On September 28, 2025, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, widely known as the Mormon Church, announced the passing of its president and prophet, Russell M. Nelson, at the age of 101. The news, reported by multiple outlets including the Salt Lake Tribune, marked the end of Nelson’s tenure, which was distinguished by calls for greater tolerance and inclusivity, particularly in his final years. Yet, as the church faces a leadership transition, it also stands at a crossroads, grappling with cultural divisions, political violence, and the enduring debate over parental rights and LGBTQ+ inclusion in American institutions.
With the church’s unique hierarchical structure, succession is rarely in question. The senior apostle, Dallin H. Oaks, aged 93, is expected to assume the presidency following Nelson’s death, with official confirmation slated for November 2025 at the church’s biannual conference. Oaks, a former lawyer, legal academic, president of Brigham Young University (BYU), and Utah Supreme Court judge, brings a long record of both religious and legal leadership to the role. However, his career and doctrinal pronouncements have been marked by a relentless focus on defending religious freedom, often expressed through strong opposition to same-sex marriage and LGBTQ+ rights.
Oaks’s stance on issues of sexuality and gender has shaped not only church policy but also broader debates about parental authority and state power in the United States. During his presidency at BYU, the university engaged in controversial “aversion therapy” practices aimed at “curing” homosexuality, which reportedly included electro-shocks on various parts of the body. Oaks has denied that such practices were used, but the period remains a flashpoint in the church’s history and its relationship with LGBTQ+ individuals.
In a 1995 article for The Ensign, the church’s official magazine, Oaks articulated a doctrine that distinguishes between homosexual thoughts and behaviors, emphasizing that it is the latter that constitutes “serious sin.” He wrote, “Persons cannot continue to engage in serious sin and remain members of the Church. And discipline can be given for encouraging sin by others. There is no Church discipline for improper thoughts or feelings (though there is encouragement to improve them), but there are consequences for behavior … Consequently, if transgressors do not respond to calls to repentance, the shepherds of the Church flock must take disciplinary action in fulfillment of their God-given responsibilities.”
This hardline approach persisted into the 2010s, when the church labeled members in same-sex relationships as apostates and barred the baptism of children of homosexual couples. The stated aim was to shield these individuals from having to choose between faith and family, but the policy was met with fierce criticism from LGBTQ+ advocates. It was only in 2019, under Nelson’s leadership, that the church reversed this stance, signaling a tentative move toward greater inclusivity.
Yet, uncertainty looms over whether Oaks’s ascension will mark a return to stricter doctrinal enforcement against LGBTQ+ individuals. His public statements, such as a 2006 address where he lamented “unrelenting pressure from advocates of that lifestyle to accept as normal what is not normal,” have left many wondering if the church will again harden its position. “Given these trends, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must take a stand on doctrine and principle. This is more than a social issue — ultimately it may be a test of our most basic religious freedoms to teach what we know our Father in Heaven wants us to teach,” Oaks declared, as reported by the Salt Lake Tribune.
These debates have not been confined to the walls of the church. In the wider American context, the intersection of parental rights, religious freedom, and LGBTQ+ inclusion has become a battleground, especially in public education. In September 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to consider Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, a case from Massachusetts involving a school district’s decision to socially transition an eleven-year-old girl to a male identity without informing her parents. According to National Review, more than 1,000 public school districts are experimenting with students’ identities based on gender ideology, often without parental knowledge or consent.
The case has reignited debates over the scope of parental authority in directing children’s upbringing and education. Historically, the Supreme Court has sided with parents in landmark cases such as Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), and West Virginia v. Barnette (1943), affirming that “the child is not the mere creature of the State.” Yet, as schools increasingly adopt LGBT-inclusive curricula and policies, some parents—supported by advocacy groups—argue that their rights are being eroded by what they see as government-imposed orthodoxy.
Recent controversies in Montgomery County, Maryland, highlight the tensions at play. The district adopted a mandatory LGBT curriculum and teacher training to “disrupt” students’ “heteronormativity” and “cisnormativity,” initially allowing parents to opt out before reversing course. The curriculum, developed in partnership with advocacy groups and corporations, required students from kindergarten through fifth grade to engage with LGBT storybooks and terminology. The move sparked legal challenges from Muslim, Catholic, and Orthodox Christian parents, who ultimately won a 6–3 Supreme Court victory on Free Exercise grounds.
Supporters of these school policies argue they foster inclusion and protect vulnerable students. Critics, however, contend that conflating inclusion of people with the mandatory celebration of certain ideas infringes upon parental rights and religious freedoms. The National Review article underscores that “parents know a child’s mind and past experiences better than any school employee, and they are best equipped to make important decisions about treatment of mental and emotional distress.”
Meanwhile, violence has cast a shadow over these cultural conflicts. On the same day as Nelson’s death was announced, an ex-Marine drove a truck into a Mormon church in Grand Blanc, Michigan, set it on fire, and opened fire on the congregation, killing at least four and injuring many others. The motive remains unclear, but the church condemned the attack, stating, “In moments of sorrow and uncertainty, we find strength and comfort through our faith in Jesus Christ. Places of worship are meant to be sanctuaries of peacemaking, prayer and connection. We pray for peace and healing for all involved.”
As the Mormon Church prepares for Oaks’s likely confirmation, the challenges ahead are daunting. The church faces scrutiny over its wealth, property development, management of child sexual abuse cases, and its rhetoric toward sexual and gender minorities. The broader American debate over parental rights, religious liberty, and LGBTQ+ inclusion remains unsettled, with the Supreme Court poised to play a decisive role.
Whether the church, under Oaks, will chart a course of greater inclusivity or renewed doctrinal rigidity is uncertain. What is clear is that the intersection of faith, family, and identity in America remains as contested—and consequential—as ever.
