Why is this speech that he recently gave at the University of Virginia the most important address he has ever given? Number two, why then, if it is the most important address he's ever given, why is he giving it at the University of Virginia and not at an LDS General Conference or a special fireside, a global fireside for the church? What are the historical circumstances that led to Elder Oaks giving this talk at the University of Virginia? What was it like for those who were there? What is Elder Oaks and or the Mormon Church afraid of and or hoping to accomplish going forward, especially within the rights of U.S. law, within the realm of U.S. law and religious freedom and LGBTQ equality? What are they afraid of what are they trying to do and what are the general reactions of people who follow this race really closely? So that's kind of what we're going to be talking about today. And we have assembled a really top notch and illustrious panel to do some of the analysis. And so, to begin with, I want to welcome back on Mormon Stories Podcast one of my regular co hosts, Gerardo Sumano. Gerardo kind of assembled this panel. Gerardo, welcome back to Mormon Stories Podcast.

Gerardo Sumano [00:03:29] Hey, John, thank you, thank you. I'm pretty excited about this one.

John Dehlin [00:03:32] Thanks for organizing this.

Gerardo Sumano [00:03:34] Yeah, no problem.

John Dehlin [00:03:35] Do you want to just tell us really quickly anything about why you organize this panel and then you can maybe introduce each guest and let them introduce themselves? Yeah.

Gerardo Sumano [00:03:44] Well, to be honest, I think what caught everyone's attention about Elder Oaks being there was him saying that electroshock therapy had stopped at BYU before he was president there. And that has been what has been more widespread. And you mentioned to me that, I mean, you introduced to me Hannah and Chloe who, who are students there and wanted and had really good information that they could share with our audience. So I started organizing it and with your help. And then as I was listening to what Elder Oaks actually said, both in his public speech, the University of Virginia, and in the private one that he did for the law school, I noticed that there was some really, really interesting stuff that I. I was just blown away by what he was saying. Kyle Ashworth has really good thoughts on it as well. So we're inviting everyone, including a special guest that we're gonna introduce, who has some legal background into the issues that Elder Oaks was. Was talking about.

John Dehlin [00:04:59] And we're already getting some comments correcting a mistake that I made. Elder Oaks did not say this is the most important talk he's ever given. It's the most difficult talk he has ever given. So thank you for our listeners that are keeping us honest here. All right, Gerardo, so we're so glad that you organized this panel, Kyle. Kyle Ashworth, welcome back to Mormon Stories Podcast. You are the host of Latter Gay Stories Podcast. Do you want to say anything else to kind of introduce yourself, Kyle, and make sure and unmute yourself before you

Panelists Introduce Themselves and Their Backgrounds

Kyle Ashworth [00:05:32] talk, joining this panel to be able to share and just some thought and at the end of the day, really try to better understand what this means to the LGBTQ community, what this means to Mormonism and why this venue, why this topic, and why President Oaks. I think unpacking this will help us to maybe even see. We've obviously discussed the double speak, but maybe even See what the ultimate meaning was in a message like this. So happy to be here. Happy to add a few of my thoughts as well.

John Dehlin [00:06:01] I love it. Now, we were. We are super lucky that there are actually ex Mormons at the University of Virginia. There are Mormons at the University of Virginia Law School, and there's some ex Mormons at the University of Virginia Law School, and there's even some ex Mormon members of the LGBT community at the University of Virginia Law School. And we're super lucky to have back Hannah. Oh, is it Kumo? Is that how I pronounce it? Hannah? Did I get that right?

Hannah Kumo [00:06:31] Yeah, that's correct.

John Dehlin [00:06:32] And Hannah, you're joining us. You're rejoining us. You were interviewed on Mormon Stories podcast a year or two ago. It was a really lovely discussion about growing up in the church I believe in, in Idaho. Right in the Rexburg area.

Hannah Kumo [00:06:47] Yeah, Rexburg.

John Dehlin [00:06:48] And then dealing with scrupulosity. It's a really, really great episode. But, Hannah, so glad you're joining us again. You are at the University of Virginia Law School, which is awesome. Anything you want to say just by way of introduction?

Hannah Kumo [00:07:02] Sure, yeah. Thank you for having me back. It's a pleasure to be here and be able to add some of my thoughts to this really important discussion. As you said, I am a third year student at the University, University of Virginia School of Law. I grew up in Rexburg, Idaho, and since coming to law school have, you know, really had the space to explore my beliefs in terms of spirituality, my relationship with the church and all things in between. And I was. It was a very interesting experience to be present at the law school wall. President Oaks was delivering this address. As was mentioned previously, I am, of course, an ex Mormon. I also am a member of the queer community, which is a really important identity to me. So I think this is going to be a really interesting discussion and I'm really excited to be here.

John Dehlin [00:08:05] Excellent. Thank you, Hannah. And then we're also very excited to have Chloe Fife with us for the first time. First time, I believe, on Mormon Stories podcast. Welcome, Chloe. And is there anything you want to say by way of introduction and make sure and unmute you? Yeah. Thank you, Chloe.

Speaker F [00:08:20] Sure. Yeah. Thank you so much for having me. So I'm also a third year student at the University of Virginia School of Law. I grew up in St. George, Utah. I was a very devout teen in the Mormon Church and I left the church and removed my names from the records on my 18th birthday. I'm a trans woman. I began transitioning at the beginning of law school. And like Hannah said, it was very interesting with that background to hear that Elder Oaks was going to be attending the law school. So I'm really excited about this conversation and to just kind of bring both my legal background and also my personal background into the conversation.

John Dehlin [00:09:02] Beautiful. Thank you, Chloe. We're so lucky to have you. And I believe it's Trans Awareness Month. Tell me if I'm wrong about that.

Speaker F [00:09:10] Yeah, it's Trans Awareness Week.

John Dehlin [00:09:11] Oh, Trans Awareness Week. Perfect. Okay, so we're extra honored to have you joining us on Trans Awareness Week. Okay. And then finally, Gerardo, we are so grateful for your relationship with Joe Baxter and with a lot of other really important things going on in terms of legal battles around byu, byu Idaho, the honor code. Gerardo, do you want to. Do you want to introduce Joe and then let Joe also fill in?

Gerardo Sumano [00:09:42] Sure. So with us we have Joe Baxter.

Speaker F [00:09:47] He.

Gerardo Sumano [00:09:48] So let me tell a little bit about what John was talking about. So recently a class action lawsuit was filed against the Department of Education of the United States. And basically, in, in small like words, what, what it is about is challenging the. The Department of Education grants religious exemptions to religious schools to discriminate against LGBT people. So pretty much the lawsuit is saying that because religious schools receive billions of dollars every year on tax money, they shouldn't be having these religious exemptions or these licenses to discriminate against LGBT people. And there's, I think almost or around 50 plaintiffs on the class action lawsuit. And Joe Baxter is a legal fellow on, on, on this lawsuit and we're glad to have him here. And yeah, Joe, if you want to give a little bit of your background, that would be awesome.

Speaker G [00:10:51] Yeah, thanks everybody for having me on. It's great to be on Mormon Stories podcast. My name is Joe Baxter. I'm an attorney with Religious Exemption Accountability Project reap. We represent queer trans and non binary students at over 200 religious taxpayer funded religious schools across the United States. I know most of the listeners are familiar with byu. The BYU is BYU Idaho, BYU Provo, BYU Hawaii. But there are many religious universities across the United States with over a million students that attend them, over 100,000 of which are, you know, queer, non binary and or transgender. And they are the. They are the people who are probably the most tangibly impacted by the religious exemptions and especially the religious exemption to Title ix. Oakes talks about how recently he has come to better understand the distress of persons who feel that others are invoking their constitutional rights like free exercise of religion to violate their Rights. Those would be all of the students that we represent. They feel most tangibly the impacts of these religious exemptions in their everyday lives. So I'm really proud to get to represent them. It's a privilege to work with them. It's a privilege to work on the case that we work with at reap. So I'm really excited to be here today and talk to you a little bit more about that.

John Dehlin [00:12:17] Beautiful. Well, welcome, Joe Baxter. Thanks for joining us. Um, all right, so the first slide that we have up is. Is a newspaper article from the Cavalier Daily, which I'm assuming is the. Is this the university newspaper at the University of Virginia? So who wants to. Who wants to start by talking about this article and any. Any background that we should know? Who was going to talk to this slide?

Context for Oaks Speaking at the University of Virginia

Gerardo Sumano [00:12:50] Yeah, Hannah and Chloe.

John Dehlin [00:12:51] Okay, Hannah, you want to start?

Hannah Kumo [00:12:55] Sure, yeah, I'd love to start. Okay, so we'll just kind of go into the background of how this came to the attention of both Chloe and I first, and then the law school community at large. So this, of course, is an issue. Dallin H. Oaks has spoken about the LGBT community, of course, for a while and has made some controversial statements. And essentially we got a notification that this event was happening at the law school, that Elder Oaks was coming to speak on a panel of discussing religious. Religious. The intersection of religious liberty and LGBTQ rights. And it was presented in a way that painted Elder Oaks as a friend to the LGBTQ community. And even a lot of folks that I would talk to who identify as LGBT would tell me, oh, this is great. This is fantastic. It looks like, you know, the LDS Church is really trying to compromise and, you know, come in here and it was. We were concerned about his background and the background of Elder Oaks and, you know, some of the concerns there of statements he's made in the past, personally, for me, drawing in some of my personal experience with this, it was causing me a lot of anxiety for. To know that he was. He was coming. I'm happy. I'm happy to have. Have him come, but the panel was not balanced in any way, and no folks from the LGBTQ community were involved in vetting process. And so Chloe and I essentially decided that it might be a good idea to bring some awareness to his background, just to educate people before attending the discussion so that they could be. Have a. Have a better picture and more complete picture of, you know, some of the statements he's made in the past and the stances he's held before. And so there would be, you know, Just a little bit more awareness. And so I can I ask you a quick question?

John Dehlin [00:15:17] So, as you and I exchanged some messages prior, tell me if I've misunderstood it. Was there an original description of the talk he was going to be giving that seemed like standard Dallin H. Oaks, in other words, potentially trying to use religious freedom as, as a way to excuse bigotry? Was that the original message that was given, or did I misunderstand that?

Hannah Kumo [00:15:46] Yeah, so the, the original message that was given is that I can read it for you in a second. It essentially paints Oakes as more of a compromising figure and more of a friend to friend to the LGBTQ community. So, yeah, so I can re read. The short paragraph that was sent, was circulated throughout the law school.

John Dehlin [00:16:08] Were you planning on reading it later or were you playing?

Hannah Kumo [00:16:11] Okay, no, we can read it now.

John Dehlin [00:16:13] Okay, go ahead. If you're comfortable.

Hannah Kumo [00:16:16] Yeah. It says, Dallin H. Oaks, the first counselor and the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and UVA law professor Douglas Laycock, a leading authority on the law of religious liberty, will discuss the future of religious freedom as debates over religious liberties and LGBT rights play out in the courts and communities across the nation. And then, just as saying, UVA professor Kathleen Flake, a Mormon studies expert, will serve as a moderator.

John Dehlin [00:16:47] Okay, and that that announcement made you worry that every, everyone's going to say, oh, this nice Mormon leader is going to be saying nice things about the LGBTQ community without any context of kind of like what his history has been in terms of saying very harmful, unaffirming things about the LGBTQ community. Is that fair to say?

Hannah Kumo [00:17:11] Yeah, that's correct. And the main concern here is that while I'm not, I, I, I'm not absolutely not denying the fact that he has had a wonderfully successful legal career and that he is, I mean, he does have a good background to talk about the religious side of this conversation. And of course, I, I am all about free speech. I'm happy to hear conversations across all, you know, perspectives. However, he is not an expert to speak about the LGBTQ side of that debate as well. So the advertisement is essentially painting him as an expert in both the religious freedom, religious exemption side of the discussion and also an expert in how that relates to a community that he is not a part of and not even not a part of, but a community to whom he has made some very harmful statements in the past. And my concern here was that the panel was not going to be a balanced discussion at all, and it was Leaving open the idea that Dallin H. Oaks was going to be speaking on behalf of the queer community and how, you know, how this whole discussion relates on both sides. So, yeah, I think that was my primary concern with all of this.

Kyle Ashworth [00:18:41] And another question I have maybe for Hannah and Chloe is in terms of the audience, so we know that the church has a problem with straight cisgender, primarily white men, speaking for and in behalf of the LGBTQ community. But in terms of the University of Virginia, maybe give our audience a little bit of an understanding as to the actual audience. What is the percentage of Latter Day Saints at the University of Virginia, particularly in the law school? Kind of give us an idea of that audience and why someone like a Dallin Oaks would be speaking in that particular venue on that particular topic.

Hannah Kumo [00:19:25] Sure. Chloe, do you want to take this one?

Speaker F [00:19:28] Sure. So it's a little unclear what percentage of Mormons are at the law school. There is a Mormon group at the law school and many folks from Utah apply and are accepted at the University of Virginia School of Law every year. So the Mormon population is fairly big. I don't know what percentage I'd attach to it. Maybe something like 5 to 10% of the law school. There is also an ex Mormon population at the law school, but it is, it is a bit smaller than the Mormon population. And so I think the real reason, though, that Elder Oaks was invited to speak at the law school is that as some of the leading religious liberty scholars in the nation, and religious liberty scholarship is often published through the legal journals that the school has, and so religious liberty conversations are just more common at our law school than many others. And so I think that the reason people wanted to hear from other Oaks is that he participated in the Utah Compromise, which was the bill in Utah that gave protections to LGBTQ folks with some religious exemptions. And so I think that a lot of the folks at the university were more interested to hear his perspective on how he reached that compromise than they were interested in his Mormon perspective.

John Dehlin [00:20:57] Got it. Okay, Chloe, that's. That's great. So Kyle, was there. Was there a follow up question you had to that at all?

Kyle Ashworth [00:21:13] Yeah, I think that gives a more broad understanding as to the audience there because. And maybe we just tee this up. Just. Just wondering if as Oaks proceeds down this course, that we'll talk about. He was. He has kind of a problem with messaging in terms of an audience. Sometimes he. He says one thing to one group and another thing to another group. So I was just trying to understand the, the total population at uva that is represented as Latter Day Saints. And. And maybe if that was a reason why he might skew either for better or for worse, the details of his lecture.

John Dehlin [00:21:55] I love it. Kyle, this is just a small technical note. Your camera seems to be focusing on the sign behind you, not on your face. If you could tweak with that while you're off camera. Just a small thing.

Kyle Ashworth [00:22:06] Love is love.

John Dehlin [00:22:07] I know that is the most important thing. So your camera knows what's. What's true. Okay, really quick, Hannah and Chloe, there was some approach. Did you guys end up scheduling a bit of a protest with. With Lambda? Do you guys want to talk about that at all of kind of any of those events that led up to Oaks his talk and if. If that had any influence? Yeah.

Summary of Oaks' Record on LGBTQ Issues

Speaker F [00:22:33] And so essentially what happened was our initial goal was to just raise awareness and bring attention to the information about Oaks history. And so I initially started the conversation about his history with electroshock therapy, his 2019 BYU speech, and some other statements that he's made. And that was mostly through kind of just like private group chats around the law school. And it caught a lot of attention. The law school community was quite surprised that this information was not brought up to students before we engaged in this conversation. And so that's kind of where Lambda stepped in.

John Dehlin [00:23:13] Chloe, do. Do you mind if I jump in really quick? I don't mean to interrupt. I just want. We have a lot of Never Mormons who listen to the show and Kyle, you may be better to talk about this than me. There's an amazing document called for the Record that that's shared through Latter Gay Stories podcast. But what people need to know about Elder Don H. Oaks is that he was president of Brigham Young university during the 70s primarily. And while he was there, there were several studies regarding electroshock therapy to try and use conversion therapy to help BYU male students not be gay. And we'll be talking about that again tomorrow. But then he was released as BYU president and called into the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles by the Mormon Church in the early 1980 after being a Supreme Court justice on the Utah Supreme Court, you know, having graduated from University of Chicago Law School. And then he was asked to draft kind of the strategy for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to deal with the potential possibility of same sex marriage being legalized. Kyle, do you want to. Is there anything else about his background? It's just. It can't be understated how polarizing and divisive and sort of central and Strategic. Elder Oaks has been to what many would say would be the oppression not only of LGBTQ Mormons throughout the past several decades, but kind of the architect of the church's efforts through Prop 22, through Hawaii, through Arizona, through California and Prop 8. He's been kind of the mastermind architect, Elder Dalina jokes has been for the past four or decades on the church's strategy to deny LGBTQ rights throughout the country. Is that true?

Kyle Ashworth [00:25:16] Yeah. And I think the descriptor architect is wildly accurate for a Dallin H. Oaks. I also think that we shouldn't discount the intelligence of President Oaks, not only the accolades that you spoke about him being a former president of byu, a former. Former Supreme Court justice for the Utah State Supreme Court, he was twice considered for the United States Supreme Court under, I believe it was Reagan and Carter, both Reagan and Carter administrations. President Oaks is not an unintelligent person. He's brilliant in terms of some, in a legal mind. But yes. So you mentioned on the record, which is essentially is a collection of the church's history, its messaging, its policies, its periodicals, all the things related to the LGBTQ topic. And in that does discuss his fingerprints in this space all the way back into the 1950s, the late 1950s, through to his tenure in 1971 as president of BYU. But that document that you talked about, the 1984 memorandum, which originally was supposed to remain highly confidential and only for members of the quorum of the 12, is super telling. It's within that document that Oakes lays out his strategy that allowing gay marriage is national suicide, that gay marriage will depopulate the world. He also indicates within that document that gay people should not have a place in society. They shouldn't work with children. They shouldn't be allowed to interact with families with children. It was pretty brutal. And this essentially was the framework for the way the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, not only. And this is a discussion that we can get into, not only pushed within their own walls, within their own chapels, over their own pulpits, but the way they influence legislation within the state of Utah and beyond as well. So if you're a Latter Day Saint who identifies as LGBTQ, the church's policy in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and even into 2000s, was that you could not have a calling that allowed you to work with children even on the record. Today, the official statement of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, as voiced by Dallin Oaks in 2006, is that parents shouldn't be seen in public with their gay child, that if your gay child has a partner, that partner should not be allowed in the home if there are young children present. So these ideas are still perpetuated through Mormonism, originating, I think, officially in that 1984 memorandum and processed through. And then we could. We could spend a whole nother episode discussing Prop 8, Prop 22, California, Massachusetts, Hawaii, and all the areas that the church involved themselves in public legislation. But I think the important part is to start, if you really want to understand where Dallin H. Oaks his baseline in this topic, go to find on the Record and from on the Record, read that confidential memorandum, which we have a copy of in on the Record and just see where his brain is at and mirror that with his 40 years of discussion in this space. And he's not wavered an inch other than this UVA discussion where he. It appeared as if he finally broke ground a little. And I think that's why we're here and that's why we're discussing it. Because for many who understands the history behind a Dallin Oaks in the LGBTQ space, what he spoke about in this lecture was a bit different and a bit shocking. So I thought maybe we were turning the corner in the way Elder Oaks was approaching this topic. I love it, but maybe not.

John Dehlin [00:29:24] And Kyle, I knew you'd be the guy to kind of give that summary. Victoria says, thank you so much for that summary. There's a lot of people that just. Even people that are newly questioning the church or have left the church still still don't know this history.

Kyle Ashworth [00:29:39] Yeah. And for those who do want to read that, I guess I should have let you know where to find it. You can easily just Google on the record LDS on the record LGBTQ. It's been downloaded nearly 30,000 times in the last few weeks, so it has. It's number one on Google. So just on the record, LDS on the record LGBTQ or. Or you can go to lattergay stories.org backslash record and that's the direct link.

John Dehlin [00:30:05] And we've just included it in the comments. We'll include it in the show notes. One other comment that was made that I think is probably worth bringing up. And then I want to throw it back to Chloe. It's a comment made by Doug. He says, I think the University of Virginia has a Mormon studies program that Kathleen Flake kind of heads up. A female, a woman Mormon scholar, and of course, Greg Prince, the. We've had him on Mormon stories many times. He's a still active and attending Mormon historian and scholar. He. He donated his archives and papers to the University of Virginia. And I think Greg was actually there in attendance at this event. So I guess it's. It's a, It's a far, far away place, but still friendly enough to the church where Oaks felt comfortable giving his talk there. But, but just to summarize, Chloe, what. What I think we tried to really illustrate is why you and Hannah would be concerned that they would. To a secular school, that they would invite Elder Oaks and not give the proper warning and context to all the students and history to all the students. It's just, it might. It risks coming across as this nice man who is trying to love LGBT people that probably, well, will be triggering for ex Mormons and the members of the LGBTQ ex Mormon community, but it's also could be mis. Misleading to the students there in the community there. Right, Chloe? Is that we were trying to say.

Speaker F [00:31:39] Yeah, absolutely. And one thing I'll quickly say before I get back into that. The Mormon Studies department at the University of Virginia is the leading Mormon studies department. And so Kathleen Flake is recognized as, if not the top scholar in Mormon studies, one of the top scholars in Mormon studies. Elder Oaks mentioned her a few times, I think, during his speech. So I think that's important to note as well.

John Dehlin [00:32:04] And she's faithful. She's faithful Mormon because these, these endowed chairs of Mormon studies are usually funded by super wealthy Mormons that want to help manage the. The academic discourse around Mormon studies. And so if, whether it's Claremont or Utah State University or University of Virginia, you've got super wealthy faithful Mormons donating to these endowed chairs so that a f. Faithful Mormon scholar like Kathleen Flake or like Phil Barlow or like Patrick Mason or like Matt Bowman can help shepherd the Mormon studies discussion in a way that's experienced as favorable by the Mormon Church. And that's, that's, that's also what's going not to say that Kathleen Flake isn't a great scholar, but it is a way for the church to maintain heavy influence in the academic community. I think that's fair to say. Okay, Anything else before we jump in to. So, so do you, do you guys want to talk about what Lambda is and how they were involved, Chloe and

Lambda Law Alliance Response and Student Organizing

Kyle Ashworth [00:33:04] Hannah, really quickly, and we kind of cut Chloe off.

John Dehlin [00:33:09] Yeah, keep going, Chloe.

Kyle Ashworth [00:33:10] So people want to hear that.

John Dehlin [00:33:11] Keep going, Chloe.

Speaker F [00:33:12] Yeah, and I know that we want to get to the speech, so I'll make it brief, but I'll say Lambda Law alliance is essentially the support group at the Law school for queer law students. That kind of connects both the students together and also the queer students at the law school to employers. And so it's just kind of like an employment and support group at the law school. They throw social events and all sorts of stuff, and they. And they do advocacy like this when LGBT rights issues come up, they take stances where appropriate for our members. And so Lambda Law alliance, their involvement in this, they essentially wrote a call to action to make sure that the broader law school community knew about this history from Elder Oaks and sent that around the school. That letter got 150 signatures, and essentially a signature committed that person to coming to the speech and kind of show support for LGBT students at the law school. In the audience of Oaks lecture, I think we knew, and working with Lambda, we knew that Oaks doesn't get asked questions from a live audience very often either. So we hoped that through Lambda and through that presence, we could kind of tease out some of these issues that he's speaking to and ask him questions directly about how he sees the LGBT rights and how that's going to inform his. His ideas around compromise.

John Dehlin [00:34:45] And that's super that the importance of that can't be stated overstated, because for so long now, it used to be Gordon B. Hinckley would take questions from. From press, starting with Gordon Thomas S. Monson and the debacle with Elder Holland going to the BBC and the Mormon apostles just don't take questions from the press anymore. So Chloe and Hannah and anyone who at the UVA mobilized to get people there so that real legitimate questions that could hold Mormon Church leaders accountable and they could give visibility to their history. I just can't thank you enough as somebody who really cares about these issues that. Thank you, Chloe. Thank you, Hannah. We owe it to you. All that we even have are having this discussion. So. And this transparency and visibility. So thanks to you both.

Gerardo Sumano [00:35:35] Yeah, there's something I, I want to say just to really quickly clarify before we move forward to the, to. To the first part of, of. Of the videos that we're going to show. So just to really summarize this. So Elder Oaks went to University of Virginia to give a public speech, which is the one that's online. It's been edited, cut out some parts, nothing super important, but it's online and it's public on YouTube. But there was the Q A session that Chloe is talking about that happened before the public speech, and this was only for lost students. If that, if I think that's why I understand and, and first it was a brief presentation of Oakes and the other UVA professor talking about religious freedom and about. And the intersection with non discrimination laws. And then they were. There was like a 10 minute question and answer section that was super important. The topics were really, really interesting. What was the name of the women that was there again within the panel?

Hannah Kumo [00:36:47] That was Kathleen Flake.

Gerardo Sumano [00:36:48] Yeah, she was asking really good questions even before the Q and A. This one is not publicly available. The only part that has been that it's out there is the one that Kyle has posted and some other people have posted of the. Of the electroshock therapy. But we're going to be showing some clips that no one has seen before. Because this, this was recorded by Chloe and Hannah's friends. Or were you. Was it. Was it you, Hannah?

John Dehlin [00:37:16] Do we want to identify who made the recording? Let me ask that.

Gerardo Sumano [00:37:21] Yeah. Well, we don't know. We don't know who, who recorded it, but we have. So these. So these clips, again, the. Some of the ones that we're gonna show have not been seen before.

John Dehlin [00:37:34] Okay. Yeah, that's important. And, and maybe we do. I. I wasn't trying to stop you, Gerardo. Sometimes people who record stuff don't want to be identified. That's the only reason why I said, yeah, you're right. Okay, cool. So this is a special video you're saying?

Gerardo Sumano [00:37:48] Yes.

John Dehlin [00:37:49] All right, well, anything else do we want to have, Gerardo?

Hannah Kumo [00:37:53] Do.

John Dehlin [00:37:54] I guess we're going to be talking about some of the BYU. BYU, BYU, ID, honor code stuff. Are we going to wait to bring Joe in on that or do you want to talk?

Gerardo Sumano [00:38:02] That's. That's the first. That's the. We're going to talk about with the first clip we're going to show because that was the. One of the first questions that were asked to Elder Oaks.

Church Funding, Tax Exemptions, and State Separation

John Dehlin [00:38:11] Okay, so here's. Should we go to the first slide, Gerardo?

Gerardo Sumano [00:38:14] Yeah, sorry. This was not part of the questions. This is just Elder Oaks talking about the intersection of religious freedom and non discrimination.

John Dehlin [00:38:24] And why is this important? Tell us why this slide's important. Well, what should we watch for here?

Gerardo Sumano [00:38:30] He is going to be saying something really interesting that we're going to all comment and is that that there should be a division between church and state.

John Dehlin [00:38:39] Okay.

Gerardo Sumano [00:38:40] But he will say that government should still give money to churches even if they discriminate. That's implicit. And then to support their secular endeavors.

John Dehlin [00:38:53] Okay, and this is part of the Q A which happened before or after. It's before his major speech, right?

Gerardo Sumano [00:38:59] Yeah, yeah.

John Dehlin [00:39:00] So this is part of the Q and A before the main speech. Okay. Should I play it, Gerardo?

Gerardo Sumano [00:39:04] Yes.

John Dehlin [00:39:05] All right, here we go.

▶ Video Clip 1

Video Clip 1 [00:39:07] It sounds like the notion of interaction

Video Clip 1 [00:39:10] between the two groups also matters.

Video Clip 1 [00:39:12] Absolutely. And reciprocal support. We can, under the establishment clause, get into what forms that support can take. But surely government enforcing the free exercise of religious religion is supporting churches. It would also be supporting churches if they sent some money to support the church functions. But that's not an issue in my denomination. It's never been something we tried to see. But we do expect that the government will be supportive of its citizens in their exercise size, not just their worship, but in their exercise of religions.

John Dehlin [00:39:59] Okay, who. Who wants to comment on that and why that's significant?

Gerardo Sumano [00:40:04] So I think Joe would be an amazing person to talk about this.

Speaker F [00:40:08] Right?

Speaker G [00:40:08] Yeah. And this. This kind of goes to this. The hand that Oaks and the church maybe have had in developing religious liberty law over the last 70 years, the 1950s funds the Supreme. Can you hear me okay?

John Dehlin [00:40:25] Yeah, keep going.

Speaker G [00:40:26] Yeah. In the 1950s, the Supreme Court precedents were very clear that public money could not flow to a religious university, schools that taught religious teachings. And a lot of work has been put into the law to fund legislation, to fund litigation to slowly allow the government to provide more and more and more and more funding to religious universities and religious schools across the country, to the point now where they're starting to make claims that not only can the government provide funding to all of these schools, the government is required to provide funding to all of these schools, which is a massive shift over the last 70 years. One specific part of that is that schools that normally are receiving federal funds are subject to obligations. Title ix, for example, has non discrimination requirements that come along with it. If you receive funds for your university, you have to comply with the obligations. Yet in the name of religious liberty, universities have attempted to have been exempted from these obligations on funding. So in a sense, they're receiving the funding without the obligation. This funding is damaging to students. I mean, just to know that their government is funding, their discrimination alone is an issue. And so this is something that they have been fighting for for a long time. And that's kind of gives a little bit of backdrop. Drop to that clip right there.

John Dehlin [00:42:05] And so what, Was there something disturbing or alarming about what Oak said? Just to kind of summarize, how does

Gerardo Sumano [00:42:11] it relate to what you guys are doing at reap?

Speaker G [00:42:15] Yeah. So, I mean, they want a less. Less separation means that they. They would like the public funding, but they would not like the obligations that come along with it. They'd like to be able to receive funds and still be able to discriminate against LGBTQ youth, which, you know, is a violation of their rights, their rights to equal protection under the law, their rights to equal access to these educational programs. These are. These are publicly funded educational programs, and these students should be able to receive equal access on the same grounds as equal. Any other individual, any other student that's going to these schools.

John Dehlin [00:42:53] Love it. Anyone else want to comment on that clip before we go to the next one?

Speaker F [00:42:58] Yeah, I'll just add a little bit of context to this clip, because I don't think that we'll be looking at a clip of this. But throughout this particular Q and A, Elder Oaks, and I think he mentions it in his evening lecture as well, he describes moving away from believing in a wall between Trojan states and now believes in a curtain between church and state. The Constitution doesn't discuss a wall. Right. It doesn't talk explicitly about a wall between church and state. And so some religious figures do debate what level of separation goes on there. But I think that's interesting to compare to the clip that we just heard now. It definitely sounds as if Oaks really thinks that there's less separation between church and state than the law currently allows. And it definitely seems to me in this statement that he. He wants to solidify this understanding that the government needs to be providing more support to religious institutions than they have in the past.

John Dehlin [00:44:02] Okay, any other. Any other comments?

Gerardo Sumano [00:44:08] I think we're good to go to the next one. On this next one, John.

John Dehlin [00:44:13] So, I mean, I guess I'll just say there's. There must be a tension a little bit between him wanting the government to leave the. Leave the church alone, let the church do what it wants to do in employment at byu, honor code stuff at the university. He still still wants a separation there. He's realizing that it can't be as firm as it maybe has been historically. But he also wants still federal money. Is that. Is that kind of what. What we're doing, getting from this without. Without a lot of accountability, without too much accountability?

Kyle Ashworth [00:44:47] Well, then also, when you look at what's happening in highly populated Mormon areas, we don't have a wall at all. We really have a temple veil where people can pass back and forth between church and state. And that's super problematic as well, because you can be in Oaks and go to places like the University of Virginia and preach about walls being built between church and state. And he even made this type of A comment when he was called as an apostle and then had to leave the Utah State Supreme Court where he said that he was dancing between the wall. But really, it's problematic when you look at the church's history within the Utah State Legislature and also neighboring states where there's a heavy influence of Latter Day Saints. It just. To me, this seems remarkably disingenuous that the church would do one thing in terms of upholding this idea that there should be a wall or that we practice church and state walls. But within, when the rubber meets the road in areas where there is a heavy Latter Day Saint influence, the church is absolutely involved. I mean, look at conversion therapy in the state of Utah and even nondescription or non. Oh, my gosh.

John Dehlin [00:46:04] Discrimination.

Kyle Ashworth [00:46:05] Discrimination, yeah. In the state of Utah. That said, sat at the Utah legislature for almost a year until the church nodded and said we would approve it. And then all of a sudden, the legislature was willing to bring it up and it passed overwhelmingly. So I don't know, just a little tidbit of history that I think is. Is worth noting.

John Dehlin [00:46:25] One of our. One of our viewers, Bobby, writes BYU receives over a billion dollars in federal funds each year. This includes, like, student loans. Can we confirm that? Is that right, Gerardo?

Gerardo Sumano [00:46:37] I think Joe would know a little bit.

Speaker G [00:46:39] Yeah, I can't confirm the exact number on byu, so that'd be. That'll be tough to say.

John Dehlin [00:46:44] Mark makes the point. A government should not be funding a university that practices unlawful discrimination. Discrimination. That's a nice story. Yeah. Okay. Any other. Any other comments or go to the next slide?

LDS Church History of LGBTQ Discrimination

Hannah Kumo [00:46:58] Yeah, I just wanted to add really quick, and I think this has been articulated very well, but I think it's just important to clarify that Oaks was making the comment that religious institutions should receive more federal funding for their secular functions. So not necessarily the private religious operations, but for the specific secular functions such as education, of course, I think they would characterize as a secular function. And I think, again, this has been stated. The problem there with that is that other. Any other public university, for instance, needs to abide in order to receive that funding, needs to abide by anti discrimination law. And the problem here is that they're wanting to be part of that public school, public space in the sense that they would receive something from it, but they're unwilling to compromise on the other end of it by abiding by those anti discrimination laws. So I think that's just an interesting tidbit as well.

John Dehlin [00:48:02] Yeah. And there's a whole. Oh, go ahead, go ahead.

Speaker G [00:48:05] That Discrimination has been carried under the banner of religious freedom for a long time. That's how it's branded. This is about free exercise. This is about religious freedom. When we challenge kind of that premise that it doesn't violate your freedom to not discriminate against LGBTQ students, to provide them an education where they're safe, where they're free from discrimination, where they're able to equally participate, the whole idea that that encroaches somehow or violates religious liberty, I think is a far stretch. And it's starting to be challenged. It's gone unchallenged for a long time because they've had a lot of power. It's been a one sided conversation. As students start to get their voice, that's starting to change.

John Dehlin [00:48:55] And I guess we should just connect the dots. Mark is good to remind us that BYU has been through this before. A lot of other religious universities where they used to discriminate regarding blacks or people of color. And it got to the point where some of these issues were starting to come to a head in the 70s. And of course, the church miraculously received the 1978 revelation that helped to end any of those concerns. This isn't the church's first rodeo as it relates to discrimination and the law and education. And so, Gerardo, if you had to name a couple of the areas now where the church continues to discriminate against LGBTQ students at the BYU's. I know it's obvious to you, to our listeners who aren't kind of in the know, what are some of the key areas, Gerardo?

Gerardo Sumano [00:49:42] Yeah. So BYU students are not. Well, it's so complicated, John, This. This past couple years since the honor code was changed, and people can go and read that story, but

Speaker G [00:49:56] officially the

Gerardo Sumano [00:49:57] understanding is that students cannot date like LGBT students cannot date or have romantic relationships with people of their same sex

John Dehlin [00:50:08] without a threat of what? Without a threat of what?

Gerardo Sumano [00:50:11] Without a threat of being kicked out of school or being disciplined or being suspended.

John Dehlin [00:50:18] Yeah.

Kyle Ashworth [00:50:18] And you better not do it with facial hair.

Gerardo Sumano [00:50:22] Yeah, yeah.

John Dehlin [00:50:24] Okay.

Hannah Kumo [00:50:25] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:50:25] And of course, just there's also housing implications, right?

Gerardo Sumano [00:50:30] Yeah. And BYU just changed that, surprisingly, just to me, just seem. Because this is being challenged, I want to bring everyone attention to the Religious Exemption Accountability Project. If you guys go and Google that, you can go and look at what they're doing. That's what Joe is part of again. It's Religious Exemption Accountability Project. That's the lawsuit that has been filed. And it seems like BYU is doing all these changes to make it more like a Gray area where they cannot be held accountable. You know how they just changed the rule for housing at BYU where, like, students don't have to live in approved housing after the first year or first semester. This is making it so that BYU can say, oh, no, you don't have to be you.

Speaker F [00:51:23] You.

Gerardo Sumano [00:51:23] Like if a student says, oh, I was kicked out, BYU can say, well, you didn't have to live in approved housing. You had another. You had other options. Because before when you got kicked out of school, you got kicked out of your housing automatically as well. But I mean that. That rule still applies at BYU Idaho. BYU Idaho and byu. My understanding, BYU Hawaii hasn't done the change yet. That was Provo. But yes, that's highly problematic.

Speaker F [00:51:51] Yeah.

Kyle Ashworth [00:51:51] Anything Mike makes.

Gerardo Sumano [00:51:53] No, you.

Kyle Ashworth [00:51:54] If you want to go, Joe, go ahead, Joe.

Speaker G [00:51:55] I just want to say that for. We see this problem for students across the country. Again, there are. There are these schools all across the United States. It's not just at the BYU's where schools will. Some schools have like, blatantly explicit discriminatory. Discriminatory policies. Others policies are a little bit hidden and they don't have any oversight because they're exempt from Title 9. So they don't have government oversight of how their rules, what their policies are, et cetera. So they create very vague rules where students are afraid. They don't know if they're going to be punished if they, you know, if they are out, they don't know what the impact is going to be. So they live in fear. They're silenced. They're always. They're being oppressed all of the time because the vagueness of these rules and the lack of oversight and accountability.

John Dehlin [00:52:50] Hannah, you wanted to add a comment, is that right?

Hannah Kumo [00:52:53] Yeah. Thanks. So I was just going to add really quick what you were talking about, John, in the context of this happening with black people, discrimination against people, people with, you know, according to skin color, back in the 80s. The case you're talking about is Bob Jones. And I just see, I think it's important to highlight here some fascinating parallels between the case there and what's happening here in the discussion and the debate regarding LGBTQ anti discrimination as well. So a primary argument that was made essentially by Bob Jones University, that was a private religious university, was that they did not discriminate against. Against black people because they openly like admitted, admitted black students and they were able to technically participate. But as soon as they. They engaged in practices like interracial marriage or anything like that, they risked being kicked out. And so I Think it's important to highlight that a lot of the comments that the church makes in defense of its discriminatory policies is that you can be gay and in the church, you can attend BYU and technically identify as LGBTQ plus. But then the problem there is that as soon as you act on that or do anything against, you know, you know, take actions in that are in line with your identity or anything like that, then there are discriminatory. Discriminatory policies that kick in. And I think that was just an interesting parallel to the discussion that was happening back in the 70s and 80s regarding interracial marriage in this context as well.

Dallin H. Oaks [00:54:52] Yeah.

Gerardo Sumano [00:54:52] Elder Oaks was asked specifically about Bob Jones. We have a clip, but we decided to put it back because he didn't ask. He dodged the question. He pretended like he didn't understand the parallels between today, what's happening today with lgbt, and the. And Bob Jones. But anyway, and.

Speaker G [00:55:14] And Bob Jones is especially important because the Supreme Court explicitly balanced the religious rights, the right to religious belief in discrimination versus the government interest in eradicating discrimination. That's one of the very few times that the government explicitly has made that balancing act. And they said that the interest in eliminating discrimination overrides this interest in exercising of religious belief. So that's the exact. This religious belief is the exact logic that they're using to maintain these discriminatory policies as well. And that's why Bob Jones is a really important case in this area.

John Dehlin [00:55:54] And just to kind of connect the final dots for those who are really new to this whole discussion. The Mormon Church has a history of discriminatory theology and doctrine and policies, whether it's against people of color or against LGBTQ people. But because the church teaches that their prophets speak for God, they get locked into theologies and doctrines and practices and prohibitions throughout the membership to keep the members in line, such that once society starts evolving, whether it's for women's rights or trans rights or LGBTQ rights or rights for people of color, the church has to always walk this balance of not making it look like the church is caving to social pressure, not giving in too soon to its doctrinal, theological, or behavioral commandments to its membership, so that it doesn't look like the church is changing, that the church ever got it wrong, that the church is caving to social pressure. So it always has to be walking this dance of maintaining and perpetuating the discrimination, but looking decent to the world so it doesn't look bigoted to the rest of the world, but also not changing too fast so that it doesn't disturb the current membership that is still trying to obey and believe these very bigoted and or discriminatory practices. And this is just, the church is just continually trying to walk this dance. And that's kind of why we're talking about all this.

Kyle Ashworth [00:57:19] And we just saw in August, Jeffrey R. Holland doubling down on this church's right to discriminate. And you'll remember in his speech to faculty at byu, he said, we will sacrifice our accreditation, we will sacrifice funding, we will sacrifice all of these things in order to maintain our principles. And I just think that's an incredible ask for a student at BYU who then will take that unaccredited degree out into the workforce and essentially be laughed out of every interview. If this is the course that the church wants to pursue, what does that do for additional government funding? What does that do for grants? What does that do for anyone with tenure at BYU as a professor, as an educator? What does that do for every student at BYU who holds a degree from that university if they lose those accreditations? I just think that the reality is, I think we could call Elder Holland's bluff in that space because I think that would be a monumental risk, a monumental detriment to Mormonism if they lost their flagship school. And we have leaked audio from the Apostles also in on the Record, where Boyd K. Packer was talking about this subject as well. And he said, we'll close it all down. We'll shut down our institutions if we have to so that we never have to give in to gay marriage. And he said, if you don't believe me, you don't understand the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. So I just wonder if indeed someone like Oaks is, or even the leadership of the church is absolutely serious in giving all of this away to make sure that they can still continue to discriminate against minorities. Baffling to me.

Gerardo Sumano [00:59:08] Yeah, this is going to get even more exciting as we look into what Elder Oaks said, actually said on his public speech and what, how he recognizes that they are losing the court battle. But anyway, so we can we included this, this clip on the vaccinations I, I was hesitant on because we know that our audience are in, in both sides of vaccinations. But this is. Was really interesting to hear Elder Oaks talking about how religious exemptions for vaccinations across any, any kind of religion. Those are silly. And he was not talking specifically about, about LDS people. He was talking about any religion that anyone asking for a religious exemption for A vaccination requirement. That's silly. And let's play this clip, John.

Religious Exemptions, Vaccines, and Government Policy

John Dehlin [01:00:07] Okay. All right. So this is about the vaccination, but it. But it also applies to. Yeah, okay.

▶ Video Clip 2

Video Clip 2 [01:00:18] On the question of religious exemptions from vaccination, I agree entirely with what he said. That's why I said I didn't see a legal issue. This was so positive that for me, it's simply an illustration of how bad things get when you mix medical questions with political issues. We've got a bad mix of political issues and medical issues and vaccinations. It's interesting to me as a person legally trained and reading these controversies

Video Clip 2 [01:01:06] from

Video Clip 2 [01:01:06] a distance, as I do without the current personal knowledge and practice that Professor Laycock has, I just think it's silly for anybody to think that any available reliable medical evidence untainted by political considerations would give you a reason to seek a religious exemption. And in our faith, the president of the church, to whom I am a counselor, whom we sustain as a prophet of God, called to give teachings to adherence to the faith. He is a trained medical doctor with a PhD and a long history distinction in surgery, having been one of the principal inventors of the heart lung machine that led to open heart surgery. And then he also has a PhD in public health, Johns Hopkins. And so we couldn't have a better combination in a lay church between a prophetic calling and deep medical knowledge. And he has very repeatedly said to the members of the Latter Day Saint faith that they ought to get vaccinations. It's a personal choice. Personal choice is something we believe in. Of course it's a personal choice. And the church won't tell you you have to, but you ought to for the benefit of your neighbors and your family and the people around you. And despite that, we've got a significant number of members of the church who persist on the political route rather than the religious route. So that I identify completely with what Professor Laycock has said.

John Dehlin [01:03:16] So, Gerardo, tell us why you wanted to bring the vaccine question into this.

Gerardo Sumano [01:03:21] Well, yeah, I had it here. And then when I showed it to Hannah and Chloe and talked about it, they said how. How this relates to this whole topic. It was just super interesting to me. His reasoning saying that because medic medicine has proved that vaccination works and is safe, then religious exemption, no religious exemption is valid because the medical. The medical field has already proven it. Well, in my mind, I'm thinking, what does that mean for transgender people? Where, like, what does that mean for gay people? You know, that. That over and over again, the medical field has proven that the church stances are wrong. Like, so how much more do they need to prove it? And so, yeah, that was super interesting.

John Dehlin [01:04:11] Chloe. I have, I, I've, I've been public about the fact that I have a trans child. And by having a trans child, I learned that the transgender issue for sure is, is completely, justifiably framed as a medical issue. Do you mind explaining that? Because I think a lot of people have no idea. They think about gender as also being politicized, but not as a medical issue. Right.

Speaker F [01:04:36] Yeah. And, and thank you for letting me speak to this. I asked Gerardo to include this clip specifically because the scientific consensus for, for trans people is that trans affirming medical care is medically necessary. It's. It's required under law to be included in, in insurance policies in many states. And the reasoning behind that is because many trans people experience what's called gender dysphoria. It's a medical condition that can be diagnosed, and it essentially is the condition of discomfort that you experience for not having a gender presentation that matches your gender identity. And that can actually impact the way that you work, that you live your life. It can impact your mental health, it can impact the way that you interact with other people, it can interact your career. And so being able to access this medical care is seen as a very valid medically seen as very necessary. To me, when I heard this comment, my first thought is, then why is the church adamant about saying that its members should not transition? And why is the church adamant about seeking exemptions for discriminating against trans people who have chosen to transition?

John Dehlin [01:06:01] It's just constant. It seems like this legalistic approach to Mormon doctrine and theology and practice, but then public relations leads to the super duplicitous speaking out of both sides of your mouth kind of confusion. Joe. Joe. Oh, go, Gerardo. Joe, you had said you wanted to say something here in hand. I want to give you a chance as well.

Speaker G [01:06:22] Yeah. I think this is a really fascinating statement because the religious exemptions that they claim to discriminate are. It's the same legal reasoning behind those exemptions and exemptions for vaccines. I think this is really interesting because we do protect the right to believe, but when you live in a society, when you act on those beliefs, you have a duty to not harm the people around you. You're limited in what you can do. That's just part of being in a civil society is that we have to sometimes not act on everything that we think or believe in. Order for the greater good of everybody. It's interesting with the vaccine because I think the. You know, Oakes and many people in his circle are of an older generation who are suddenly very vulnerable to Covid. And when they find themselves in a vulnerable community, all of a sudden this idea of a religious exemption being used to endanger you becomes very pertinent and very important. And all of a sudden they're like, yeah, well, this is ridiculous. Why would somebody use a religious exemption to harm other people? Ignoring that, you know, this. All of these students who are a vulnerable group who have been being harmed by these religious exemptions for so long, that's what they've been feeling. But they've been ignored because they don't have power. They don't have the voice. And it's the exact same logic. But suddenly, when they find themselves in a vulnerable community, all of a sudden there's limits to religious freedom, which I find fascinating.

John Dehlin [01:07:55] Good point. Any other comments before we move on to the next slide? Anyone handed you or Kyle anything else you want to say?

Hannah Kumo [01:08:08] No, I think. I mean, I think the part I want to just highlight especially is that regardless of where you fall on the vaccine debate, I think it's so fascinating that Oakes chooses to use this particular logic here and that he's then unwilling to recognize and apply that same logic to, as Chloe articulated very well, the medical necessity of transitioning for. For transgender people. And I think that's just a very interesting choice on his part to openly say that and make that. Make that comment there and refuse to apply it to any other. Any other issue, not to mention.

John Dehlin [01:08:50] Oh, go ahead.

Kyle Ashworth [01:08:51] Just one other thing to add to the vaccination mandate discussion is that historically, the church already knew that they were losing control of the left. The church has fought the left probably since its existence in. Through a variety of events, through history. And then within the last five or six years, the church started seeing an increase of their loss of the right as well. We get the Day Bell. The Chad Day Bell Prepper.

John Dehlin [01:09:25] The Mormon prepper movement.

Kyle Ashworth [01:09:27] Yeah, the prepper movements. We get the hard right. The Q anon the does not. So the church has realized that they also are losing the extreme orthodoxy portion of. But who could have imagined and who could have predicted that the church would lose the middle because of a pandemic and vaccinations and masks? And I think this is another way that Oaks. And if you reference back to his conference talk, just this previous conference, it takes a lot of guts for someone like Adalynn Oaks to get up at the conference center Polta and say, well, please come back. Our chapels are empty. We've lost numbers. We are fledgling as a church in terms of participation in our chapels and our Sunday services. Please come back. To me, that indicates they've lost the left. They sacrificed the left for their hold on the right. They have now lost control of the right. And in the middle of that, the centrist Mormons are fleeing because of COVID or their hold on the right. They. So this is just so much to discuss all at once. I think for, for someone like Adalynn H. Oaks and then to try to, to try to cause or give reason why this is happening is even more

John Dehlin [01:10:45] baffling, I think, and I don't also, that that's all very important analysis on all your parts. I also don't want, as someone who has a psychology background, I also don't want to lose sight of the idea that the medical community delisted same sex sexuality in the early 1970s as a mental disorder. They've been condemning conversion therapy and reparative therapy for decades. And the Mormon Church for so many decades was ignoring the medical community and the mental health communities, professionals, and continuing to deny the medical and, and scientific evidence around the biological ideology of same sex attraction and the changeability of it. So, so it really, you know, for, for so long. It's just recently until the class action lawsuits where the church realized it had to stop encouraging conversion therapy or reparative therapy, that it backed off. But yeah, it's, it's weird to see him say let's go with the science, when for so long and in so many ways the church has just been ignoring and defying the science until it was against its best interest to do so. It is, it, it is weird. And that takes us to a really kind of disturbing slide you have for us. Gerardo, who do you want to talk about this slide?

Leaked Slides and Hard Questions at the Event

Gerardo Sumano [01:12:09] I, I can talk about it and

John Dehlin [01:12:11] go ahead and read it for our listeners who don't, who can't see it.

Gerardo Sumano [01:12:14] This is, I wanted to bring this up before we talk about the electroshock therapy part that everyone's waiting for us to talk about. But this, this is a quote from Elder Oaks from. I believe it's a document. Is it the one that was leaked where Elder Oaks talks about how the Church is going to respond regarding the legislation on, on LGBT or homosexual rights. And the quote says it would also be desirable to permit employers to exclude, exclude homosexuals from influential positions in media, literature and entertainment since those jobs influence the tone and Ideals of society. This is just important because he's.

Speaker G [01:13:04] He.

Gerardo Sumano [01:13:05] This document was supposed to be you. That. That he wrote and. Or he drafted was supposed to be used in. In the public, as I understand it. Like, this is how the church was going to be responding. So it will be really interesting to see his response to the question he's going to be asked about electric shock therapy and his comments in the public figure regarding. In the public sphere regarding LGBT issues.

John Dehlin [01:13:35] That is such a disturbing quote. I just can't even say. I mean, it's.

Kyle Ashworth [01:13:40] I also wonder, at what point does a church, a church leader like President Oaks, take a look around and see at how influenced for the better Mormonism has been because of the LGBTQ community. I mean, they're losing some of the best and brightest families and members because of this topic. By ostracization of the LGBTQ community by quotes just like this. I look at, like, the Provo City Center Temple, which was the old Provo Tabernacle, the mtc, the new missionary training center in Provo. Handfuls of other temples that were designed by a church architect who is transgender, Lori Lee Hall. Lori Lee hall has been excommunicated. She was fired. She was a former stake president. She was the chief architect for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and created some of Mormonism's most sacred spaces. And the church got rid of her for this very discussion that Oaks has presented to the other members of the quorum of the 12. We don't need and want LGBTQ people in our society. We don't need them in influential positions in media, literature, entertainment, because those influence the tone and the ideals of society. Are you kidding? Anyone who drives by the Provo City Center Temple or any of the other temples that Laurie Lee hall was involved in the creation of can see that that was a community benefit because of a transgender person. Just unbelievable to me. Who else is the Mormon Church excluding from benefiting this community and this, the society by hateful discussions and rhetoric like this?

John Dehlin [01:15:27] Yeah, absolutely. Okay, well, so what's the next. Let's set up? This is, I guess, the video that's caused the most stir. Is that right, Gerardo? This next video?

Gerardo Sumano [01:15:38] Yes.

John Dehlin [01:15:39] Anything you want to say before we play it?

Gerardo Sumano [01:15:43] No, let's just play and comment.

John Dehlin [01:15:45] Okay. And I guess Chloe and Hannah, you guys were there, and you probably know who asked this question. Anything you want to tell us about? And we'll be talking about this tomorrow, but anything you guys want to tell us about? Was this question planned, kind of. What led to this question, do you want to disclose who asked the question? Why any of that?

Speaker F [01:16:08] Yeah. So, yes, the question was planned. Lambda Law alliance, the group that we've mentioned briefly before, the president of Lambda Law alliance was the person who asked the question, and he's the one who drafted the call to action that. That brought the protest together in the first place. So, yeah, he. I don't know whether he feels comfortable with me sharing his name, but he's okay with us discussing that. He's president of Lambda and he's the one who. Who made the statement. But, yes, we wanted to take the opportunity to directly confront him on some of these issues. So the question was carefully drafted before it was was given.

John Dehlin [01:16:49] Okay. All right.

Gerardo Sumano [01:16:51] Well, sir, I do want to mention something. Most of the students that got to ask the question, it seemed to me like they were aware of his past and. And what? Like, they were very aware of the questions they were asking. And Elder Oaks would dutch the questions sometimes, but students, like, were so good. Like, they were saying, elder Oaks, this question is for you. And then ask the question that happened, like, two or three times. It was really, really interesting. Anyway, we can play it now.

Hannah Kumo [01:17:24] Well, just really quick. Add a little bit as well. Yeah. So, as Chloe said, a lot of these questions, we had several more as well. But these questions were very carefully drafted, and we discussed this a little bit at the beginning of this live stream. But it is very rare for church leaders, as far as I know, to put themselves in a position where he did, where he could be asked questions, unplanned questions like this, in such a public setting, in such a public format. And that was essentially the purpose behind creating these questions beforehand. And, you know, creating that opportunity that's so rare among general authorities and people in this position. And so that's the primary reason for this. And I honestly, just. As a personal note, I am just. I'm so proud of everyone involved. The bravery of the person who asked the question. He's. He's a fantastic person, and I'm just really proud of him for stepping up and being willing to ask the hard question.

John Dehlin [01:18:37] Yeah, that's so much change happens when people in the public ask hard questions to church leaders. It's one of the main ways we've had accountability, transparency, visibility, and sometimes even change. So huge kudos and shout out. All right, here's the. Here's the big question and answer.

Oaks on Conversion Therapy and Private Teachings

▶ Video Clip 3

Video Clip 3 [01:18:59] So in June 2019, you said it operates the dynamical.

Video Clip 3 [01:19:04] He said, and I quote, we are

Video Clip 3 [01:19:05] confronted by a culture of evil and personal wickedness in the world. This includes the increasing power and phenomenon of lesbian, gay, and transparent lifestyles and violence.

Video Clip 3 [01:19:15] So I have two questions for you. What have you done to be more progressive since that time, since 2019, for the LGBT community? And what have you done to address

Video Clip 3 [01:19:24] some of the things that you've done

Video Clip 3 [01:19:25] in the past, including the things that you said? And overseeing the enforcement of a electric shock and vomiting aversion therapy for elderly students at byu?

Video Clip 3 [01:19:34] Let me say about electric shock treatments at byu. When I became president of byu, that had been discontinued earlier and it never went on under my administration. Go back to one side. Let me begin to try to answer your question from the Hawaii remark. Bear in mind that my audience there was an audience of Latter Day Saints. I have different responsibilities when I teach people who follow Latter Day Saint doctrine than I have when I speak as a representative of the church on what positions the church ought to take in society of the Pope. And so I think the correct answer to your question, the accurate answer to your question is, number one, I understand better the situation of the church in relating to society now than I did then, partly by working on a lecture that I'll give tonight. I refer you to that lecture for part of the answer to your question. The other part is asking you to understand that the church has its unique doctrines. It does not try to make rules for all society, but we do make rules and set limits for our own membership, and they're responsible either to receive that teaching or not. But don't judge a public or don't judge a private sermon by public issues.

John Dehlin [01:21:21] Yeah, and that is just. That was so shocking to me. Like, I was shocked at his denial that electric shock therapy didn't occur while he was president of byu, because we all know it did. But what was even more shocking, and a lot of our listeners may not have been able to fully hear that. Kyle, I know you've got a transcript. Maybe you could stage it so you could read that for everybody. But what was shocking to me was him just admitting, don't pay attention to what we tell Mormons. We talk to Mormons privately very differently than what we say when the cameras are turned on and we're talking to the press and he literally said that to the audience. That just blew me away. Does anyone want to read, for those who weren't able to hear? Kyle, do you want to reread that just really clearly, or was there a comment, Gerardo, that someone posted it?

Gerardo Sumano [01:22:20] It was. It was. Kyle. Kyle, do you want to read the. The transcript? Because I Can't pull the quote.

John Dehlin [01:22:26] The full quote, or I can pull it up if you don't have it, Kyle.

Kyle Ashworth [01:22:30] Yeah, I can pull it up here. It said. He specifically said, this question is for you, Dallin. In June 2019, you said at conference at BYU in Provo, you said, we're confronted by a culture of evil and personal wickedness in this world. This includes the increasing power and phenomenon of lesbian, gay, and transgender lifestyles and values. So I have two questions for you. What have you done to be more progressive since that time, since 2019, to the LGBTQ community? And what have you done to address some of the things that you have said in the past, including the things that you have said? And overseeing the enforcement of electroshock and vomiting aversion therapy for LGB students at byu. And then Oakes continues by saying, or he answers by saying, let me say about electric shock treatments at byu. When I became president at byu, that had been discontinued earlier and it never went on under my administration. I have seen the Internet label that a Pinocchio statement. That's ants on fire Pinocchios. And as you can also listen, the audience kind of visibly and audibly gasps as soon as he says that. A little bit of shock there. And then he says, I have different responsibilities when I teach people who follow Latter Day Saint doctrine than I have when I speak as a representative of the church on what positions the church ought to take in society. And I think that word ought is interesting as well. And I'm no legal scholar like three that we have, or legal student like we have in this discussion. But when you use the word ought, I think that bears some more weight than other words. And I think he uses the word ought for a reason. So he said the I understand better the situation of the church. The other part is asking you to understand what the church has issued as its main doctrines. It does not try to make rules for all of society, Pinocchio's number two. But we do make rules and set limits for our own membership. And they're responsible to receive that message or not. But don't judge a private sermon by public issues. And I did post that transcript to the chat side, if you are following along. And you can read that also on the Latter Gay Stories website or a Facebook page. We also have that transcribed on the video as well.

John Dehlin [01:25:07] All right, thanks. Thanks, Kyle. Let's go around the horn, I guess. Should we start with. With Hannah and Chloe and then Gerardo and Joe?

Speaker F [01:25:15] Sure. Yeah. I think I have two reactions to this that come to mind. First, as a former Mormon myself, his comment that we shouldn't be judging private sermons by public issues seems quite reductive to me. Oakes came to the University of Virginia to discuss the idea of compromising with the LGBT community. But his statements have had real impacts on my life and my the community that I grew up in. Because Oakes claims to speak for God, what he says has real public impacts in Utah and in other heavily Mormon communities has impacts on the Utah legislators in the US Congress. So his statement that these are private issues, it just doesn't ring well for me, especially given that as a person who he's inviting to compromise with, as an LGBT person myself and as an LGBT activist, I just, I don't know how he expects me to approach him if he's not willing to have a discussion about how his words have harmed people. And second, just briefly, I wanted to mention when he talked about conversion therapy, I also think he's being really careful. If you read the Salt Lake Tribune's article on this issue, the church responds to Oakes comments with their standard address about conversion therapy in which they denounce conversion therapy.

Gerardo Sumano [01:27:00] Sorry, Chloe, I'm so sorry to interrupt. I just want to say the church hasn't announced conversion therapy. They have the nouns conversion therapy that is abusive.

Speaker F [01:27:11] Yeah, yeah, they, they. In their statement in which they claim they're denouncing conversion therapy, if you read that statement, what they say is that they denounce conversion therapy that is abusive. And insofar as it isn't abusive, if you read that statement, it contemplates a form of conversion therapy that is not abusive, which just can't be true. And you can see that, that real world implication of them believing there are versions of conversion therapy that aren't abusive and the way they approached the 2019 legislation around conversion therapy in Utah. In 2019, the Utah legislators started to think about banning conversion therapy in the state of Utah. In my understanding of those events are that the legislator was ready with a majority of the legislators there, to pass the blanket conversion therapy ban in Utah until the church stepped in and issued a comment saying that they did not support the legislation, which shut down conversations until they were able to add religious exemptions to the conversion therapy ban. So to me, that means that they contemplate some areas in their religious practice in which conversion therapy can happen and that they believe is not abusive.

John Dehlin [01:28:32] And as a mental health professional, I can say, well, as someone with a psychology PhD that studied this, there is no known non abusive form of conversion or reparative therapy. I can say that definitively. Okay, who else wants to jump in? Hannah, did you want to add anything? And then we'll do the others.

Hannah Kumo [01:28:55] Yeah. Thank you. I just. I guess I have a hard time articulating my feelings on this. It's such a hard topic. The part where he states that you shouldn't judge a private sermon by public issues. And he makes this dichotomy between the church audience and a public audience. As someone who has been a part of both of those audiences before, I think he fails to realize that what he says in a quote, unquote private context is still so harmful, it doesn't matter what the setting is. For someone like me and for someone like Chloe and all other people who grew up Mormon and were part of the LGBT community, hearing these in private settings, I can't even. I just can't even begin to, like, I don't have the words for it to even say how harmful it is that he thinks that that's an okay distinction to make and that his statement answers the question of how people like

Speaker G [01:30:12] me

Hannah Kumo [01:30:15] should not be judging him for what he says, because, frankly, I'm going to judge him by what he said for that in a private setting. Because I was a member of that, quote, unquote, private setting. I was a member and I was constructively forced out of that community, a community that I cared about so deeply and so strongly. And again, no. No words for it, really. I'm just, again, bringing in a lot of personal feelings and experience to this. But I think it's important because he fails to contemplate that there is a group of people who may have been a part of both of these audiences before, and it's not as clear cut as he says.

Speaker G [01:31:00] He.

Hannah Kumo [01:31:00] He says it is and that he contemplates it as being. And I think it's just really harmful and really disturbing.

John Dehlin [01:31:09] Okay, Kyle, Gerardo, did either of you want to add anything? And then we'll go to Joe.

Gerardo Sumano [01:31:19] Kyle can go first.

John Dehlin [01:31:20] Okay.

Kyle Ashworth [01:31:21] No, we're going to spend tomorrow really dissecting this, but I just honor and echo what has been said already. This was terrible. This was difficult and completely uncalled for for a special witness of crime, Christ. And then tomorrow, I also want to discuss. Exactly, because we did, multiple groups of us reached out to the church for response to the evidence in relation to the advice or what President Oaks had said. And I want to discuss tomorrow exactly what he. He responded, what the church's PR has responded in this space as well. But it's not going to surprise you what the church has said. So I think, again, just honoring what Hannah just discussed, there is a lived and real personal level to this topic. And I think so often leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are more concerned about policy and pulpit and not about people and personal revelation. I think that's where we lose so much in this topic.

John Dehlin [01:32:29] Thanks, Kyle. Joe, did you have anything you wanted to add?

Speaker G [01:32:37] Yeah, I just think that it's disingenuous to be spreading one message in private and then representing that your stance is different or softer than what it really is. Once you get into a public sphere or a public speech where you have accountability, that's. The inconsistency is very disingenuous.

John Dehlin [01:33:03] Yeah, it's one thing if you, you know, talk doctrine and theology with your own in group, the type of thing that you may not need to discuss in a public forum.

Gerardo Sumano [01:33:16] But.

John Dehlin [01:33:16] But like you say, Joe, you bring up a good point that if you're basically in public trying to hide or downplay the severity or the cruelty or the barbarity of your doctrine and theology, such to manipulate and manage your public image, but then in private, you unleash the barbarity and the violence or the severity of your bigotry in private so that you can keep people in line, that's a very damaging and disingenuous approach.

Leaked Audio and Prior Statements by Oaks

Kyle Ashworth [01:33:50] I just wanted to bring up also in tomorrow's episode, I'm going to bring with me some more leaked audio from Oaks and other situations where he discusses this and some of the things he says. If you think this is shocking, we're going to take a little bit of a deep dive into other things that he's. He said specific to this topic about why people should not be recording him in certain meetings, why some meetings are recorded and not others. These are all things that people have sent over to me, me within the last couple years and even months. Oaks specifically being caught in these scenarios in private meetings and forwarded that along. This. This is a routine. This is something that he's super familiar with. And I think it's damaging to not only his cause, but also to those who are trying to hold all these pieces together.

John Dehlin [01:34:42] All right, thank you, Kyle. Oh, yes, please.

Hannah Kumo [01:34:45] Yeah, sure. So I just wanted to add really quick, and this is, of course speculation on my part, but I mean, it almost seems to me that him, you know, making. Making comments like. Like this and these speeches that seem more open and progressive than he's been in the past, at least in the public sphere. To me, it almost seems like it might be sort of an implicit tactic to essentially dissuade the public from like feeling the need to look into what's going on. So it's almost a cover up and it's almost an excuse for him to be able to be, continue to be discriminatory and harmful in the context of a private setting. To me that that's sort of what it seems like is happening. And from this I've seen so many positive reactions from the public. And while I am grateful for his change of tone to a certain extent in the public sphere at least, I worry that it's going to dissuade people from recognizing and caring about the harm that is still going on in the private setting.

John Dehlin [01:35:55] Yeah, yeah.

Gerardo Sumano [01:35:58] Just to end with my comments, John, there is just a couple of things that I want to cover. First, this is probably the, I don't know, I mean there's other ones, right? Like RFM has episodes where he talks about lies that Russell M. Nelson, Elder Oaks Bill Real has some episodes on that. That is the Elder Holland has said in the past. But to me, I just can't recall of anything this explicit.

Speaker G [01:36:32] And then.

John Dehlin [01:36:33] You mean lies. Any lies?

Gerardo Sumano [01:36:35] Yeah, like such a public verifiable lie. Like it's so, so like there's no way to excuse it other than saying that he didn't know. But then Evan Smith wrote a Facebook post yesterday and he asked a really good question that I hadn't thought about and it's like, well, he was given the opportunity by the Salt Lake Tribune and others to correct the record and correct like after he was shown that he was wrong and he decided not to do so, so he decided to keep quiet and just like go along with what he had originally stated. So this is a historic moment in Mormonism where an apostle has been caught in a public verifiable law lie and not being wanting to correct it. So that's big. And that's that, that, that leads to the second point I wanted to bring up. I've seen ex Mormons talk in, in, in, in social media a lot about, oh, this is like another time again, like an apostle, a Mormon apostle lying. What's new about it? I don't think I, I think it's new. I think this is again, it's just going back to what I was saying at the beginning. I don't think this has ever happened before in this such an explicit way. And just to bring something up really quick, I, I posted on my private Facebook page, the video. And usually when I post things, especially when it's about the brethren, I always have LDS members because I have ton of them on my Facebook friends like commenting or trying to defend it or just commenting saying like why are you imposting this? Why are you trying to take people's faith out? And I, I got zero comments on it by faithful members. And then so I, last night I decided to do it in Spanish, you know, because I'm from Mexico, I'm friends with like bunch of people in the church there and I served my mission in Mexico. So I translated it, I put subtitles and I posted it again and again. I had zero comments from, from believing members, which is super shocking to me that they just don't have a way to excuse it. And I that so that's what I wanted to, to say.

John Dehlin [01:39:14] So your, your theory, Gerardo, is that this was such a bald faced, demonstrable lie that it was indefensible? Basically, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Kyle Ashworth [01:39:23] The other part that I wanted to bring up was I just pulled up a portion of his talk that I recalled and he said, and this is Oak speaking in terms of confrontation. And when someone questions him, he says when some advocates voice insults or practice other minor provocations, both sides should ignore them. Our society already has too many ugly confrontations. If we answer back, we tend to mirror the insult. And I wondered if that is the reason why Oakes's response, his no response is a response he just in this very rotunda speech said, well, if someone disagrees with me or if someone has a contrary opinion, we just need to ignore them. Because if we respond, all that we're doing is adding insult to injury. Again, it doesn't justify the non response, but this seems to be the playbook.

John Dehlin [01:40:16] And we should also mention that Elder Oaks is on record as saying publicly that it's wrong to criticize Mormon Church leaders, even if the criticism is accurate. And he's on record as saying that we, meaning the top leaders of the Mormon Church, neither seek nor give apologies. So it's Elder Oaks long standing policy that the church will never and does not apologize and should not apologize. And that it's wrong and damaging for Mormon Church leaders to ever apologize. And that's why he can't just simply say oops, I forgot or oops, my memory. I'm old and my memory is going. Because then that undermines his authority as God's prophet, seer and revelator leading the church today, I think. Yeah, but it's super disturbing. Like you said. I mean, there are listeners and viewers in the comments saying, oh, no, we've got lots of examples where Mormon church leaders have lied. Including Jeffrey R. Holland talking about church growth recently in ways that is demonstrably false. Including Jeffrey R. Holland saying publicly that Mitt Romney did not engage in blood oaths when he went through the Mormon Temple ceremony. Like, there have been lots of lies and deceptions. We've covered a lot of that on Mormon Stories podcast. But I do say this has to be one of the top three most blatant public lies ever in the history of the church. So super disturbing. Okay, should we go to the next slide, Gerardo?

Gerardo Sumano [01:41:46] Sure.

John Dehlin [01:41:47] Okay. Anyone else want to make a quick comment before we do that? Okay. All right, what's this next slide, Gerardo?

Analyzing Oaks' Public Talk at UVA

Gerardo Sumano [01:41:57] This is just. So we're gonna start just diving into the. So this is. We're gonna start diving into the actual talk, the public talk that he gave. And this is kind of like the beginning of the talk where he says something really interesting and kind of like, in some ways, a little bit shocking, which is that he has come to understand the other side of this discussion.

John Dehlin [01:42:29] A huge shout out to Jacob Berg for his super chat donation through YouTube. We really appreciate all those who financially support this program and who are using that super chat feature on YouTube to make this happen. I also just want to say that sometimes I get feedback from listeners like, John, you talk about progressive issues or social issues too much. Number one, I don't think human rights issues could ever be talked about enough. That's just my opinion. I also just want to say that even if you're not super empathetic or even bored with LGBTQ issues, the only way to look at this issue is that the Mormon churches in 2021 experiencing an existential threat to its existence as members hemorrhage. And the only two signs you need to pay attention to are the fact that this is the only. The LGBTQ issue is literally the most important issue that the church talks about publicly. And the fact that the members are hemorrhaging and that Elder Hoax Oaks is saying. I said hoax. Sorry. Elder Oaks is saying that this is the most difficult speech he's ever given. You need to pay attention to this issue just on the. On the issue alone, that it's representing an existential threat to the Mormon Church. And I'll say that that human rights issues should be a huge priority. That's me sermonizing to my audience and thanking you guys and Gerardo for making this happen. Okay, so Elder Oaks is having A change of heart. He's recently come to understand something. Let's hear what this. Prophets, seer and revelator. I don't mean to be cynical. Our prophetseers and revelators should be ahead of us, not behind us. But Elder Oaks is now telling us what he's only recently come to understand.

Dallin H. Oaks [01:44:13] More recently, I have come to understand better the distress of persons who feel that others are invoking religious rights, like the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech, to deny or challenge their own core beliefs and their access to basic constitutional rights. I deeply regret that these two groups have been drawn into conflict with one another.

John Dehlin [01:44:43] Oh, my gosh. I'm triggered. Who wants to start? Who wants to start? Should we start with Hannah and Chloe?

Speaker F [01:44:54] Chloe, again, I'll just start off by saying I think that we've discussed this a lot already, but I just am perplexed as to how he thinks that he's even starting to understand this issue better if he is also simultaneously claiming that he doesn't know about his history with electroshock therapy, if he is trying to come to an understanding with lgbt, LGBTQ people. If he had just talked to one queer person in Utah, they would have been able to tell him this. This is an issue that is brought up by LGBTQ activists in Utah constantly. And it speaks to me as a little disingenuous that he is going to deny that comment and then go on later to say that he understands the LGBT community. Because if he doesn't understand the harms that he's done to this community, then how exactly is he going to go on and say that he wants to compromise with us? If he wants to compromise with me, I would expect him to have a conversation with me and to ask me where I'm coming from. And it just doesn't seem to me that he knows what I've been through. It doesn't seem to me that he knows what Utah has been through, especially the queer folks in Utah. And so I just don't know how he can even begin to understand the LGBTQ community and speak to this issue without doing that work first.

John Dehlin [01:46:23] Well said, Chloe. Hannah.

Hannah Kumo [01:46:25] Yeah, and something just to add to that as well. The stance I've always taken, you know, especially with the church and in any institution I am or have been a part of, is that no institution is perfect. Every single organization, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, has issues in the past. In the past, you know, that. That are. That are harmful and that probably should have been different. But the thing is and this was mentioned earlier, Oakes stance on, not on refusing to apologize, refusing to acknowledge those things. It makes it so hard for me to take him seriously when he makes comments like this in a public setting. You know, as Chloe, as Chloe said, it does not feel like if he were to come around and say, and acknowledge what had happened, maybe acknowledge some of the harms that he has contributed to in the past, I would be, I would potentially be in a place to take him more seriously and to actually perhaps even be excited about the direction he's going. But the fact that he simply refuses to engage in that part of the discussion just undermines his credibility and what he's trying to say now. And it's, again, it's hard to take it with any sense of credibility whatsoever.

John Dehlin [01:47:57] Thanks, Hannah. Ky.

Kyle Ashworth [01:48:05] No, I think Hannah's exact sediment there is exactly what I was going to talk about. This undermines the credibility of Dallin H. Oaks in this space. And I think it leads to a more broad and global question. And I think it's what explains the hemorrhaging that you talked about earlier, John, of members from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. And it essentially boils down to a very simple question. If they're wrong about this, what else have they been wrong about? And that just leads into this Pandora, this open door of questioning. It just doesn't do the church or President Oaks any favors to act like this and to conduct business this way.

John Dehlin [01:48:53] I'll just jump in really quickly. One of my favorite books of all time is a book called Mistakes Were Made, but Not by Me. And it just speaks to this idea of sometimes we have such blind spots with confirmation bias that we just can't even see our own accountability. When I hear this clip and Gerardo and Joe, I totally want to get you guys in. When I hear this clip where he's. I'll just rephrase. He's like, I really regret that there's been animosity between proponents of religious freedom in the LGBTQ community in the United States. I'm really sad that there's been acrimony in and you know, I'm like, who's been causing, who's the architect of the sacrimony? Like, who wrote the memo in 1984 that then led to Mormon church lobbying and legislative efforts and public opposition to prop, you know, to same sex marriage in Hawaii and California and Arizona? Like, he's like saying, how did this happen when he was the architect of it? It's such blind, just tone deaf ignorance when he is literally the architect of the acrimony, or at least as it relates to the Mormon Church. But we know the Mormon Church has led behind the scenes anti LGBTQ legislative and judicial efforts for decades. So I'm sorry, that's my rant.

Speaker F [01:50:19] Yay.

Hannah Kumo [01:50:22] And, John, I just. I just wanted to.

Kyle Ashworth [01:50:24] For a while.

John Dehlin [01:50:25] Caffeinated Jod is back today.

Hannah Kumo [01:50:27] I just want to. I just wanted to add on to that this. I love the fact that he. He mentions that this battle is between religious liberty proponents and anti discrimination proponents because by implication, it's basically implied that religious liberty advocates, including people like him, are necessarily not anti discrimination proponents. I feel like that just. I mean, on its face, even seems super harmful. Basically admitting that he's not in favor of anti discrimination, that seems like a basic human rights issue here and is. Anyways, I think that's really telling.

John Dehlin [01:51:06] Yeah. It's almost like he's positioning himself as a neutral body, regretting the acrimony on both sides. When we have him quoted as saying things like, it would be desirable to permit employers to exclude homosexuals from influential positions in media, literature and entertainment, since those jobs influence the tone and ideals of society. It's just ridiculous. Tone deafness and hypocrisy. Gerardo, let's get you in.

The Religious Exemption Accountability Project Explained

Gerardo Sumano [01:51:36] Yeah, I have very specific, very specific thoughts about what this talk or speech was about.

Dallin H. Oaks [01:51:48] And

Gerardo Sumano [01:51:51] it differs to even maybe some people on this panel. But my. My sense is that Elder Oaks realizes that, and he even mentioned this on the Q A. I wanted to include this, but it was too long. He talks about how the court system taking things to the Supreme Court, let's say, like what Joe is doing with the Religious Accountability Project. Religious Exemption Accountability Project, where they are challenging religious schools exemptions to be able to discriminate. So he said. So he says going to the Supreme Court is just way too messy. We don't know if we're gonna win. The Supreme Court sometimes sides with us, sometimes they side with the lgbt. And it's just way too, like, unpredictable. He uses that word. It's unpredictable. And he uses the word. I can't remember. Sorry, the other word that he uses. But he just says that it's just no way to predict what the Supreme Court is gonna do and risky for. And he tries to say that it's risky for both sides.

John Dehlin [01:53:03] So he.

Gerardo Sumano [01:53:03] This whole speech is just talking about that. He's just saying, I can't. We're going to talk about this later. But he Sundays at least five times during his talk, he says, we shouldn't go to court to, to, to fix these issues. We need to do it through legislation. We need to do it through the LGBT and the religious organizations getting together and, and agreeing on pretty much what happened in Utah, the Utah compromise, which we're also going to talk about how that was not beneficial really for the LGBT community. And this. He, what he's saying is like, I've come to understand your side, but we need to both compromise. He just wants to get his way. He wants, he wants the religious exemptions to keep in place and make it sound like he is, like he is compromising.

John Dehlin [01:53:56] Joe is dying to add something. I am too, but Joe, I'll let you go first and then.

Speaker G [01:54:01] No, I think especially John, you really pointed out the hypocrisy. I was going to talk about that exact same language where he says, I deeply regret that these two groups have been drawn into conflict with each other. I mean, the lack of accountability that you are taking for is just so. I don't even know where to go with that. And especially to go to what Ginger is saying is the reason courts are. Courts are very powerful because, you know, when you go into a court, all of a sudden people can have really like radical viewpoints. When you go into a court and you have to go in front of a judge and you have to put what you want into words and you have to make it public and you can be cross examined, there's accountability all of a sudden. You can't be having these, you can't be double speaking anymore. You have to put all of your cards on the table. And that's the accountability that I feel like is trying to be avoided right now. They don't want to be accountable. They want to paint this as, oh, you know, two sides have been drawn into conflict, but one side has been marginalized, oppressed, silenced. And it's been a, it's been a one sided affair. The exemption to Title IX makes it so students literally can't get into court, they can't get a hearing, they can't argue in front of the law in a neutral setting because these schools are simply exempt. So to say that two groups have been drawn into conflict presents this idea that these are two equally weighted groups that have been sparring back and forth. That's not, that's just not accurate at all. It's been very, very one sided and intentionally so. I mean, they've worked to change the law to make sure it has stayed one sided.

John Dehlin [01:55:54] And what he's not acknowledging is that what's really going on here is that the Mormon Church in recent, you know, legal initiatives, has had its rear end handed to it time and time again now that. That it's losing its. And so it's really trying to shift the battlefield from the courts to private behind the scenes compromise and deals so transparently, because it's losing. And so it's. It's wanting to then now operate behind the scenes to not continue the string of. Of losses. And it's just so transparent and obvious. Can I. Yeah, Chloe.

Speaker F [01:56:38] Just the legal background as well. I just also wanted to point out what's so important for this conversation is that this current Supreme Court is friendlier to religious exemptions than the Supreme Court has been in at least 100 years, maybe more. And so it's within that context that I think that the church finds itself with leverage to have this conversation. Because if the church brought these issues to the Supreme Court, they may get more religious exemptions than they would have had 10 years ago, maybe even five years ago. And so with that power, I think that they see this as an opportunity to kind of bring it to the end point, give themselves more religious exemptions than they may win in court, and call it a compromise because it was negotiated with LGBT people. But at the end of the day, the way I see it is that they're skipping to the end. They're getting legislation that gives them all of the religious exemptions without having to win that in court. And so to me, it's trying to get a win and call it a compromise.

John Dehlin [01:57:44] So, Chloe, why aren't they welcoming a Supreme Court sort of battle if. If it's true that the Supreme Court is more favorable to religious exemptions than ever before?

Speaker F [01:57:57] I think Joe and Hannah could also speak to this. But I think their worry is that even under this very friendly Supreme Court, they may not win as many religious exemptions in the Supreme Court as they would in the legislature. And so I think that they see it as both a cost thing, bringing it to the Supreme Court as costly, money wise, and also just through social capital. But I also see it as kind of. It is less likely that they'll win in court than if they can get it written down in legislation, even in the most friendly Supreme Court that they can have.

Hannah Kumo [01:58:34] Yeah, and I'll add to that as well. I think one concern here is that the Supreme Court is very strictly bound by precedent. So there's a lot more room for the legislature to create policy than there is for the Supreme Court to Supreme Court to justify doing so. So I think that's also one concern as well. Even though on a policy level, the composition of the court right now is more open to religious exemptions, they're slightly more bound than I think the legislature would be in that arena.

John Dehlin [01:59:10] Anything you want to add to that, Joe?

Speaker G [01:59:13] Yeah, and I don't want to speculate on their, on their legal, you know, ideas. I do think that, I do think that the, the openness and accountability of the legal system is something that they may not, People may not be wanting to face because you have to, you can't just use broad terms like free exercise, for example. You know, I just want to. Free exercise. Like what does that actually mean? Why can two students not of the same sex not hold hands on campus? How does that change your religious freedom? What impact does that have? It shines a spotlight on the issues and has such an accountability. We had a recent hearing where students were able to go. Five students were able to go in front of a federal judge to speak. One of our students mentioned that they had been kicked out of their school. She's transgender. She was kicked out of her school in August and she was faced with the option of going and speaking in front of a disciplinary council, which would have been 15 people who were against her, non affirming. It would have been kind of an inquisition. And she couldn't do that. She couldn't put herself through that emotionally. It would have been incredibly traumatizing and it would have been one sided and probably futile. And she said, you know, instead of that, two months later, I'm standing and I get to tell my story. I get to tell my side in front of a judge in a neutral setting with attorneys on both sides protecting that kind of accountability, that kind of where you have to be open, you have to be honest. I'm not sure if all sides are welcoming that at the moment. I think the legislative process is very important, but I also think the legal process is incredibly valuable in tandem with that, to hold individuals and hold groups accountable.

John Dehlin [02:01:15] Yeah, there's always the issue of discovery and what documents will be requested and held and shared. And then there's always the public relations, inevitable public relations dialogue that's going to accompany any public lawsuits and court battles. And I'm sure the Mormon Church would love to avoid any documentation of its positions in any public discourse around this issue these days. Not to mention any risk of a ruling that they wouldn't see as favorable. All those things make sense to me.

Speaker G [02:01:51] And just a last note, I think it's really interesting that Oaks, who has made his profession in the legal field. He was a. It was. I think it's a Supreme Court justice's clerk that understands the value of the legal process would be so dismissive of it all of a sudden. I'm not quite sure how to read. Read into that.

John Dehlin [02:02:11] Yeah. All right, Gerardo, should we jump to the next quote? The next slide?

Gerardo Sumano [02:02:16] Yeah.

Speaker F [02:02:17] All right.

John Dehlin [02:02:18] Anything you want to say about this before we play it?

Gerardo Sumano [02:02:20] I think this one is just split into two parts. This is the whole paragraph of Free Stock. So we're gonna be listening part one and then part. And then on the next slide, part two, because I wanted to make sure if anyone had any comments of the first part, they would be able to.

John Dehlin [02:02:38] And so the. The thing people should be listening for, this first video, this is about.

Gerardo Sumano [02:02:44] So he. He just talks about both sides and he says something really remarkable that I don't think Elder Oaks has ever stated before publicly in this way, which is that non people that advocate for non discrimination, AKA LGBT advocates, do have some good reason, good constitutional legal reasons to do so. And he admits to that.

Dallin H. Oaks [02:03:13] Are you.

John Dehlin [02:03:14] Are you saying he's going to say here that it's okay to discriminate? Is that. No, no, no.

Gerardo Sumano [02:03:18] He's so. First. First he's going to say that it's okay for LGBT people to ask for the non discrimination policy.

John Dehlin [02:03:25] So it's a concession. It's an important concession here. Or acknowledgement.

Gerardo Sumano [02:03:29] Yes. Okay.

Oaks on Non-Discrimination and Religious Liberty Framing

John Dehlin [02:03:31] All right. And Kyle, I think you were. It was important for you, Kyle, to mention that many have interpreted and maybe even the intent of this, this presentation was for Oaks to be a little bit more conc. Reconciliatory and to kind of break new ground in openness to non discrimination legislation. Is that. Is that important to highlight? I don't think we've really touched much on that so far in our framing.

Kyle Ashworth [02:03:57] Yeah, I think it absolutely is. I think in terms of this topic, the church has had their pew handed to them over and over and over and over again. And so as just to quote Greg Prince, the. One of the most moving metrics to determine whether or not the church is winning in the space is the sound of footsteps leaving chapel doors. And I think the church has only heard that over the last number of years, and they're trying to figure out a way to stop it. And so I agree with Gerardo. There is some conciliatory tone here and there are some spots, in fact, a large number of them within Oaks lecture here, that are favorable to the LGBTQ community and LGBTQ advocacy. And this is one of them. And I think it's noteworthy that for the first time in recent memory and in the many years that I've studied this Space, Oaks seems to be reasonable to the LGBTQ community.

John Dehlin [02:04:58] All right, well, let's, let's play the

Dallin H. Oaks [02:05:00] clip where there is general conflict, genuine conflict. One constitutional right should not be invoked to try to cancel another constitutional right. Both must be balanced legally and negotiated politically in a way that upholds essential rights to the greatest extent possible. In doing so, people of faith should not assume that those who advocate non discrimination have no regard for religious freedom or that non discrimination lacks any constitutional basis.

John Dehlin [02:05:39] Okay. All right, so should we jump to the next clip or do we want to. Or do we want to comment on that? We can go.

Gerardo Sumano [02:05:49] We can go. I'll just say really quick. It's what Kyle is saying. It's a concession. What he's, what he's doing. He's for this. I, for the first time I've heard him say that the non discrimination people, advocates of non discrimination are, are bringing something reasonable, something good, something. Something legitimate to the, to the table.

Kyle Ashworth [02:06:16] So basically, I have to wonder if this is back to Oaks trying to put all the jigsaw piece, puzzle pieces back together, knowing, like what we discussed earlier, knowing they lost the left, they're losing the right, and the middle is vanishing from their fingertips. If this is Oaks's way of trying to thread that needle and saying, you know, maybe we ostracize the left a little too much in terms of, of your social justice and social equity, equitable demands or views, and maybe the right, you're pushing a little too much. It's not necessary for you to argue over every little issue that comes up in terms of policy versus and doctrine versus social justice issues and non discrimination. So I do think there's a conciliatory tone here for sure. And this is intended maybe because I also wanted to point out too, at some point during this discussion that Oak says, I bring with you essentially like the power or the message or the blessing of the First Presidency. So this. I know I've, I've seen a handful of active Latter Day Saints who come into this discussion saying, again, this is one person's opinion and this is just Dallin H. Och Oaks opinion on this topic. But he doesn't invoke his own opinion. He says, I come to you as a member of the First Presidency. And so I think this is again, another way for the church to try to thread this needle and put the confetti back into one piece again. And it's super difficult, but it is conciliatory.

Hannah Kumo [02:07:55] It is. And I just want to say the particular phrase he uses that essentially acknowledging that, asking people to acknowledge that proponents of anti discrimination. He makes it. Sorry. So he makes it clear that, like, don't assume that they don't care about religious liberty as well, because I think especially for a lot of church members, a lot of people who are in church settings, such as the LDS Church, but others as well have this perception of anyone advocating for anti discrimination laws are completely against religious liberty as well. And I. So I actually appreciate that he makes that comment because I think with the position that he holds and influence he has over so many members of the church who might hold that position, I think that it's a good comment for them to maybe realize that by someone being a proponent of LGBT rights, that is not. That is not. That does not mean that that person is necessarily take. Contemplating, take away. Taking away their religious liberty rights. And so I just actually appreciate that.

Kyle Ashworth [02:09:02] And the church got into this a little earlier when they launched the website Mormons and Gays, which was the very first website that they launched into this space. And they got a fair amount of pushback because they were pitting two groups against each other. They were. The name of the website was Mormons and Gays. And to kind of build upon what Hannah is saying here, at some point the church has realized, and maybe they still need to realize that the gays are the Mormons and the Mormons are the gays. And that just because someone came out doesn't just make them gay now and. And pushing some gay agenda or their individual rights. Now, as a gay member, they always were gay if they were members of the church or they always were members of the church while they were navigating. Navigating their sexual orientation. So I think that's an important distinction, that maybe the church is learning that they, and maybe not even on purpose, separated these two communities by saying, we have the Mormons on one side and the gays on the other, when in reality they were the same person all along. And that's what feeds into this idea that they need to be much more conciliatory in the way that they approach this and perhaps knowing that they will lose in every court and court of opinion if they try to pit themselves against this community. At least history has proved that they haven't won in this space at all.

John Dehlin [02:10:26] On the one hand, thank you, Kyle. On the one hand, I'm happy to see a top Mormon church leader say that it's okay to advocate for non discrimination, that it's bad to discriminate, and we want to be positively reinforcing to progress on their behalf. On the other hand, I'm thinking, really, it's 2021. We're like 120 years into kind of civil rights kind of movements. He's a representative, Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, who is the champion of the marginalized. And it's not until 2021 that we've got someone at his level saying that it's bad to discriminate. And we're all supposed to applaud that, that simple statement that it's bad to discriminate and that we should acknowledge that it's bad to discriminate. And the only reason is saying it is because his back is against the wall and the church is hemorrhaging. So I'm torn. I want to say good job, Elder Oaks. Yay. And I'm like, really sorry if they

Kyle Ashworth [02:11:34] were wrong about this. What else are they wrong about? I think that just leads open into that discussion. Like it's just. I think you're absolutely right.

John Dehlin [02:11:40] What does it mean to be a prophet, seer and revelator, to see ahead of the times and to be a special witness of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, when you're dragged kicking and screaming 120 years late to the statement that it's that it's bad to discriminate

Kyle Ashworth [02:11:56] and making all of your future decisions based on knowing that you will lose in the courts and in the courts of public opinion.

John Dehlin [02:12:02] Yeah.

Kyle Ashworth [02:12:03] That is not a special witness of Christ to me. That is not being the same yesterday, today and forever. That is, how do we. How do we salvage what we have left and perhaps, maybe even possibly in a roundabout way, correct the ship?

John Dehlin [02:12:17] It's so transparent. And I know Greg Prince probably doesn't like me piling on Elder Oaks, but here we are. Okay. Other. Anything else you want to say before we play the next clip?

Speaker F [02:12:29] Yeah, if you don't mind, I'll just add a little bit into this conversation as well. I. When I was a teenager and I was devout and I was coming to terms with my sexuality and my gender. Oakes had given his 2009 interview in which he said that families should distance themselves from their queer children. You know, I won't get into it more than that, but. And then he also that the Mormons and Gays website was launched when I was a teenager as well. And so when I was coming to terms with my Identity. I had to square that with these exact statements that Oakes is refusing to acknowledge now. And so, to me, from my perspective, I am happy that he is saying explicitly that non discrimination is a goal that should be accomplished. Because I'm thinking, if I were in my position that I was as a team now and I heard this speech, it would help me to reconcile my faith with my identity a little bit more. But I think that those things really have to come together. If I were a team today, I could still go back and read Oakes statements. And so if he really does believe that non discrimination is an important goal, I would invite him to continue to look into his history and continue to work with queer people and to address these things publicly so that teens in the church and adults in the church that they're trying to bring back actually have a place in this doctrine and don't feel discriminated against in this doctrine as they're going about this compromise.

John Dehlin [02:14:19] Thank you, Chloe.

Gerardo Sumano [02:14:22] Yeah.

John Dehlin [02:14:24] All right. Should we jump to the next one, Gerardo?

Dallin H. Oaks [02:14:28] Yeah.

John Dehlin [02:14:29] All right. This is kind of part two of the statement, right?

Speaker G [02:14:34] Yep.

Dallin H. Oaks [02:14:35] Similarly, those who advocate non discrimination should not assume that those asserting claims of religious freedom freedom are seeking a license to discriminate. There are worthy constitutional and ethical arguments on both sides of such disputes, and so far as possible, we should seek to accommodate them, consistent with the most important interests of all sides. This is not easy when we differ so fundamentally on matters of such immense importance, but the effort is essential if we are to live together in peace in a pluralistic society.

John Dehlin [02:15:19] What I hear him. Hear him saying there is stop saying. Stop equating arguments for religious freedom with a desire to have the right to discriminate. That's what I hear him saying there. What do you. What do you guys think? Let's bring Joe in first. Let's bring Joe in first that time.

Speaker G [02:15:37] Yeah. I think this. This desire to negotiate and bring people in and be conciliatory. I mean, especially in the context of these religious schools and Title ix, the exemption has just. I don't know how else you could construe it other than a license to discriminate, because it has completely exempted them from responsibility. And there hasn't been an opportunity for students to negotiate, to go and bring up their rights. The law has, as written, has suppressed that conversation. So I, you know, I would encourage the getting rid of laws that stop LGBTQ students from having a voice, from being able to tell their experience, from being able to say how these rules impact them and hurt them. And that's. It's one side that's been pushing for it. So if we're not for licenses to discriminate, the laws as they are written need to change, because currently that's. I see it difficult to construe them in a different way.

Kyle Ashworth [02:16:52] And I think one of the other difficult positions Oakes is putting himself in is essentially he. This is back to the division argument again, where we divide sides and allow each side to have their cake. You, as the LGBTQ community, you run with what you think is important, and let us run with what we think is important. And I think the problem in separation or ostrazation in these situations is one that we see currently here in Utah, both. Right now, we have transgender bills that are passing or legislation that is being presented in Congress in our state legislature. And the Utah State Governor, Spencer Cox refused to sign one of these agreements. Just gave the legislature warning ahead of time, knowing after he spent time with and listened to the experiences of a transgender young man, Grayson Moore, with his mother, N.A. allgood. Spencer Cox, who was then the Lieutenant governor at the time, said, something within me broke. When I spent time with this transgender young man and heard his story and realized of his experiences, something within me changed. And we have to take a better approach to this topic. Spencer Cox is now the governor of Utah. And I think this is a problematic situation for Oaks, where he essentially says, on one hand, it's not important that we fight each other, that we allow each. Each side to take their side. And I think the problem in that is that it prevents people like Dallin Oaks or a member of the First Presidency or someone within the quorum of the 12 to actually see and hear the experiences of the LGBTQ community, how is it that you're going to become better, and how is it that you're going to learn to not discriminate or learn about the experiences of other people if you just abandon them or if you ostracize yourself from them? And I think looking at this in a religious lens, whenever did Jesus just confine himself to an ivory tower, preventing himself the opportunity to meet people on the street, or the inability to succor, to run to people in their infirmities by avoiding them and by picking a side or taking a side and. And completely giving in to your side only? I think that's where it becomes problematic. I guess my point is if. If Oaks intent here is to say, let us have our discrimination and let the LGBTQ community have what's important to you, and then we can all get on with life. I think that is a non starter for everyone because I, I think it's important for us, and I say this as a member of the LGBTQ community, to understand the needs of a religious institution. And I think it's okay for a religious institution to exist, but also I need a religious institution to know that I exist and that I have needs as well. And for some of us within the LGBTQ community, those needs are within walls of. Of religion. And I think that just pitting each other against one another because of an idea that we have needs that are different from each other, I think is not only polarizing, but it's a detriment to the whole cause.

John Dehlin [02:20:20] I think that's what you were trying to. That's the needle you're trying to thread because you want to positively reinforce attempts at reducing acrimony and increasing compromise. And at the same time, so much of what he said is tone deaf and lacking accountability. Right.

Kyle Ashworth [02:20:41] Of course I want to see a better situation between the religious community and the LGBTQ community where there is a separation. But at the same time, I need religious institutions to know that if your religion is harming my experience and the experiences of others, that's not religion and that's not healthy. And so it isn't just a, because we're a religious organization, we trump your lived experience as a member of the LGBTQ community. There is no winning in that. There is no compromise in that. When your religion hurts me and my friends and the happiness and longevity of my family and my family organ, the organization of my family, I can't just pass that by. I can't just allow you to continue to do that. But I can. And I think that's why we, at the end of the day, the nuts and bolts of this discussion is in the church's ability to discriminate against me and against my partner and against my family. It's okay for a religious organization to be a religious organization, but when it hurts other people and when it. When that religious organization undermines my existence and my ability to have a happy and healthy life, that's the problem.

Hannah Kumo [02:21:54] Kyle, that's beautifully spoken. I couldn't agree more. And I think just another element that I sort of wanted to highlight here in this particular video clip of Oakes speech is he makes a statement in there that the church and, yeah, the goals of the church and anti discrimination proponents are sometimes so fundamentally contradictory. He makes that statement. And the problem that I'm seeing here is that it that essentially I'm thinking from the perspective of my progressive Mormon days that essentially leaves no space for me if, if, if I were still trying to be a progressive Mormon in the church. Because he says that the church and anti discrimination proponents are so fundamentally different from each other. And I'm trying to think of what I would do in that situation. If I was a believing member of the church who felt that Oaks spoke for God, but then also was in this space where I felt that the teachings of Jesus and the examples of in from the scriptures and his teachings are more about anti discrimination. And I that. That I feel like that better aligns with the values that I have. So I almost think his statement there is further carving out a group of progressive Mormons as well and leaving no space for them.

John Dehlin [02:23:24] You make a great point, Hannah. Why shouldn't it be the religious people that are the staunchest advocates of non discrimination, but he's basically putting them on the other side. We care more about our freedoms than the poor and the marginalized. Is kind of how he seems to be framing the divide. Is that kind of what you're saying, Hannah?

Hannah Kumo [02:23:45] Yeah, yeah, that's. That's pretty much what I'm saying here.

Speaker G [02:23:49] And in a sense it co opts religion in a way because not all religions discriminate. There are many don't have a belief in discrimination. So just paint this like the need to discriminate as solely a religious liberty issue. It's a. It may be for some religions, but for other religions it's absolutely not even implicated at all. And they're very pro anti discrimination, pro human rights.

Speaker F [02:24:17] I'd just like to add as well, I think undercurrent of this conversation we're having that may not be so obvious for people who don't know as much about the church or who maybe are starting to question is that Oakes is very likely next in line to be prophet of the Mormon Church, to be the top leader of the Mormon Church. To me, part of this conversation and everything that Kyle and Hannah and Joe has just said. The reason I become so suspicious in the end of his position is because he chose to give this address at the University of Virginia. He didn't choose to give this address at conference. He didn't choose to give this address at byu. He came to a public institution. And so I think that one thing that we need to keep in mind as we're having this conversation is that this very much seems to need a part of his beginning stages of assuming leadership of the church. And the way that he's approaching these conversations to me also seem to be a way to try to reconcile for the public the way that the Mormon Church intends to continue to discriminate against LGBT people. And so by choosing to come to the University of Virginia in this role, I think that he also admits a little bit of disingenuous into this question of why exactly he is okay seeing non discrimination laws become the watt.

John Dehlin [02:25:56] All right, well said. Thank you, Chloe. Should we go to the next slide, Gerardo?

Speaker G [02:26:02] Yeah.

John Dehlin [02:26:03] All right, what do you want to say? What should we look for in this, this clip?

Gerardo Sumano [02:26:08] This is interesting and it ties a little bit to the vaccine clip that we showed. But he will say something really interesting about how the government has the right to limit religious freedom in order to protect the health and well being of people.

John Dehlin [02:26:26] So you, you're. You guys are liking this, this, this quote. This is another one of the things.

Gerardo Sumano [02:26:31] Well, I don't think he, he says it on the context that we are all LGBT people have in mind. I think what he has more in mind is like, you know, like murder, Lori Valo, Chad Daybell, and vaccines probably.

John Dehlin [02:26:50] Okay.

Dallin H. Oaks [02:26:53] But even though the First Amendment obviously guarantees the right to exercise or practice religious beliefs and affiliations, that right is not absolute. As advocates for religious freedom, we must yield to the fact that in. In a nation with citizens of many different religious beliefs and disbeliefs, the government must sometimes limit the right of some to act upon their beliefs when it is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of all.

John Dehlin [02:27:28] I mean, he's basically just saying that we believe in honoring and sustaining the law and that if religions are harming people, the government should be able to stop that. Which is, I guess, a nice concession.

Gerardo Sumano [02:27:42] Yeah, I think Joe might have some, some thoughts on that.

Speaker G [02:27:47] Well, no, I think that, yeah, it's that same, same issue. As soon as, as soon as you become a group that becomes vulnerable to an issue, all of a sudden you see the wisdom in perhaps not allowing every single religious belief to be acted on, even if it harms other people. I think there's been this great blind spot to the harm to LGBT students. At the Religious Exemption Accountability Project, we did a study and we found that there are actively over 100,000 students at these schools who identify as queer, trans or non binary. This is a huge amount of students that are in school right now. We get calls every day from students who are too afraid to come out. They feel stuck. They feel like they're going to be discriminated against. And it's to the point where, you know, they've been marginalized for so long, and it's just now starting to get a spotlight that we get inundated with students who are wanting to file Title IX complaints. We don't have the resources even to keep up with it. And that's just one lawsuit that has started to shine the spotlight. This is a massive problem that has been ignored for so long.

John Dehlin [02:29:04] Yeah. Amen. My dear friend, Nadine McCombs Hansen writes, We believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law, except when we don't. And Nadine's an attorney, so she gets

Kyle Ashworth [02:29:15] to comment or if you're gay.

John Dehlin [02:29:19] Nadine's also a bit on the forefront of. Well, she was on the forefront of kind of the Prop 8 stuff when it was going on in terms of advocating for transparency in what the church was doing behind the scenes. Okay. Oh, go ahead.

Speaker G [02:29:33] And so. So, right. They're recognizing there's this vulnerability for them right now, especially with COVID and vaccines, and all of a sudden the danger is real. But the danger has been real for LGBTQ students for a very, very, very, very long time. And that danger and that harm has just been completely ignored.

Dallin H. Oaks [02:29:52] Yeah.

Gerardo Sumano [02:29:52] Yeah. And it's really interesting that he. He does say that because we're a nation of all different backgrounds and beliefs and he says and disbeliefs, then the government has to regulate these things. The only thing that he is obviously not acknowledging and probably not even thinking about is how this policies are regulated. Real, A real danger harmful to LGBTQ students. Elder Oaks is on record saying that all like the suicides that have happened in the church under his watch, he's not responsible for them. And that. That. That God himself is the one that it's gonna be. End up judging him for.

Kyle Ashworth [02:30:39] For.

Gerardo Sumano [02:30:39] For that if he is accountable at all. So, yeah.

John Dehlin [02:30:46] Okay. The next clip is, I think he's trying to basically talk about how we shouldn't frame either opposing side. Is that right, Gerardo?

Gerardo Sumano [02:30:56] Yeah.

John Dehlin [02:30:57] Okay, let's see how he doesn't want us to frame each opposing side.

Dallin H. Oaks [02:31:02] A basic step is to avoid labeling our adversaries with epithets such as godless or bigots. As the Deseret News, a paper published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, editorialized, and I quote, conflicts between religious liberty and non discrimination principles are exacerbated when advocates for non discrimination paint people of faith as bigots. And when people of faith fail to appreciate the brutal history of. Of the basic human rights of marginalized groups such as gays and lesbians. End of quote.

John Dehlin [02:31:44] Yeah. So stop calling proponents of Civil rights godless, and stop calling religious people bigots is basically what he's saying.

Dallin H. Oaks [02:31:54] Right.

Kyle Ashworth [02:31:54] Can we just discuss what the definition of bigotry is?

John Dehlin [02:31:58] Sure.

Kyle Ashworth [02:31:58] It's the unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion or fact, action, prejudice against a person or a people on the basis of their membership of a particular group. I think it's really difficult for them for Oaks to bridge that gap by saying, let's not label all of our religious people as bigots when isn't the whole fact that they're discriminating against a particular group of people bigotry?

John Dehlin [02:32:25] Yeah.

Speaker F [02:32:26] Well, and look at just how unequal those terms are to begin with. If the leader of a church that claims to speak for God and members of a faith that believe they're the one true church are calling a group of people godless, that term means that they're stripping God away from you. That is completely incomparable to the term bigot. It's just, it's not even on the same level. And so this is another instance in which he's trying to compare two things that just aren't the same. And, and it speaks to this idea that like, he's not recognizing the power difference that's going on here. Bigot and godless are just not the same thing.

John Dehlin [02:33:14] Amen. Who else? I mean, he's basically acknowledging that he probably was behind labeling the opposition or the proponents of non discrimination as godless. He's probably acknowledging that that's how he's helped frame it in the past. He's also acknowledging that religious people generally haven't been huge proponents of non discrimination historically. But he is saying, and by the way, godless. Just to your point, Chloe, right now in 2021, there is no more damaging association you could probably make with someone than to call them an atheist because you can't be elected to office in the United States if you self identify as, as an atheist. So there, there's a bit of a, a really problematic association that is long standing that has served the proponents of discrimination very well. To associate the proponents of non discrimination with being atheists and godless, that's. It's such a problematic association. Even to invoke it here is to make that association right. Even if he's saying don't make the association, it's like, don't call Harvey Weinstein a sexual predator and a pedophile. You're making that association even when you say you shouldn't make that association. Does that make sense?

Kyle Ashworth [02:34:44] Yeah, I think makes. Don't you remember what David Bednar said there are no homosexuals in the church. Yeah, it's, it's all back to this labeling speech again.

Speaker G [02:34:53] Yeah.

John Dehlin [02:34:54] But to his credit, he's saying, let's stop with the labels. So that's great. I guess. Any other, any other comments about this, this clip?

Hannah Kumo [02:35:04] I just think it's interesting because the, the term godless here because during my progressive Mormon days, I would, I would, I would say to people that I am progressive because I'm Mormon, because the teachings of Christ and the teachings of God lend themselves to being, being like being a proponent of anti discrimination, you know, and messages such as that. So I think it's ironic that several years ago in my own spiritual journey, I felt like I was closer to God and more of a representative of God at the time by being a proponent of those things. So I just think that's a little bit interesting as well.

John Dehlin [02:35:51] Yeah. Thank you, Hannah.

Gerardo Sumano [02:35:55] Okay, just want to mention really quick before we go to the next one, this comment by this human life. He says, Oaks paraphrasing quote, don't judge what we say to members. He has nothing to do with society. And also, oh, by the way, we own and publish the Desert News newspaper. This is, you know, kind of interesting because he's quoting the Desert News on this part of his speech.

John Dehlin [02:36:21] And a huge shout out thanks to this human life for the donation, for the Super Chat donation as well. Okay, should we go to the next clip?

Oaks Discourages Litigation Over Religious LGBTQ Conflicts

Gerardo Sumano [02:36:30] Yeah.

John Dehlin [02:36:31] Gerardo, what's this clip about?

Gerardo Sumano [02:36:34] So this is one of, of the five statements throughout his talk where he says, let's stay out of court. Let's. Let's fix this on the, on a legislative process. He later brings up the, the Utah compromise that we're going to be talking about. And, and yeah, that's why it says don't go to court number three, because this is the one I picked out of the five.

John Dehlin [02:37:03] Yeah. And we just have, we've already covered this point, but I'll just say it again that it's got to be that the reason why he's saying let's not go to court is because past court battles have been very damaging to the church's reputation and to, and has led to people defecting from the Mormon Church and has led to rulings not favorable to the church. And so we have to understand why he's saying this. He's going to say it's because we're going to get the best result, but it's probably because it's been super damaging to the church up till now.

Kyle Ashworth [02:37:37] Well, even in terms, not only just in terms of public perception, but the widow's might. The church has lost an incredible treasure in fortune in fighting these things. And the thought had just occurred to me just a second ago. I'm, I thought, well, maybe we should take all of these to court. The church responds most effectively when its purse is impacted. When the church realizes how much money they spend in litigation, is it in terms of advocacy, is it a smarter move to take every one of these to court and put the church on the record and then allow them to continue to waste their money in litigation knowing that they already fear the court? I mean, just a hypothetical idea, but to go along with what John is saying, they already know they're not going to win in these spaces. Don't take us to court. But we also know that they function most rapidly when their money is in jeopardy. And perhaps that is the greatest way of advocating.

John Dehlin [02:38:34] I mean, it's weird because the truth is the church really does hate to lose money. And they do look at tithing funds as sacred. And it's literally now a trillion dollar organization. It's the richest church in the United States. They have just investment assets that are disclosed that are now exceeding 140 or $150 billion. And that's not even counting the church's core assets. The church could, could fund its current budget just on the interest of its investments at Ensign Peak alone, with all tithing ceasing. So on the one hand, I do think the church hates to lose money. On the other hand, the church is literally richer than God at this point and it could outspend anyone ever who wanted to oppose it. But I do, I do think you're right, Kai. I think the church hurts. The church hates to lose money. That's why it is so rich. But let's go ahead and hear and hear the, the quote and just, and just be thinking about why really Elder Oaks is saying, making this argument versus why he seems to claim to be

Dallin H. Oaks [02:39:36] making this argument, that neither side be unduly influenced by the extreme voices that often drive litigation, especially litigation sponsored by ideological groups. Extreme voices influence popular opinion, but they polarize and sow resentment as they seek to dominate their opponents and achieve absolute victory. Such outcomes are rare, rarely sustainable, or even attainable. And they're never preferable to living together in mutual understanding and peace.

John Dehlin [02:40:15] Yeah, and says the architecture, says the architect of the Mormon Church's legal, you know, you know, public legal and political action strategy for decades. Yeah,

Dallin H. Oaks [02:40:35] yeah.

Gerardo Sumano [02:40:35] I mean, I think we. Sorry, go ahead.

Speaker G [02:40:38] I, I Agree, John. I think that's really fascinating because it's not like they haven't been successful in the. In the religious. The religious freedom arena. They have really shaped the law in a very. In a way that's beneficial for them in the courts. So I do think it's fascinating that he says, you know, we shouldn't force these changes by legal fiat. That's a fascinating statement to make. And again, I do just think that the accountability, the spotlight of the court system, I think you need both legislative process and a judicial system. But to completely diminish the value that the legal system has to play here makes me. Makes me wonder, you know, what the reasoning would be behind that.

Speaker F [02:41:27] I also just have to ask, who does he think the extreme groups are in this question? Right. First of all, I don't think they're including themselves as an extreme group advocating for religious liberty, but I think a lot of people would view them as an extreme group advocating for religious liberty. So it's interesting that they would characterize it that way. I mean, a lot of lawsuits are brought by plaintiffs who are just people who are just trying to live their lives and go to school and stay in their housing, keep their jobs. And so it's interesting to characterize those plaintiffs as extreme, but implicitly leave themselves out of the extreme groups that they're talking about that are advocating for these rights to be. To be accepted, to create exceptions from these rights.

John Dehlin [02:42:23] Brilliant. Brilliant point, Chloe.

Hannah Kumo [02:42:25] Precisely. And just as a quick note on that, his statement about how we should be wary of litigation sponsored by ideological groups, does that include them as well? I just think that's interesting that he would mention something like that when we there. He. The church has been involved in heavily in litigation surrounding these subjects in the past.

John Dehlin [02:42:49] Prop 22. Prop 8. Like what?

Gerardo Sumano [02:42:53] Yeah.

John Dehlin [02:42:53] Yeah.

Gerardo Sumano [02:42:55] All right.

John Dehlin [02:42:55] Any other comments about not going to court?

Gerardo Sumano [02:42:59] I. I only want to add that it's really interesting that he's pretty much telling Joe Baxter, Paul Southwick, you need to get out of court. We need to figure this out through legislation. He's talking to people like them who are bringing these things up.

Speaker G [02:43:19] And I think Chloe mentioned something really important, like, these are students. These are real people that are bringing this to court. This is their story. They're the ones who are being discriminated against. They're the ones who are standing up and they are brave. Some of our plaintiffs are so scared that they have to remain anonymous because they're going to get backlash. There's no protection for them at these universities. You have Students who are already overwhelmed with school, who have so much else going on in their lives, who have to stand up for themselves, it's really tough to try and label them as extremists. I think that's an incredibly unfair label. And thank you, Chloe, for pointing that. I think that's a really great way of framing that.

John Dehlin [02:44:05] Honestly. If I were on the team of advocating for non discrimination, I would say, okay, wait, Elder Oaks is saying we shouldn't go to court. That means we should go to court. Because he's basically saying, let's not do this anymore. Which clearly means he's acknowledging it's going to be disadvantageous for things to stay in court, which would signal to me. More court, please. Is that fair to say?

Dallin H. Oaks [02:44:33] Neither side. Neither side.

John Dehlin [02:44:34] I don't know.

Gerardo Sumano [02:44:35] I think so.

John Dehlin [02:44:35] Okay.

Kyle Ashworth [02:44:36] Yeah, I'm definitely on board with that.

Speaker G [02:44:41] All right.

John Dehlin [02:44:41] Yeah. Yeah. And I think a lot of people are saying the transparency of the court alone is really important.

Kyle Ashworth [02:44:50] Can you imagine though, because just circling back to on the Record and the church's chronology and messaging on this space, what would happen to Mormonism it if the general public, what would happen to Mormonism if Mormons knew what was on the record in the way the Church is treated and dealt with the LGBTQ topics and people? And we're going to get into this tomorrow, but we're talking about vomit therapies, electroshock therapies, exiling people from Salt Lake, ripping children from people because they're transgender, and Brigham Young kicking them out of Zion saying never come back again, and the church taking their children and readopting them to other families because they want to get rid of a contagion in society. If the church, if Mormonism, if the general public really knew the. The Latter Day Saint history in this space, I wouldn't want it in court either. I wouldn't want it in the. In view visible and in the. Not only in the court of public opinion, but in the mainstream. The church has not only tried to espouse their views in this space, but they've done their very best to hide their history as well. And there are some wild skeletons hanging out in the church's LGBTQ closet.

John Dehlin [02:46:11] Not to mention the super high rates of LGBTQ youth homelessness in Utah and the high, super high egregious rates of LGBTQ death by suicide that is decades long. Not just like a recent five year phenomenon that the church literally ignored until like Dan Reynolds and the HBO documentary Believer and modern Mormon and post Mormon LGBTQ advocates just started really bludgeoning the church over the head publicly with this huge suicide rate. I mean, we talk about like Nexium, the Nexium cult and people being branded like, like, when do we see an epidemic of death by suicide in even the most harmful religious sort of situations? We should all be aghast by a super high triple the national average death by suicide rate amongst Mormon LGBTQ youth. And the church just kind of yawned at that until it was brought into the public light, you know.

Kyle Ashworth [02:47:19] Yeah, the thing that goes or just works, works against us in this space is traditionally, historically, members of the church just not. Are just not interested in information. The overwhelming majority of Latter Day Saints have never read the standard works. The overwhelming majority of Latter Day Saints don't fully understand the written history. And so how. How do you. And maybe that is a strategy that needs to be more perfected by the advocates of LGBTQ rights within Mormonism. But how do we teach without saying these are just anti Mormon lies the general public about the church's history in this space? The one way that I found is using Mormonism against Mormonism. Nothing in on the record is hyperbole or opinion. It is what the church has put on the record with sources and with actual links to where the church made these statements or the historical record that showed the examples. So I think maybe the other part of this battle is preparing people for a desire to seek the truth. I mean, I guess, ironically, in Mormonism's foundings, it's that people are turned about by every wind of doctrine because they don't know where to find it. And maybe we start providing those experiences. And maybe that's why it's important to share stories and experiences of the LGBTQ community. Because we are the resources. The lived experiences of the community are where the traditional Latter Day Saint will learn better in this space.

John Dehlin [02:49:04] Love it.

Speaker G [02:49:06] And I just want to say, Kyle, I mean, the work that you do with your podcast and telling these stories is incredibly powerful and getting this information out is very powerful. Same with the work that you do, John. I'm also. I'm an attorney with reef, but I'm also an ex Mormon. I grew up in the LDS Church. I'm the youngest of a family of nine. I was a Mormon missionary. So these issues are also. I have other personal interests in these. It's just a very. It's a very familiar issue to me and a very personal issue. But it's when you leave or, you know, when you stop accepting all of the history of Mormonism that was taught to you, you start to realize the role that this institution has played in not just LGBTQ rights, but in the civil rights movement in general. We have, again, our ancestors or this institution that we were a part of has helped create all of these laws that block, that impede the human rights of individuals. And we may leave those ideas behind and personally walk away from that, but all of those barriers are still there. All of those barriers exist from an institution that maybe we benefited from or our families have benefited from a long time. And I think it's really important to try and say, okay, now what can we do to remove those barriers? I can see them now. But what can we do to actively go and change the things that kind of our people, our community has done? How can we actively go back and make a change to remove those things?

John Dehlin [02:50:57] I love it. I didn't know you had. I didn't know you had that background, Joe. I appreciate you disclosing that. That makes extra special your participation, as far as I'm concerned. Not that you weren't legitimate before you were.

Gerardo Sumano [02:51:11] Yeah, he went to byu Idaho. Pretty sure, right, Joe?

Speaker G [02:51:16] Yeah.

Gerardo Sumano [02:51:16] Yes.

Speaker G [02:51:16] Yes, I did. Back in the day.

Kyle Ashworth [02:51:18] All right, Anyone on this panel who went to BYU Idaho should be disqualified.

Hannah Kumo [02:51:23] I went to byu, Idaho.

John Dehlin [02:51:25] Provo. Provo. All right, we know Gerardo.

Speaker G [02:51:32] Yes.

Gerardo Sumano [02:51:32] Mine is pretty public.

Speaker G [02:51:36] All right.

John Dehlin [02:51:37] All right. Should we go to the next clip?

Gerardo Sumano [02:51:41] Yes.

John Dehlin [02:51:42] Anything you want to say that we should watch?

Gerardo Sumano [02:51:45] Oh, my gosh. This one's kind of like pretty. Was shocking when I heard it because I never heard that quote from Joseph Smith. And you see and Elder Oaks telling this. So throughout his talk, he's doing two things. Like he's. It's like he's advocating for non discrimination, but at the same time justifying what the church has done and keeps doing to impede or. Or you know, like keep their rights to discriminate. So what he's going to do here is he's going to use Joseph Smith as kind of like a quote from him to justify how the church fought marriage equality. And he's going to say the church lost the marriage equality battle. And he later says that. That we had to get along with that and follow that. But it was a worthy fight because Joseph Smith told us to do that. And so, yeah, I think I'm ready for.

Dallin H. Oaks [02:52:52] To you.

Gerardo Sumano [02:52:52] For you.

John Dehlin [02:52:53] All right, here we go. Joseph Smith. This is Joseph Smith weighing in on the LGBTQ religious freedom slash right to discriminate efforts of the Mormon Church. I'm excited to hear it.

Dallin H. Oaks [02:53:09] For example, it is well known that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints exercised its constitutional right to express its position that the traditional legal definition of marriage should be preserved. But in 2015, when the Supreme Court pronounced the legality of same sex marriage, the Church immediately ceased all such opposition and publicly acknowledged its acceptance of the constitutional law established by the nation's highest court. Of course, a church's religious marriage law and practice, which upholds the biblical understanding of marriage, remains in force on its adherents when it does not violate what Jesus called Caesar's Law. Joseph Smith, for whom this lecture is named, taught that religion is instituted of God and that men are amenable to him and him only for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberty of others. New quote.

Kyle Ashworth [02:54:26] Jesus, take the wheel.

Hannah Kumo [02:54:29] That last part, can I say, like, unless their beliefs. I can't remember the exact quote. Like, prompt them to.

Gerardo Sumano [02:54:39] Unless God prompts.

Hannah Kumo [02:54:40] Right, exactly. I'm going back to, to this quote that we discussed a while ago during the law school Q and A session of where he tells the questioner, don't judge a private sermon by public issues. Well, shouldn't that apply the other way around too? Don't judge public issues by your private beliefs. I mean, I don't understand the reciprocity here that he's trying to go for and things like this.

Kyle Ashworth [02:55:13] This is another great Pinocchio, because did the church really stay out of Any legislation after 2015? Raise your hand if you believe that.

John Dehlin [02:55:23] Did they immediately cease and desist? Oh, let's roll over.

Kyle Ashworth [02:55:29] I still see no hands. They filed briefs. They participated in Friends of Court documents. They have aligned themselves with other organizations. I mean, we have leaked videos even after that of, of the church siding themselves with other, other religious and, and government officials in an effort to continue to promulgate the message that allowing gay marriage is equivalent to national suicide. We are going to depopulate the world. If a single generation of gay marriages exist in, in the world, they absolutely stayed in the game. There is nothing. This is the second great lie. There's nothing that happened. There's nothing in this statement that after 2015 that the church abandoned all participation in legal challenges or, or participation in any advocacy efforts on their behalf in this space. Complete light.

John Dehlin [02:56:30] Yeah. Other comments on that quote.

Speaker F [02:56:36] Yeah, I just, I just really worry about the extent to which they can use that comment to infringe upon the rights of people. You know, I, as much as this talk, you know, is trying to create compromise for those of you who don't know, there's a, There's a bill in Texas that essentially the goal of it is to try to get around the constitutional right to abortion that's currently being challenged in the United States Supreme Court. And the reason that's relevant is say the worst happens and the United States Supreme Court allows states to enact bills that essentially penalize you for exercising your constitutional rights. My question would be what would stop the church from advocating for those bills to be used to get around the rights of queer people that have been recognized by the Supreme Court? If Oaks is saying that the church's doctrine allows them to get around and impinge on the rights of people, how can we ever trust that the compromises that we make with them will hold as soon as the Supreme Court decides? Of course, I hope they don't. But if they do decide that this method of getting around Constitution constitutional rights is valid, I just don't trust that the LDS Church is going to step back and say, well, a burger fell happens, so we're not going to step in with this quote. It really makes me worry that they're going to step in and they're going to. And they're going to encourage these bills that continue to limit the rights of folks even when they're recognized as constitutional rights.

John Dehlin [02:58:19] Thank you, Chloe.

Gerardo Sumano [02:58:22] It's really interesting how he uses Joseph Smith, like you said at the beginning, before we played the clip, John, he uses Joseph Smith to justify their, their involvement in, in the marriage equality fight. And so he pretty much says, like, oh look here, here is Joseph Smith talking about what we're doing today. So I don't know, kind of interesting,

John Dehlin [02:58:47] whenever the church does something really discriminatory these days, when it has to publicly justify it, one of its great fallbacks is to blame God or Jesus. It's like, well, you know, we just get our instructions from God and Jesus. So, you know, whether it's Joseph Smith or God or Jesus, it's a way, I, I worry that it's a way to avoid accountability.

Gerardo Sumano [02:59:09] Yeah, right.

Dallin H. Oaks [02:59:10] For sure.

John Dehlin [02:59:11] But it also perverts God and Jesus. There are so many Christians that reach out to me and say, why does I'm so mad as a Christian that Mormonism ruins so many post Mormons for belief in God or Christianity. And it's because Mormon church leaders associate really abominable behaviors and teachings with God and Jesus, so they taint God and Jesus. And by the way, I do have to call him out on the idea that he just takes it as obvious and as an assumption that his interpretation of the Bible stance on same sex sexuality is, quote, the biblical understanding. Because I know a lot of Christians and Jews that would take issue with this, with this interpretation that the Bible is anti lgbtq. Is that.

Kyle Ashworth [03:00:03] That's a really great point, John. I had. I had not even considered that.

Gerardo Sumano [03:00:07] Yeah, I. I also think how. How he. I think he's using that statement to. To gain popularity among other conservative, religious, Christian churches, you know, like evangelical church, because he's saying, look, we're on the same camp. We're both advocating for the same thing, so everyone that believes in the Bible, like, should be agreeing with us on this.

Kyle Ashworth [03:00:38] Well, and I think in terms of this conversation and Mormonism, I think it's super hard for us to hear God's voice when you've already decided what you want him to say. And that's the approach that Oaks is taking. Taking here is I already. We've already determined what we believe God should say or will say, therefore, and it's this confirmation bias. It. We operate from this position forward instead of looking at the evidences that may contradict what we've already believed God to say or predisposed him to think.

Dallin H. Oaks [03:01:12] Yeah.

John Dehlin [03:01:15] I'm on record as saying multiple times that claiming to speak for God is. Is too much power for anyone to assume. And when you add to it, these LGBTQ youth, any heinous thing you attribute to God or Jesus, they're believing God and Jesus as the ultimate authority. If you're painting God's will or teachings as anti lgbtq, I don't think I have to mention how serious that implicate, you know, the implications of that can be for believing LGBTQ youth.

Kyle Ashworth [03:01:49] Yeah, it's the defiance of the personal revelation. And when. When my personal revelation doesn't match that of President Oaks in terms of what my sexual orientation is, his position of power tends to invalidate my experience. And his position of power uses. Is influencing other people's view of what my personal revelation and personal experience is. And I think that is part of

John Dehlin [03:02:16] the damage that's important, Kyle. And it leads many LGBTQ Mormon youth to think that God hates them or views them as inferior or broken or beyond salvation. And I think that's got to be at least part of why there's been an LGBTQ youth death by suicide epidemic is because it leaves so many LGBTQ youth to think that God sees them as broken and is sinful and is bad and is beyond salvation.

Kyle Ashworth [03:02:45] I think, and it's important for us in the LGBTQ community to defy that narrative by showing that there are spiritual experiences. There are, there are happy, happy experiences and happiness on the other side of the aisle. All of these things that were preached about the LGBTQ community in terms of, of longevity and beauty and growth absolutely can happen. And it's through the lived experiences. I wish 12, 10, 12 year old gay Kyle could see that there were experiences of happy, healthy and thriving LGBTQ adults. I needed to see those examples. The church effectively hid those from me, effectively taught me that none of those existed. Therefore, in that message, tried to prove to me that I shouldn't exist. And that's part of that problem.

Speaker F [03:03:38] Yeah. And to add onto that, Kyle Young Chloe, who identified well, was coming to terms with her sexuality at the time, was also reading that telling people that you're queer and being openly queer can distance your family from the church and it can distance your friends from the church. And if even just explaining what you're going through, two people can, can strip away other people's eternities and that this person that is speaking for God is telling you you need to stay quiet about this, it multiplies that pain by 10 because now you're encouraged to keep it quiet. And so you're sitting there, at least in my experience, I was sitting there deeply, deeply hurt and worried about what my own identity meant for me and then not feeling that I could go to a single soul with it without risking their eternity too. And if I did, I worried that I'd be ostracized from a majority Mormon community for just even speaking the words that I am, that I am trans, or that I, that I have a different sexuality, even if I never intended to act on those as the Mormon Church teaches. And so I really, I do think it is, it is really deeply harmful, these messages that he's, he's raising through the Bible and through. And by speaking for God.

John Dehlin [03:05:05] Amen. Other comments before we go on to this, the next heinous quote that we can attribute to Elder Hoax. Elder Oaks.

Gerardo Sumano [03:05:16] Yeah, I think this one was a little bit out of place. That's my fault. But it's, it's good to, to read it anyway. So he, his quote says, first, I believe in retaining criminal penalties on sex crimes such as adultery, fornication, prostitution, homosexuality, and other forms of, of deviate sexual behavior. And this was in 1974. I guess it does tie a little bit to what he's saying. Is Joseph Smith giving him the permission to, to say what should I should not be like, criminalized or infringing the liberties of others because God is telling him To.

John Dehlin [03:06:00] I mean, I think it's perfect because it shows such an outrageous, egregious position that a pro, you know, that a church leader can have, you know, in 1974, he's basically saying homosexuality should be criminal. And then we know that he doesn't hold that position anymore. Which then begs the question, if he's attributing all sorts of things now to God and Jesus, how can we rely on that as being accurate when we know that their positions have altered dramatically over the years? Does that mean God and Jesus, their positions have altered dramatically or just that these men are kind of making up as they go along and always assigning. Whatever their current position. Position happens to be, they're just always going to attribute it to God and Jesus?

Kyle Ashworth [03:06:50] Yeah, we should. We should jump into this tomorrow, John, in our. The second part of this discussion, because this is when he was serving as president of byu. This is also when they. He had instituted the Honor Code office and recreate, kind of rebranded the Honor Code office to start hunting and rooting out homosexuals specifically on campus. So for him to be completely benign and this idea that he didn't know that electroshock therapy existed or it had been abandoned prior to his tenure as president of byu, this quote alone is another example of how forefront this was on his mind.

John Dehlin [03:07:30] Yeah. All right, Gerardo, the next clip is Utah Compromise, Part 1. Do you want to set this up at all? Any of you want to set this up?

The Utah Compromise and Fairness for All Legislation

Gerardo Sumano [03:07:41] So these are. These are two parts. The Utah Compromise.

Speaker G [03:07:45] He.

Gerardo Sumano [03:07:45] In my opinion, his. His whole speech can be summarized. And what he's advocating for can be summarized in his advoc. Advocacy of the Utah Compromise. He talks about the Utah compromise here. He talks about it in the Q and A. And he basically gives the Utah compromise as a model to. For LGBT advocates and. And religious freedom advocates to come together and reach an agreement.

Speaker G [03:08:16] Who.

John Dehlin [03:08:16] Who wants to give a one minute history of the Utah compromise? Who's the best person to do it?

Gerardo Sumano [03:08:20] He's gonna do it. But then we can. We can. We can jump on that.

John Dehlin [03:08:24] That's what this clip will be.

Kyle Ashworth [03:08:25] Did you say best?

John Dehlin [03:08:27] What's that?

Gerardo Sumano [03:08:29] Oh, but, yeah, we can jump after this and, but Oakes is going to explain what it is.

John Dehlin [03:08:34] Okay.

Gerardo Sumano [03:08:35] Part one and then part two, he's going to talk about the results. He's going to talk first how it came to be, and then part two on the results. And then I think we can jump in and talk more about it.

John Dehlin [03:08:45] Okay, here we go.

Dallin H. Oaks [03:08:48] Therefore, notwithstanding its heavily criticized opposition in the political debate over same sex marriage. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints revolution reached out to non discrimination advocates and participated in Utah negotiations over shared concerns on housing and employment. The discussions that followed were previously thought impossible for either side. Over a six year period, however, they were able to craft suitable local and statewide law legislation because adversaries gradually learned to understand each other's positions, including what they deemed most important to affirm and protect by law. Yeah.

Gerardo Sumano [03:09:39] So here we can have anyone, legal experts on the panel to talk about the Utah compromise and what he's talking about.

John Dehlin [03:09:48] Joe, do you want to. Do you want to start? Joe?

Hannah Kumo [03:09:52] Yeah.

Speaker G [03:09:53] I'm not an expert on the Utah compromise specifically, but I do know that it was a compromise when they, they passed anti discrimination provisions, but with leaving in broad religious exemptions. I think that the religious exemptions, the Title IX is a great example of the breadth of those exemptions. If they are. They're left into. These laws are so damaging. They have such a major impact. It would be a shame if those laws were negotiated and our students were left out of those protections. I think it would be wrong. Our students deserve protections. The students at schools across universities do. And I think what they're talking about, you know, you have to be careful, you know, to say, well, we have to protect religious liberty. Okay, but that, that doesn't mean allowing blatant discrimination or implicit discrimination against LGBTQ youth.

John Dehlin [03:10:52] Yeah, yeah. Okay.

Dallin H. Oaks [03:10:58] Anything.

John Dehlin [03:10:58] Any other, any other history you want to go ahead, Chloe?

Speaker F [03:11:03] There's two. There's just one quick point of history I wanted to add, and then just a little bit of discrete description of some of the exemptions that are in the law. So first, my understanding of the. The law, and I think Kyle could speak to this as well, but my understanding is that the, the broader. The law without the religious exemptions had more broad support, and until the church spoke out against it. Now, I was not involved in the advocacy run this bill and I, I am also not an expert in it. But my understanding is that again, it is the church. Church's act of stepping into the conversation that made the law require compromise to begin with. If they hadn't stepped into it, then the law, I think, would have had broad support to pass without the broad religious exemptions that it passed with. And I think Kenna could also speak to this a little bit as well. But just to give a few examples of the exemptions that exist in that law, it exempts any sort of religious institution from. To allow them to discriminate on the basis of gender and sexual orientation. So, for example, the law has an exemption for private schools. So this is why after the law was passed, BYU is still able to discriminate against LGBT LGBTQ students, because this exemption was, was included in the law.

Kyle Ashworth [03:12:36] I think Chloe brings up an important point. The. I mean, and I'm jumping back here to a lot of space that I haven't spent a ton of time in, but overall, in terms of the legislature, there wasn't a gigantic issue with the non discrimination bill on their part. And when it finally passed, and I think this was an interesting moment in Oaks's part of this discussion where he frames it as saying, we as members of the church, as leaders of the church, went to all of these, all of these LGBTQ groups and we formed these coalitions in order to pass religious non discrimination. And I don't know, and I don't remember that being true, the legislature and these advocacy groups had already coalesced. They had already come up with an idea of providing housing and workplace protections for marginalized communities, the LGBTQ community. It was the church that continued to stop it via lobby the legislature legislators from passing it. So that's the one part of this talk that I thought was his lecture that was disingenuous, but again, possibly not true, that it was the church driving the wagon in order to round everybody up and get them all on the same page. When from my understanding of prior work in the Utah compromise, the legislature and these advocacy groups were already on the same page. They already knew what they wanted. It's. It's what the church didn't want in there, and that was their religious leaders. They wanted their religious exemptions and allow them to continue to discriminate at places like BYU and at the church distribution center and at Eagle Gate College and all of these places where the church wanted to still continue limiting who and what could work for them.

John Dehlin [03:14:36] It's almost like the church is saying, for a long, long time we were okay with discrimination in the state of Utah because we have a theocracy and we're behind the state legislature and we were okay with it for a long, long time. And then when, when we knew that something was going to happen and our feet were forced to, you know, to the fire, then we made it look through public appearances that we were behind the improvements all along the way, even though what we actually did was do our, our best to weaken any changes that might actually take place. It's almost like that's.

Kyle Ashworth [03:15:10] This is kind of like the November 2015 policy in reverse it was. The church instituted a really terrible policy, and then they pulled it back in 2019. They started the forest fire. Then they showed up and put it

Speaker G [03:15:22] out and said, we love gay people.

Kyle Ashworth [03:15:23] Give us credit for putting out the fire.

Hannah Kumo [03:15:25] Okay. And I just. I just need to add really quick. Chloe and I had this discussion at length yesterday regarding the Utah Compromise. And Kyle, from what your comments on this issue as well, it seems ultimately like framing it as a compromise is completely disingenuous because it actually, in practice, what it amounts to is a major win for the religious liberty side of this discussion. The LDS Church did not do anything to add to or advocate for the rights of LGBT people. And necessarily implicated in the word compromise means that both sides are going to have to give something up or make concessions somewhere. And frankly, that did not happen. What happened essentially as a result of this is the. The church got more exemptions to be able to discriminate at higher levels and more broadly, and essentially did not do anything, anything that hadn't already been done before in the past,

Gerardo Sumano [03:16:37] if anything, actually, because we're going to show an article really quick after we show part two, where two professors from the University of Virginia, the school that Hannah and Chloe go to, criticized the Utah compromise, saying, like, this was actually worked in the disadvantage for the LGBT community, because before this, religious exemptions were not written in the law. So it was kind of like up on the air. So what the Church came and did was solidify their religious exemptions. So now it's very clear in the law that they are, like, legally allowed to discriminate where before it was. Not that. That was not the case anyway.

John Dehlin [03:17:23] So should we play that second clip really quick, Gerardo?

Speaker F [03:17:27] Yes.

Gerardo Sumano [03:17:27] Yes.

John Dehlin [03:17:27] Okay, let's play it really quick.

Dallin H. Oaks [03:17:30] In time, a jointly designed proposal gained traction, and its adoption at the city level prompted an effort to adopt a similar law statewide. The resulting law, later called the Utah Compromise, was enacted with the the Church's full support in 2015. This law offered protections to both sides. One side obtained significant legal protection from discrimination in employment and housing. The other side gained protection for religious freedom in its most sensitive areas of church employment and student housing. While the law gave neither side all that it sought, its reconciliations did grant both sides significant benefits. A win, win outcome.

John Dehlin [03:18:27] He basically just admitted that the Church really wanted to be able to fire people or kick them out of their housing if they were gay. And that was really important to the church to be able to still do that. I'm sorry, forgive me for being cynical.

Hannah Kumo [03:18:43] And is that what they're giving up as part of this compromise, like their advocacy for denying people housing and employment opportunities because of sexual orientation or gender identity. I. I'm with you. I don't. I don't understand.

Gerardo Sumano [03:18:59] That was my question when I watched this. Like, what's the win, win. What the. And one. What's the win.

Speaker F [03:19:05] Win?

Gerardo Sumano [03:19:05] And what's the compromise? What did the church have to compromise? Because for me, the church didn't have to compromise anything. The LGBT had to compromise being ex be being like, allowing these laws to be written so that like 50 of Utah can discriminate against them. Because there's like so many Mormons in Utah, you know, so, so. And now that's written in the law. So it was hard. Greg Prince actually has like a section on his book, the Gay Rights and Mormon, the Mormon Church, where he talks about exactly what Oaks. He talks about the Utah compromise, and everything is about Oaks. And he talks about how Oaks saw the Utah compromise as. As, like not super favorable to the church. But Greg Prince goes and debunks every reason that Elder Oaks says that why was not a. A compromise at all for the church.

Kyle Ashworth [03:19:59] And another thing that I remember at the same time that is often forgot is the church was also battling with the Boy Scouts of America at the time. And the Boy Scouts, their decision to allow gay leaders and this Utah compromise still allowed the church to discriminate against Scout leaders. So that was a key point that I think shouldn't be ignored because at that point, the LDS Church was the largest sponsor, charter sponsor of the Boy Scouts of America. And they absolutely wanted to make sure they could keep gay leaders out of those ranks.

John Dehlin [03:20:37] It's weird.

Hannah Kumo [03:20:37] It's.

John Dehlin [03:20:38] Go ahead.

Speaker F [03:20:40] Oh, I'm. I'm sorry. I just. I want to dig in a little bit more into what he thinks he is compromising. Right. Because from my perspective, as many of you have said, I don't know if they could have drafted more broad religious exemptions and maybe Joe could have more. More ideas in this area. But it almost seems to me like I've been thinking really hard about what Oakes himself thought he was compromising. And there's only two things that come to mind. The first is same gender marriage, and the second is essentially making being queer illegal in the first place. Those are the only two things that he didn't get in these laws. But both of those were not options available to him under the law in Utah at the time that this legislation was passed. So my question that I'm left with is, does he think that he gave up his ability to make being queer illegal or to make same gender marriage illegal in order to pass this compromise. Or was it something else? Because if that's the case, those options simply weren't on the table for him. So it wasn't a compromise on that basis either.

John Dehlin [03:21:59] I mean, given the church that Utah is, given the fact that Utah is an effective theocracy because 90% of the state legislatures slay tours are faithful Latter Day Saints who literally do the church's bidding explicitly, it's weird for him to call it a concession that they are going to, you know, make it illegal to fire people or to kick them out of their housing if they're gay. Like that's basically saying, okay, we've imprisoned you as a slave, so we're going to stop imprisoning you and give us lots of credit and kudos for that, but we're going to keep you as slaves. Like it's, it's a really weird thing to take credit for.

Hannah Kumo [03:22:46] But, and keep in mind too that this, that part is just in the public, in the public sphere. It's still with these exemptions how, I mean there's the high LDS population in Utah and the amount of institutional space that the LDS Church takes up, they're still allowed to discriminate on those base bases, you know, on, on sexual orientation and gender identity in those particular spaces. And so frankly, it's just this very narrow public sphere in, in Utah that they're talking about and they're still able to, to do, to perform all those practices in the context of anything that they operate and own.

Kyle Ashworth [03:23:30] And what does that say to the other part of Oakes lecture where he says it's not necessary for us to continue to fight every little portion of this does is that a message to, or should this be Translated to that 90% of Utah's population, legislative population that identifies as Latter Day Saint? Is that really the target audience that Oaks was speaking to was the local, state, county governments that continue to enact policies like this was. And that's kind of the conciliatory message that I would love to hold the Church's feet to the fire at. If indeed that's what Oaks is saying, then that message should translate to the state legislators who are Latter Day Saints and let them know that they don't need to fight every single non discrimin discrimination case that comes on their desk or across their, in the newspaper or across the, the tv, because that's been the, the historical tradition of Utah legislators.

Gerardo Sumano [03:24:35] Yeah, I I did want to point out that this is the section where he quoted Troy Williams that everyone thought, even Peggy Fletcher. Sorry, not Peggy. Janet Reese thought it was kind of like a big deal that he quoted Troy Williams. Well, he quoted him in support of the Utah compromise.

Kyle Ashworth [03:24:56] So the only thing more shocking would have been Dallin Oaks quoting John De Lynn.

Gerardo Sumano [03:25:01] Well, if John was a supporter of the Utah compromise, I could have seen him do that because that's what he did anyway.

John Dehlin [03:25:10] But for those who don't know Troy. Troy Williams leads Equality Utah. He's in a gay ex Mormon who leads the top state lobbying group who tries to advocate for and pass pro LGBTQ legislation in the state. That's for those who don't know who Troy Williams is. Joe, did you want to get in here at all?

Speaker G [03:25:34] Yeah, I was just going to say that again, these religious exemptions, they are the source of so much discrimination, they are so broad that any compromise that just leaves them in. I'm not sure what you get from that deal that seems. This has to be hammered out. This has to be addressed. It's an issue that needs to be discussed. It needs to be debated. And they want to. He talks about, you know, changes by legal fiat, but he just wants to, you know, create a broad policy and walk away. These questions need to be addressed. They need to be dived into. They need to be looked at in depth. And just creating broad exemptions is not. I don't. I don't believe that's the answer.

Hannah Kumo [03:26:21] Exactly. And to characterize this as a win, win situation, personally, I don't characterize the minimal amount of basic human rights as a win. That's a baseline. That's not a win. That's where we should all see start in the first place. So I, I truly don't understand how he thinks. This is a win, win situation here again.

Gerardo Sumano [03:26:47] And the next slide talks about this, I think a little bit where, where I post the. This article. I got. I found this article on the paper of a law student at BYU who, Who wrote this very lengthy paper about the religious exemptions at BYU on Title 9. And she quote on those. She has this section where she talks about the Utah compromise and she quotes from this, from this article, which I think. Richard, you said Richard Schrager and who else, Hannah, have been your professors.

Hannah Kumo [03:27:25] Yeah. So Chloe and I have had both Micah Schwarzman and Richard Schreger as professors at the law school. Yeah. So shout out to them. They're great. We had Professor Schrager for property law and Micah Schwartzman taught religious liberty, which Chloe and I both took last year also.

Gerardo Sumano [03:27:46] Yeah, so such a big coincidence that this article. Well, they appeared as saying the Utah legislation should not become a model for the nation. So the Utah compromise. So pretty much saying the contrary of what Elder Oaks is saying. They say the bill contains troubling exemptions for religious groups, allowing them to continue to discriminate in ways that would be impermissible in many other states and under federal law in particular. The Utah law specifically exempts religiously affiliated nonprofits such as schools, hospitals, and social service organizations. So they just say what they. What we are all talking about right now, how the UTECH compromise really was not beneficial for the LGBT community.

John Dehlin [03:28:41] All right, the next clip we have is Fairness for All. That sounds good.

Gerardo Sumano [03:28:49] Yeah, you can play it, John, and I'll talk a little bit about it.

Dallin H. Oaks [03:28:56] Another basic imperative is that we should not seek total dominance for our own position. We should seek fairness for all. Specifically, people of faith should not contest every non discrimination law or policy that could possibly impinge, however insignificant, significantly on institutional or individual religious freedom. Likewise, proponents of non discrimination need not contest every religious freedom exemption from non discrimination laws. The goals of both sides are best served by resolving differences through mutual respect, shared understanding, and good faith negotiations. And both must accept and respect the rule of law.

John Dehlin [03:29:46] I just have to say really quickly that any time in this speech, Elder Oaks is basically saying proponents of religious freedom should no longer do X, Y or Z. What that means in my brain is I, Elder Oaks, have been a proponent of doing X, Y and Z for a long time and. But I'm not going to put myself in the position as being accountable for that. I'm now going to put myself in the position of being neutral and wag my finger at all those other people that were doing something wrong and tell them to stop. Because what this tells me is that Alder Oaks has been at the forefront of arguing and debating and pursuing every little possible legal win that he could get against non discrimination advocates in support of what he called religious freedom, which really was disguised freedom to discriminate.

Kyle Ashworth [03:30:41] Makes me wonder if this is another moment where Oak says to one audience, one message, and then later when he gets with the Mormons again, he's going to promulgate another message, don't, don't, don't, don't. Until we get into a closed door meeting and then do, do, do, do.

John Dehlin [03:30:58] But he's basically saying, we need to stop. We need to stop litigating every small little, you know, possible attempt at, at promoting non Discrimination. He's saying we're gonna, we're gonna pull back on fighting every little attempt to promote non discrimination.

Kyle Ashworth [03:31:18] And I actually hope that happens. I mean currently in Utah is a transgender bill that's trying to be passed. Transgender sports bill. And not a single legislator in the state of Utah can persuade provide an example of where this has been an issue in any Utah school. That is a great example of fighting a battle that doesn't exist. And, and I think this is where because Oaks came into this lecture saying I speak specific specifically to Latter Day Saints. Again, back to my point. If Utah's legislature is made up of 90% Latter Day Saints, this is a great example of a bill that should not pass any committee within the legislature because all it is creating a problem that doesn't exist.

John Dehlin [03:32:03] Any other comments?

Hannah Kumo [03:32:04] I again just have to point out, I don't think this can be state overstated that the way he characterizes this as religion being in opposition to anti discrimination. I think that is so telling in so many, so many ways. I think that's just fascinating that he puts those two at odds with each other because you think anti discrimination. And I think a lot of people would agree that in, I mean, at least in theory that's such a good goal to have. And it kind of blows my mind a little bit that he keeps characterizing it as something that's in direct opposition to religion.

John Dehlin [03:32:41] It's like what Jesus is. He is special witness for like discriminatory Jesus, like bigoted Jesus. Like which Jesus is he advocating for?

Hannah Kumo [03:32:51] Exactly. And frankly, like you know, when I was more religious and involved in the church, that was my understanding of Jesus. That was my understanding of Jesus is he was, you know, socially progressive for his day, at least in the stories we get from the Bible and whatnot. And so it's just, I don't know, it's so interesting to me how he keeps making this character characterization.

John Dehlin [03:33:19] Yeah, like what Jesus does he worship? What did Jesus stand for if it wasn't the oppressed and the minorities? What did Jesus stand for? Chloe, do you want to weigh in on that?

Speaker F [03:33:32] Well, you can stop me if we're going to talk about this in a second. But I just also want to point out something that brought to my attention yesterday, which is that the fairness for all quote matches language from legislation that the, the LDS Church has, has negotiated with the US Congress. The Equality act is, is, has been proposed in Congress and it would offer non discrimination protections for gender identity and sexual orientation. And my understanding is that the LDS Church has proposed amendments to this bill that would create very similar exemptions to those that were created in Utah for the national bill. And this, these amendments are called Fairness for All. So I think that that also speaks a little bit to why Oaks may have chosen to speak this topic at this location. It seems to, to me that he is trying to again package this, this major win for the, for the LDS Church as a compromise so that he can help get this legislation through Congress with these very broad religious exemptions that would favor the church more heavily than it would the LGBTQ community.

Gerardo Sumano [03:34:52] Yeah, and that's the last slide. Slide 21. It just show. I just wanted to point because it was really interesting how he used that term furnace for all. You know, he didn't use like equality for everyone or like anything like that, which is like what the Equality act has been trying to do. He used this term fairness for all. John and I, we've have received some emails from different people across the US of these like private zoom meetings giving at stake levels by, by religious freedom attorneys. And what they, I've been watching some of them and what the religious, what the attorneys go to the stakes to talk about is this Fairness for All act that the Church is really supporting and, and very involved in drafting. So the fact that he used that term furnace for all just caught my attention. And that's, that's that one slide that has that article that talks from the Desert News that talks about, and this was really close to, to all the conversation about, you know, the Religious Accountability Exceptional Accountability Project where they talk about, um, you know, this Fairness for All act that what they want to replace the Equality act with, which like Chloe told us is just gonna do the same thing that the Utah Compromise did in Utah level, but do it in a national level.

John Dehlin [03:36:29] Yeah. Well, I guess we're, I guess we're done with clips for today. Is that right? We're kind of, we kind of reached the end, Is that right?

Electroshock Therapy and Historical Church Practices

Speaker G [03:36:39] Yes.

John Dehlin [03:36:39] I want to make sure to remind our listeners and viewers that tomorrow we'll have Connell o' Donovan joining us along with Kyle Ashworth and Gerardo. We're going to dig into the history behind the use and the advocacy of and support of electroshock therapy within the Mormon Church and at BYU during Dallin H. Oaks tenure as President of byu. We're going to drill deeply into that tomorrow, so please stay tuned. Tomorrow it's going to be at 3pm Mountain Time, Utah time, I believe. Right, Gerardo? Yeah, but before we close, I just want to go around the horn and give everybody a chance to make kind of closing statements. We're just so grateful to all of you. You know, definitely Hannah and Chloe and everyone there. The University of Virginia, that helped make transparency of this issue possible. And the questions that led to Oaks going on the record in a way that incriminated himself. Not because we're trying to entrap him, but because we're trying to hold him accountable for his past actions and not make. Not allow him to deceive the audience to whom he was speaking. But we're just so grateful. And of course, Joe, we're so grateful for your work and for your legal, you know, points and positions here and. And everyone. Kyle, all the work you do. So. So let's start. Who wants to begin as we kind of go around the table and give closing. Closing arguments. Is that we're going to call them. Hannah, do you want to start?

Closing Reflections and Final Thoughts from Panelists

Hannah Kumo [03:38:16] Sure, I'd be happy to. I don't really have much to add on. I think the discussion we had today adequately encapsulates a lot of the issues that I've been concerned about and that I think need the conversation around. These needs to happen. And regardless of if you're an active member of the church, regardless of if you've left the church, regardless, it. It also doesn't matter if you have a church background or not. I think this is such an important discussion to have and to be aware of. And just on. On another personal note, Chloe and I were talking about this, too. It's so. It was so interesting, this whole process, to see an issue that her and I, for instance, have cared about for a very long time. And then to see people start to talk about it, especially at the law school, and have it be a subject that just consumed conversation for several, several days. It really shows that this is an issue that just goes beyond Mormonism. It goes beyond, you know, the individual people who identify as queer as well. It's something that affects everyone. And I think it's important that we are able to have these discussions in a productive way. And I also hope that we can create dialogue between active, believing members of the church as well. I think that's also important, and it's ironic because I sort of agree with Oakes to the extent that he says there needs to be more understanding on both sides. I don't think he approaches it in the appropriate way. But I also think that it's important to create an environment that is conducive to having those conversations. So, again, thank you for having me on here. This was a wonderful discussion and it was great to meet all of, all of you as well and just I appreciate everyone's comments.

John Dehlin [03:40:16] Thank you. Hannah, thanks for joining us back on Mormon Stories. We love having you on and thanks for reaching out to me to help me become aware of all this. I love it when whistleblowers slash sources reach out and help make us aware because there's so much we can't stay aware of. So, Hannah, bless you. Thank you.

Hannah Kumo [03:40:37] Thank you. I appreciate it.

John Dehlin [03:40:39] Really, really quickly before we toss it over to Chloe, I just want, I think Chloe will like this comment. Anti trans sports bills are a classic political dog whistle, moral panic effort. Substantive issues are not the point. Fear mongering for political gain is. See also the satanic panic, etc. Anyway, I had to share that right before I get offered you some closing comments, Chloe.

Speaker F [03:41:07] Yeah, no, thank you for, for sharing that because I think a lot of what I wanted to say closing out here is that if you, if you found, if you, if you appreciated Hannah and I's efforts to speak up and to speak directly to Oaks and ask him questions, I would just encourage you to do the same thing in your own life. I think that these bills, like these dangerous anti trans bills that are, that are sweeping the country, this fairness for all acts, if you're worried at all about the power of the church in this society and the increasing power that this church has in this society, I would just, I would ask you to speak with your family and friends, especially your believing family and friends, and raise an awareness about this issue. Speak to your legislators, speak to your local officials. I mean, even if you don't care particularly about the LGBTQ issue, these are ways in which the Mormon Church is continuing to increase the power that it has to exercise its religious rights in a way that tramples other people's constitutional rights. And so in order to make sure that that doesn't happen, people need to know about it. And I hope that all of you will go out and have conversations, even if they're hard, even if they're difficult with your believing family and friends and those who don't. Thank you again for having me on. It's just been a pleasure and I'm so happy that this is getting the awareness that it deserves.

John Dehlin [03:42:45] Thank you, Chloe. You and Hannah both just are brilliant and inspiring and courageous. I'm going to share really quickly a comment Brady just, Brady wrote. What Hannah said about it not even being a win to get a baseline basic human rights is exactly what I was thinking. Such an important Discussion, I think. Distinction, I think. Anyway, Chloe and Hannah, you guys have been great. Thank you so much. Joe, why don't we have you weigh in? Final, final thoughts, final statement.

Speaker G [03:43:11] Yeah. And I want to say to. It's really great to meet and talk with Chloe and Hannah especially. I can't wait for you both to. To graduate law school. You're going to be incredibly powerful lawyers out there and I can't wait to kind of see the work that you end up doing. And we appreciate you, John, for having us here on the podcast to help shine a little bit of light on this issue. I see the work that we're doing at the Religious Exemption Accountability Project for these students at religious universities is deeply tied in with this community here. Three of our plaintiffs, at least, maybe even more, are from byu. We have Ashton Murkowski, Chandler Horning, Rachel Moulton, who all were students at the BYU's. A huge section of the students that attend religious universities in the United States go to one of the BYU schools. This is an issue that is deeply intertwined with our community and we would love your support, the resources to help these students. Like I said, we're getting lots and lots of calls from students who need help. The more this issue becomes gets a spotlight and the more students know that there's a resource, the more students turn to us. So we would appreciate any resources you could give, any time you could give. And of course, amplifying this story, something that both John and Kyle have really done a great job of is building public awareness of this issue. So yeah, Our organization, the reap.org the reap.org it's kind of confusing to get to it. You can find us there. We have or the Religious Exemption Accountability Project on Facebook. You can contact John and reach out to me or any, anything like that. We'd love to have your support. I think this issue is an issue that's important to all of us and I appreciate all of the efforts that everybody on this call is doing on their own fronts to advance it forward.

John Dehlin [03:45:15] Thank you, Joe. We love having you. And I just want to make sure we give credit where credit is due. This happened because of Gerardo. Gerardo brought this even more to my attention and did all the legwork, including putting all these clips and time codes. Schedule the hardest thing of all, scheduling everyone's date and time availability so we could all meet. That's all a th percent. Gerardo.

Speaker G [03:45:39] I gotta say thank you as well, because Gerardo stays in great contact with me. And yes, thank you so much for making this happen?

John Dehlin [03:45:46] Absolutely.

Gerardo Sumano [03:45:47] Oh, I'm sorry. I think I messed it up, but.

John Dehlin [03:45:50] Oh, that's fine. You're showing the re. The re there.

Gerardo Sumano [03:45:53] So I, I did just wanted to show the reap website Religious exemption C project. You can go there. Look, look at the lawsuit. What, what it is about. I know they're working on a documentary from. With the students to showcase the stories. You can donate or just support and it shows how to get involved and it's just a very good and well designed website that you can go and get informed on the issue.

John Dehlin [03:46:30] And I'll just say. I'll. Yeah. And I'll just say, man, for those of you who want to see the Mormon Church make changes, even if, again, you're not sympathetic to LGBTQ causes, change BYU and you're going to change the church. So that's why this cause even if you don't care about LGBTQ issues, you should care about the reap project and you should care about supporting what's going on in this realm. Really quickly, Kyle, let's give you a chance to give some. You know, Kyle, your work, again, as Joe said, is so important. Latter day stories on, you know, for the record and all that you do, your public statements, you making video clips and, and sharing information for transparency, for spotlight visibility is so great. Plus you're just funny and cool and smart. So. So, Kyle, what closing thoughts or statements?

Kyle Ashworth [03:47:24] Yeah. I'm in this space to make tomorrow a little bit better for the LGBTQ community. But most importantly, the community. Like I discussed a little earlier, the church is losing the best and brightest by excommunicating, othering and ostracizing members of the LGBTQ community community, their friends and family members. But specific to the LGBTQ community, I want you to know that you're not alone, you're not broken, and that your best days are ahead. And loud talking voices like President Oaks at times and others that have filled shoes that he's replaced know that they don't determine your worth and your value and that there is a community of people here to support you. I also know that by sharing these experiences and the experiences of the LGBTQ community, we can shine light into some of these dark, dark corners. And the fact that we're having discussions like Oaks just had, giving lectures at popular universities means that what we're doing is making a difference. And what we're doing is impactful, even to those who stand in some of the tallest ivory towers. So I want you to know that I'm on your side and that we'll continue to share your stories as long as you are willing to share them. I will give you a platform to allow you the opportunity to continue to defy the narrative that churches and other religious organizations have sided against you and to give you the opportunity to share your experience and let you thrive in your own stories. And so thank you, John, and thank you to this audience who came continues to support messages from the LGBTQ community and who continue to support efforts like the latter Gay Stories podcast in just giving light to the darkest corners of these closets in hopes that we can eradicate some of these old skeletons and move on in a greater light and, and with better happiness.

John Dehlin [03:49:31] Love it. Thanks, Kyle. All right, Gerardo, you get the last word.

Dallin H. Oaks [03:49:34] Word.

John Dehlin [03:49:35] Because you're Gerardo.

Dallin H. Oaks [03:49:37] Yeah.

Gratitude to Guests and Audience Wrap-Up

Gerardo Sumano [03:49:37] I, I want to thank our audience for staying, staying with us throughout this, like, four hour, almost four hour episode.

John Dehlin [03:49:47] We've got a large audience. We had a large audience. This has been great.

Gerardo Sumano [03:49:49] We had a very consistent and pretty large audience. So thank you very much. Thank you, Joe, for your, your time and Hannah and Chloe and, and Kyle, because, I mean, this was four hours, man.

Speaker G [03:50:04] And

Gerardo Sumano [03:50:06] I just want to say, just really quickly how I became super passionate about what Joe does, about what Elder Oaks went and talked about. I, I was that student at BYU Idaho.

Dallin H. Oaks [03:50:26] Yeah.

Gerardo Sumano [03:50:29] And feeling like there was no way to protect myself from the discrimination that BYU Idaho could, could hold against me if they found out that I was dating my husband, my current husband. And I, I was doing a lot of research on it and trying to find or like, what, what kind of like, we, we didn't have options. We didn't have options to transfer. We didn't have enough money. I was an international student. And it just gets really, really complicated. So we just had to push through and like, and stay there. And even when, when after I graduated, I stuck.

Speaker F [03:51:20] Sorry.

Gerardo Sumano [03:51:27] I started looking into going into Mormon stories. I started working for John and looking into telling my story. And I was still scared that BYU Idaho could, could do something to, to us even after graduation. And I even dived in, into more about, like. And that's when I started finding out how much the church had done to protect themselves and to be able to legally discriminate against LGBT people. And, and what? One day I saw on the news, the, The, the class action lawsuit that Paul and Joe are bringing to the table and challenging religious schools and byu, like, schools like BYU and BYU Idaho about what they've been doing, they've been able to do for so long. It was just kind of like just some hope that. That maybe something has to change and can change. So that's why this is super important to me. So having Joe said that as. More as ex Mormons, in some way, we are responsible for. For what the church and the organization that we were part of and that we benefited from has done to. To draft these laws that protect them. We. We need to kind of like help reverse this and bring awareness to it.

John Dehlin [03:53:14] So.

Gerardo Sumano [03:53:15] So thank you, John. Thank you for covering this on Warm Stories.

Speaker G [03:53:21] And.

Gerardo Sumano [03:53:21] And yeah, that's. That's all I.

John Dehlin [03:53:27] So beautiful, Gerardo. And so many comments. Yeah, Kyle's doing the. The hug. We're getting some heart hand signs, some applause. Like, everybody is just so grateful, Gerardo, for your heart and your passion and your conviction. And lots of listeners are just saying that you're brave and courageous and they're proud of you. Holly writes, having Gerardo in this space has been so inspiring. We're all grateful, Gerardo, for your bravery and all the amazing guests that you've helped to bring on. Mark writes. From one Mexicano to another, Ambrazos. So much love. And. And Gerardo, to boot, you upped Mormon stories cinematography game like, by an order of magnitude or more. So. So anyway, we love you, Gerardo. Thank you for that. And. And thanks for making this happen and just for who you are.

Gerardo Sumano [03:54:27] Thanks, John.

John Dehlin [03:54:29] All right, well, I think. I think that's it. So again, as Gerardo said, Kyle, Hannah, Chloe and Joe, thanks for four hours. Thanks to all our listeners and viewers for tuning in. And really, listeners and viewers, in addition to what Chloe said, in addition to speaking out to your political representatives, to your friends and family, church leaders, etc. Please share this episode far and wide. There's nowhere else you can really see a lot of these clips that we shared today. So if any of you want to support this work, please just share this episode with friends and family and anyone who will listen. Because that's our goal, is to help change hearts and minds through respectful discourse. So thanks to everyone who supported us. Thanks to everyone who's commented today. Please like this episode. Please subscribe. Please click the alarm bell either on Facebook or on YouTube. Please spread the word and. And. And please raise your voices because silence is the enabler, silence often is the killer, and open discussion and raising your voice is often what, over time makes a big difference. So thanks everyone. Thanks, Chloe, Joe, Kyle, Hannah and Gerardo. And please don't go away. Tomorrow, 3pm Mountain time. Kyle will return with Gerardo and Connell O', Donovan, historian, where we're going to talk about just how untrue Elder Oaks his comments were when he denied that electroshock therapy was he acknowledged that electroshock therapy occurred in in supported by the Mormon Church at BYU prior to his administration. He acknowledged that which actually is a weird win. But he also told a big lie by saying that it didn't happen while he was president there. And we're going to show it in detail tomorrow. Spread the word. Let everybody know it's already posted to the Mormon Stories page so you can subscribe to the YouTube link and begin getting ready to follow us there. So we hope to have a even larger audience tomorrow than we did today. Anyway, thanks everybody. Love you guys. Check out the show notes for links to everything and let's let's be kind to each other and be good to each other and we'll see you guys all again on another episode of Mormon Stories podcast. Take care everybody. Thanks again.