Much has already been written and discussed about the reversal of the November 2015 Exclusion Policy announced before general conference. I am very grateful to see it gone but also very disappointed that it was just put out there without any apology or acknowledgement of the tremendous pain and suffering it caused. However, for this post, I want to focus on a different aspect of the announcement.
Along with the rescission, it appears that a new more lenient policy with respect to what the church has previously called “homosexual behavior” was also announced. Whether it was intentional or a result of the wording not being thoroughly thought through remains to be seen. [1] Interestingly, the online handbook still hasn’t been updated to reflect the announced changes, which makes me wonder if they are grappling with some of the questions local leaders will undoubtedly have, and how much clarification will be needed. Here are Elder Oaks’s words from the official announcement:
“Previously, our handbook characterized same-gender marriage by a member as apostasy. While we still consider such a marriage to be a serious transgression, it will not be treated as apostasy for purposes of Church discipline. Instead, the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way.”
It’s that last sentence that appears to create new policy regarding homosexual behavior. First off, the statement isn’t entirely accurate because immoral conduct is defined differently in a homosexual relationship compared to a heterosexual relationship. As indicated in the preceding language, a same-gender [2] marriage, though legitimate in the eyes of the law, counts for nothing in the eyes of the church, which still considers it a “serious transgression.” Unlike heterosexual marriage, a legal same-gender marriage cannot justify sexual activity.
HOWEVER, from this statement we can infer a new definition of “immoral conduct” in a homosexual relationship. Immoral conduct in a heterosexual relationship consists of sex outside of approved man-woman marriage. Therefore, to be treated in the same way, “homosexual behavior” that rises to the level of “immoral conduct” must consist only of unapproved sexual activity. If that is the case, kissing and other physical affection short of sexual activity cannot be considered immoral conduct in a gay relationship anymore than it can in a heterosexual relationship.
If this is the intent of the new policy, shouldn’t we expect to see gay people dating, holding hands and kissing on BYU campus, just like their heterosexual peers, without any fear of church discipline or honor code infraction? Shouldn’t we expect to see gay couples slow dancing at church dances, dating, and pursuing romantic relationships in our YSA wards, while still holding callings and remaining in full fellowship? It seems likely that these are the questions that bishops and stake presidents would be asking based on Elder Oaks’s statement.
If this interpretation is correct, and not walked back when it actually appears in the handbook, it would be a huge step toward humanizing and normalizing romantic homosexual relationships in the eyes of church members. And that attitude shift will surely open the door to continued evolution of the church’s position on homosexual relationships. [3]
_____________________________________________________________________________
[1] It’s hard to imagine that Elder Oaks wouldn’t have carefully chosen the exact wording in his statement along with considering all the possible interpretations of those words. And yet, the policy itself seemed to have been rolled out without much thought for how it would be received and all the questions it would raise, which resulted in the church having to issue a “clarification” (in reality, a partial retraction) a week later.
[2] Why the term “same-gender” here instead of “same-sex”? Is he simply using gender as a Victorian-like euphemism for the word “sex”? Or is he really drawing a distinction between biological sex and social constructed gender? If the latter, then the church shouldn’t have a problem with a trans man (e.g., someone born with female genitalia, who develops cognitively as a male, and presents as a man) being married to a woman.
[3] As I have written extensively about here.
Wheat & Tares 
Is there really any doubt that, in the Proclamation on the Family, gender = sex? Just as it likely did in the vocabulary of its signers. Is there really any question whether DHO would now be changing that vocabulary to line up with current social construct thinking? The word “gender” has carried both meanings, in different contexts, for a long time, but it seems hardly likely that the Proclamation signers, then or now, intended ambiguity rather than the equivalence that their teachings have supported.
I think you are correct to point out the vagueness and ambiguity of the words used in the recent announcement. But given the rest of the words in the announcement – no change to teachings on marriage or chastity, only clearly announced changes merely to eligibility of children to be blessed, baptised, etc. with informed consent of parents and dropping “apostasy” for purposes of mandatory disciplinary councils – it would seem an attempt to read further change into the too vague sentence would be likely to lead to disappointment. Maybe I just can’t see it today.
This is exactly what I thought when I first read the new policy announcement. I think the current wording definitely allows for this. Sadly, I don’t think this will be the case in actuality. If I’m proven wrong, I will rejoice in another step taken by the church towards accepting LGBTQ individuals. I’d love for a brave couple at BYU to walk on campus holding hands and see what happens. My guess is they would be reported to the HCO, sadly.
I should have noted “same gender” is not, among the Brethren, a new term for “same sex.” The November 2015 “clarification” letter stated:
“The newly added handbook provisions affirm that adults who choose to enter into a same-gender marriage or similar relationship commit sin that warrants a Church disciplinary council.”
It would be nice if the Church (that is, Pres. Nelson or Pres. Oaks) would provide some detailed follow up to the welcome but quite vague announcement. It is certainly not a Policy Reversal, as some have described it. But I doubt any such clarifications will be issued publicly. More likely, clarifications will be provided to local leadership in closed leadership training meetings that GAs now hold when they visit stakes and areas. Then we, the general membership, will learn of the clarifications second-hand, by way of the rumor mill as whatever this or that GA said at this or that leadership training conference gets leaked. Or we, the general membership, will learn of the clarifications when this or that person or couple gets excommunicated and the bishop attempts to explain why he thinks he has to excommunicate said person or couple.
It’s sure a clumsy way to communicate with the membership or change a policy. Once upon a time it was common to hear members brag about how well the Church as an institution is run, given the extensive leadership and executive experience of the senior leaders. You don’t hear that so much anymore.
I would like to ask a very basic question that I doubt anyone can really answer: is the Family Proclamation scripture, doctrine, or policy? Or none of the above? I can’t figure it out. It has not been canonized as scripture. Yet it seems more prophetic than simply policy. Yet I’m not sure it is actual doctrine. Some of you probably don’t care about my question. But consider for a moment the importance of knowing whether something that is constantly referred to by Church leaders and members is actual doctrine or is it just current policy?
Joshua,
The answer to your question depends on who you talk to as well as how you define terms. If we define doctrine as the collective understanding and current teaching of the church, then yes it is doctrine.
If you dig into the history of that document (assuming you haven’t already), you’ll find that it was written as a direct response to the legal battle going on in Hawaii about same sex marriage. The church needed a legal document that they could admit into the courts to prove they had a doctrinal reason to get involved in a legal battle that they didn’t have a direct reason to get into otherwise. The proclamation is believed to have been largely penned by the church’s legal team and approved by the brethren so that legally it could be introduced into the courts.
If you listen to Oaks talk about the document, he’ll tell quite a different story, using language that suggests the document was the direct result of revelation. I think the evidence strongly suggests this was not the case but it certainly sounds good.
As far as doctrine, the proclamation itself doesn’t really introduce anything new to LDS doctrine that wasn’t already present, with the exception of a clearer stance on marriage exclusively being between a man and a woman as well as some somewhat vague wording regarding the eternal identity of gender.
I believe the cultural attitude of mainstream orthodox mormonism as well as the brethren is that the proclamation represents church doctrine that has always been present, just more clearly defined. It’s not really a policy document in that it doesn’t delineate specific policies of the church other than speaking of marriage.
My two cents…
I agree that holding hands and kissing is not sexual intercourse. At worst it is an embarassing PDA (Public Display of Affection) which can be annoying to others. You might as well get undressed and get to work on a park bench; it isn’t clear to me why one PDA is less offensive than another PDA but there you have it.
“[2] Why the term “same-gender” here instead of “same-sex”?”
I have no idea why he chose his words or you chose your words.
“Is he simply using gender as a Victorian-like euphemism for the word “sex”?”
Probably; along with a few hundred million other people doing the same thing. In my youth the word “sex” was verboten, it was not used in polite conversation for any reason, it was a verb describing sexual intercourse, it is what you DO. “Gender” was the corresponding noun and is what you ARE.
“then the church shouldn’t have a problem with a trans man (e.g., someone born with female genitalia, who develops cognitively as a male, and presents as a man) being married to a woman.”
It is likely that, being aware of that scenario, a bishop would not recommend eternal marriage since an important part of eternal marriage is eternal increase.
Keep in mind that in the resurrection, you are restored to your perfect body, not perhaps the one you want right now. Cut off your penis, guess what? In the resurrection its back!
Dave B writes “You don’t hear that so much anymore.”
Much hearing depends on where you are standing.
I was definitely left with questions and I hope for more answers soon. My fear is that a more lenient interpretation is wishful thinking. I saw others latch on to the use of the word “transgression” instead of “sin” as a sign pointing to progress. But the Church Handbook specifically uses the terminology “serious transgression” throughout the section on church discipline. This term is used as a “may” require church discipline instead of the list in which it is “mandatory” to administer formal church discipline such as apostasy (and included same-gender marriage in this definition). I suppose that can be considered progress, but I wouldn’t deem it meaningful progress. And you’re right, it was a string of contradictory statements that only created more confusion.
If this is just redefining from apostasy to serious transgression, it becomes more like administrative house cleaning. Church leaders will likely continue to apply it unevenly as they have been doing. Taking it off of the apostasy list just allows that practice to continue as opposed to looking like local leaders are rebelling against official policy. I hope I’m wrong, but the Church appears to be at least a decade away from real change.
Oh it would be fantastic if that tantalizing sentence turns out to mean that what is defined as sinful by the church wrt to gay relationships is being changed. Sadly, I suspect it will simply turn out to mean that the bishop and/or stake president are to administer church discipline at their discretion and that gay relationships will no longer necessitate an “apostasy” charge.
Hoping and praying that you are right on this one.
Michael 2,
What world do you live in where holding hands or sharing a kiss is an “embarrassing” PDA akin to being naked on a bench? If you’re married, I’m sorry for your spouse that you would be embarrassed to hold hands with her in public. And if you wouldn’t be embarrassed why should a couple that happens to both be of the same gender? And if you are embarrassed that says more about you than the couple that chooses to hold hands or share a kiss in public. Either of which are drastically different than full on making out or “getting to work” on a bench.
I hope even if you disagree with same sex marriage for religious reasons that you allow those who hold different views from you to share the same degree of PDA that you would feel comfortable sharing with your spouse. And if your answer is that any PDA at all is embarrassing, even holding hands, then I feel sorry for you.
As I read Oaks’ words, the most interesting point to me is his choice of the word “trangression” rather that sin or apostasy. LDS doctrine seems to make a big deal about the difference between sin and transgression, and I doubt that E Oaks simply used the wrong word….
Doubting Tom: I appreciate your response. I am familiar with the timing and probable legal background of the Proclamation. But I think you’d agree that the document has outlived its original purpose and has taken on a life of its own. It is now referred to in General Conferences as much as any single scripture or document that I can think of yet it is not canonized scripture. The Church should go all the way and just make it an official declaration that is added to the D&C.
My definition of “doctrine” is more strict and narrow than yours. To me, core doctrines don’t change. But doctrine according to you definition can change constantly. This is an important distinction because when the Church changes things, the progressive members ask: “how is this possible?” Well, it’s possible if the definition is more liberal and ongoing as you suggest.
I think it’s interesting that the Proclamation was made in response to the legal action taking place in Hawaii. It reminds me of my opinion that the Nov. 2015 policy was made in direct reaction to the June 2015 Supreme Court decision on gay marriage. It seems like the Church really likes to take a public stand on legal issues. Maybe the Church should just focus on the Doctrine of Christ (which does NOT change).
“Keep in mind that in the resurrection, you are restored to your perfect body, not perhaps the one you want right now. Cut off your penis, guess what? In the resurrection its back!” Errr…. This is pure speculation. For all any of us know the penis was the mistake in the first place and a transwoman will be resurrected in a perfected body that matches her brain.
To those who think I may be reading too much into Oaks’ words, my response is, perhaps. But regardless of his intent, people are going to interpret it exactly the way I suggest – which will continue to move the ball forward. My hope is that there is no official clarification, which puts the decision back in the hands of local leaders. While this leads to leader roulette, at least the local leaders are dealing with human beings they generally know and care about and therefore tend to have more empathy for than a bureaucratic policy statement.
“The Church should go all the way and just make it an official declaration that is added to the D&C.”
Hush your mouth! As I understand, the Proclamation was written by lawyers over the course of a year, with input from the eventual signers. I am okay with that, but I think it should be left as it is — simply a proclamation. Let’s leave the D&C for revelations and so forth.
Ambiguous, uncharitable, unconvincing, treacherous for the vulnerable. This is the way the Lord’s church operates?
BYU Valedictory address: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLeMVykzvKY
Behold the future of the church beginning at 3:35. If Elder Oaks isn’t paying attention, he should be.
We give Prez Oaks way too much energy. He is best ignored. The Church needs fewer legal opinions and more empathy. Instead of constantly analyzing his comments, we should let them die in obscurity.
Elder Oaks is next in line to be First President when soon-to-be 95yo Pres. Nelson dies.
It’s probably bliss to be able to ignore him. But it could also be folly.
Bryce, great point. I had many of the same. You mentioned that they made a partial retraction of the big announcement a week later. Can you give more information about this?
“gay people dating, holding hands and kissing on BYU campus, just like their heterosexual peers”
Has been the case for decades if you knew where to look.
Layne – the church announced a “clarification” (in reality a partial retraction). The original policy said that children who had a parent or parents in a same-sex relationship could not be blessed or receive ordinances. The clarification walked that back by grandfathering in kids who had already been blessed or received ordinances and by limiting the policy’s reach to kids whose “primary residence” is with such a parent: https://www.lds.org/pages/church-handbook-changes?lang=eng
Remember what happened to the “Word” of wisdom!