Archuleta describes being taught as a youth — through Spencer W. Kimball’s writings and from the pulpit — that homosexuality was a choice, was sinful, was comparable to grievous crimes, and could be overcome through righteousness. This accurately reflects Church teaching and culture from the Kimball era through the early 2000s. Kimball’s The Miracle of Forgiveness (1969) did teach these things, and it was widely circulated. Local leaders taught these messages.

The scrupulosity David Archuleta describes — becoming obsessively obedient as a way to “compensate” for or “cure” same-sex attraction — is a documented clinical pattern among LGBT Latter-day Saints of his generation, well-supported in research and consistent with what a Mormon therapist identified in his own case.

This claim needs an important distinction. Archuleta is right that the unique Restoration scriptures — the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price — contain no explicit reference to same-sex sexual conduct. That observation is accurate and important.

However, the full LDS scriptural canon includes the Bible as one of the four “standard works.” The Bible does contain passages that the LDS Church — like most traditional Christian denominations — interprets as addressing same-sex sexual conduct (Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26–27, and others). The Church’s law of chastity is grounded in its interpretation of the whole scriptural canon, including these biblical texts.

The statement becomes inaccurate when the full LDS canon includes the Bible. The more precise and defensible statement is that the Restoration scriptures are silent — which is notable and worth discussing on its own terms.

Direct Answer

This is John Dehlin’s claim, not Archuleta’s, but it goes unchallenged and functions as a factual assertion in the episode. It is not accurate.

What is true: The Family Proclamation was issued in September 1995 during a period of active legal challenges to traditional marriage definitions. It was subsequently included in an amicus brief to the Hawaii Supreme Court in 1997 and in at least six other court cases over the following decades. The document emerged in a context where LDS leaders were closely watching same-sex marriage litigation.

What is false: Characterising it as “just a legal brief” erases its clear doctrinal origin. President Gordon B. Hinckley prefaced the Proclamation by saying it was “a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history.” President Russell M. Nelson has described the year-long deliberative and prayerful process that preceded its drafting. It has been cited more than 250 times in General Conference addresses. Apostle Boyd K. Packer stated it “qualifies according to the definition as a revelation.” President Nelson presented a copy to Pope Francis as one of two gifts when they first met.

One can disagree with the Proclamation’s doctrinal claims and believe the legal context influenced its timing — that is a legitimate discussion. But “just a legal brief” is a rhetorical dismissal, not an accurate description of its origin, process, or reception in LDS theology.

Direct Answer

Archuleta’s account of what he was taught is accurate for the period he describes — his childhood and young adulthood in the late 1990s and 2000s. Church culture and local leaders regularly taught that same-sex attraction was a choice and could be overcome. This is historically documented and not in dispute.

However, the episode does not clearly distinguish this as historical — leaving listeners to infer it is still the current position. The Church’s teaching has shifted substantially. By 2012, the Church’s official “MormonsAndGays” website explicitly stated that same-sex attraction is not a choice. By 2016, the Church affirmed that conversion therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation is unethical. The current official LDS position states that the Church takes no position on the cause of same-sex attraction. It also states that individuals do not choose such attractions. The Church now states that “Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin.”

The shift from “choice that must be overcome” to “not a choice, not a sin” is significant — and truth seekers deserve to know when it happened and where the Church now stands, not only where it stood during Archuleta’s youth.

Direct Answer

The November 2015 policy was genuinely harmful and has been widely criticised, including by many faithful Latter-day Saints. The reversal in 2019 was widely welcomed. These are not contested points.

However, the specific framing deserves examination. The 2015 policy classified members in same-sex marriages as “apostates” — which did carry a presumption of formal disciplinary council. Sexual sins including serious assault are handled under the Church’s General Handbook through formal disciplinary councils as well, and have historically resulted in excommunication when adjudicated. The claim that rape and pedophilia “had never been mandatory excommunicable offenses” requires nuance — the Church’s approach to both has been inconsistent and has drawn serious criticism, but it is not accurate that these categories have been systematically treated more leniently than same-sex marriage by the institution’s formal rules.

What is true and important: the 2015 policy singled out same-sex marriage specifically for apostasy status — a category above ordinary serious sin — and this asymmetry was widely experienced as unjust. The reversal in 2019 was attributed by Church leaders to “continuing revelation.” As Elder Ballard reportedly told Archuleta privately, it was a mistake — though the Church did not use that word publicly.

Direct Answer

Archuleta describes believing an explanation — circulated in some Church-adjacent contexts — that elevated altitude, not religious culture, explained higher suicide rates in Utah. He now recognises this as inadequate given his own experience.

This requires care. The altitude/suicide correlation is a real peer-reviewed finding documented by researchers at the University of Utah and elsewhere — higher altitude is associated with lower serotonin levels and increased suicide risk. This finding predates and is independent of LDS Church policy debates. The research exists and has been discussed by physicians and public health officials, not only as Church PR.

However, altitude does not explain everything — particularly the documented spike in LGBT youth suicides and membership resignations following the November 2015 policy. The broader question of whether Church teachings contribute to higher suicide risk among LGBT members is supported by research, and the Church’s response to that research has been widely criticised as inadequate. Archuleta’s rejection of the altitude explanation as a complete answer is reasonable — the problem is treating a real (if partial) scientific finding as inherently a bad-faith deflection.

Direct Answer