This is my second post addressing the recent changes to the Handbook relating to LGBTQ issues. The first post addressed the new policy relating to transgender individuals, while this post addresses changes in policy relating to same-sex relations and marriage.
This version of the handbook officially removes the text of the “exclusion policy” instituted in November 2015 and orally rescinded in statements made by President Oaks just before April conference last year. In that press release, President Oaks stated, “immoral conduct in heterosexual and homosexual relationship will be treated in the same way.” And indeed, the new handbook policy reflects that statement, as heterosexual and same-sex sexual immorality are addressed in the same sections and face the same possible membership restrictions.
Policy based on Principle – The Law of Chastity
The governing principle in the church’s framing of sexual immorality in the new handbook is its definition of the Law of Chastity, which it defines as “abstinence from sexual relations outside of a marriage between a man and a woman according to God’s law.” (32.6.2.2)
In setting forth reasons for Church Membership Councils in Chapter 32 (formerly called Church Disciplinary Councils), the handbook distinguishes between sins where a “Membership Council is Required” and where a “Membership Council May be Necessary.” In the column of “May be Necessary,” the handbook includes a category of sin called “sexual immorality,” which includes same-sex relations together with adultery and fornication, cohabitation, civil unions and same-sex marriage.
The welcome takeaway from this is that same-sex relations are no longer in a separate category by themselves, which used to give the impression that they were somehow worse than heterosexual sin, and they no longer require a membership council or are considered apostasy. However, there is still a long way to go to allow gay people to be treated equal to straight people in our church. The next step toward equality will require removing same-sex marriage as a sin of sexual immorality altogether.
The revised “Policies on Moral Issues” section (38.6) contains specific sections on “Same-sex Attraction and Same-sex Behavior” (38.6.12) and “Same-sex Marriage” (38.6.13). The same-sex marriage section contains these two paragraphs, worth noting:
As a doctrinal principle, based on the scriptures, the Church affirms that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. The Church also affirms that God’s law defines marriage as the legal and lawful union between a man and a woman.
Only a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife should have sexual relations. Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same sex, are sinful and undermine the divinely created institution of the family.
The first sentence indicates that the church declares its position to be “a doctrinal principle, based on the scriptures.” However, to my knowledge, based on extensive study and research, the church has never really explicated its theology or doctrine on its current position. Moreover, while it says above that this position is based on the scriptures, that handbook reference does not cite any scripture, which is inconsistent with the rest of the handbook.
In the second paragraph of the above reference, the church doubles down on the rhetoric that same-sex relations (which now include legal, monogamous same-sex marriage) “undermine the divinely created institution of the family.” While this argument was made in numerous legal briefs filed by the church and other politically conservative groups in their fight against the legalization of same-sex marriage, none of these groups was able to provide good support for that argument, and no court (based on my knowledge) found the argument persuasive.
The church appears to repeatedly make this argument based on a simple appeal to authority – i.e., God says it, past prophets have said it, the scriptures say it – without providing any theological or doctrinal basis for it. Without deep theological engagement, or the willingness to break from theological tradition like the church’s founding prophet Joseph Smith, it can be reasonably asked how the church can be the living church it claims to be. As a result, it has lost and will continue to lose a significant segment of its membership (along with their families and supporters) who have no place in its current doctrine and theology on LGBTQ people.
The best the church can offer our LGBTQ members is this weak consolation prize, which “outsources” justice and equal treatment to the next life (38.6.12):
The circumstances of some faithful members do not allow them to receive the blessings of eternal marriage and parenthood in this life. They will receive all promised blessings in the eternities, provided they keep the covenants they have made with God
Policy on the Ground – Where the Rubber Hits the Road
Immediately following the release of the new handbook, the BYU Honor Code Office (“HCO”) released an update to the Honor Code, removing the section on “homosexual behavior,” which had prohibited all forms of physical intimacy. This update applies to all church-owned schools.
The reaction on the ground was immediate jubilation and rejoicing among students, with major news outlets reporting on the change that now appeared to allow same-sex dating, handholding, kissing and other forms of physical affection as long as it did not break the church’s law of chastity.[1] BYU quickly responded with a series of ambiguous tweets that appeared to be backpedaling on student interpretation. However, in personal communications with the HCO (including by me), the HCO confirmed that it would not investigate or interview students who were reported on for showing same-sex physical affection or dating, unless it was believed that sexual misconduct was occurring (which is the same criteria used for straight students). In fact, if a student’s reporting on LGBTQ students is deemed harassing or without merit, the HCO may find it in violation of the Honor Code’s policy on respecting others and reprimand that student.
What I foresaw in the blog post I wrote after President Oaks’ statements last April appears to be happening. Even if church leaders become uncomfortable with what is happening and make a major retraction to redefine policy on same-sex behavior, it seems unlikely that this Pandora’s box can be closed again without significant negative PR and membership repercussions. As I wrote in that last blog post, the application of this new policy will 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.”
____________________
[1] I have also seen pushback from members who are upset that their tithing dollars are being used to support a university system that, in their view, now encourages prospective violation of the law of chastity. Also, the bizarre Deseret Nation (“Deznat”) started a SaveBYU movement to intimidate LGBTQ students on campus.
Wheat & Tares 
The scriptures foretell a great apostasy in the last days. Maybe this is the beginning of that?
In spite of the problems you’ve laid out, this change feels momentous to me. I believe it is inevitable that gay marriages will become accepted by the church. I used to think it would be 20-40 years away, now it feels more like 5-10 years. The morning breaks, the shadows flee.
I have to say this feels a bit like the Berlin Wall falling. As the flagship educational of the institutional church, if LGBTQ+ students can date, dance, hold hands, and kiss, then I am hopeful that LGBTQ+ kids in stakes can do the same, including at stake dances.
And then I can’t imagine that after 10 years of that, that anyone but the most rigid of fundamentalists would try to pretend that gays couples don’t have just as meaningful relationships in the eyes of God as straight couples.
Part of me doesn’t quite believe that DHO has really signed off on the Honor Codes office change in interpretation, but I have to think like the beauracratic mistake that caused the Berlin Wall to fall early and completely, once this gate is opened nobody is going to want to try to backtrack. Its not yet a 1978 event, but it feels like it might be the precursor.
Progress
Jack Borad, It could also be members voting for Trump.
“In the column of “May be Necessary,” the handbook includes a category of sin called “sexual immorality,” which includes same-sex relations together with adultery and fornication, cohabitation, civil unions and same-sex marriage.”
Civil unions??? Surely they don’t mean civil marriages between heterosexual couples???
Mez, no. Civil marriage is not the same as a civil union. The latter is a legal agreement granting many of the same privileges, but it is not considered a marriage. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union
God’s Law–in which there is supposed to be no shadow of change–gets a major redefinition. John Taylor and Mormons of his day would surely disagree that a definition of marriage requires “legal and lawful.” Similarly, the update Law of Chastity definition (“outside of marriage between a man and a woman according to God’s law”) is open to interpretation. Are relations within Civil Marriage a breach of the law of chastity, because it is not according to God’s Law?
Those that read my comments on Part I of this blog will know I’m quite conservative in my religious and political views. BUT, I agree completely with the author and others who say Pandora’s Box is now wide open. Considering how the Church has radically redefined marriage and chastity since Brigham Young’s day, odds are that progressives will carry the day–as much as I disagree.
Mez, yes Mary Ann is right. Civil unions were recently made available to heterosexual couples in the UK after much campaigning, precisely because they aren’t marriage.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50953410
There’s some irony….
“John Taylor and Mormons of his day would surely disagree that a definition of marriage requires ‘legal and lawful.’”
This comment may presume that “legal and lawful” is a reference to civil law. If some reports are to be believed, that does not seem to have been the case in the 19th century. Perhaps it was and remained a special case of Mormon-speak, in the 20th century confused with civil law as a result of failure to teach/discuss its earlier usage. The recent clarification of the “law of chastity” in the temple endowment ceremony seems an attempt to correct the confusion.
“Ann Eliza and James stood before their Prophet, and he ‘sealed’ them to each other. ‘I pronounce you, legally and lawfully husband and wife, for time and for all eternity,’ said Young.” “Wife No. 19” Ann Eliza Webb Dee [Young Denning]
Reporting on the Mormon marriage ceremony: “The President then says: ‘In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by the authority of the Holy Priesthood, I pronounce you legally and lawfully husband and wife, for time and all eternity…’” “The Mormon Prophet and His Harem: An Authentic History of Brigham Young, his Numerous Wives and Children” Catherine Van Valkenburg Waite, Library of Alexandria, 1866
I’m guessing that the fact that the Edmunds Act came in 1872 does not mean “legally and lawfully” was a reference to civil law. Civil law never contemplated “for time and all eternity” and the phrase was used otherwise by BY in a manner clearly not referring to civil law.
“We cannot … administer the further ordinances of God, in the fullest sense of the word, legally unto the people … until we have a temple built for that purpose ” (DBY, 394–95).
“Children born unto parents, before the latter enter into the fulness of the covenants, have to be sealed to them in a temple to become legal heirs of the Priesthood. It is true they can receive the ordinances, they can receive their endowments, and be blessed in common with their parents; but still the parents cannot claim them legally and lawfully in eternity unless they are sealed to them.” (DBY, 399–401).
Here’s the problem with your way of thinking, it doesn’t align with church principles, God, or what the prophet and apostles have said. Every indication in the new wording of the honor code and handbook tell us that NOTHING has changed. Same sex sexual relations is still a sin. The discipline for breaking the law of chastity is still the same. The church will never change its fundamental teachings on eternal marriage between man and woman. To say this is misleading and cruel for those who are holding out. It’s not happening, ever. Same sex sexual relations are in complete contrast to the fundamental, basic, rock solid foundational teachings of Christ and the restoration. The leadership has given every indication of this. The brethren have changed the wording in the manuals, wording that hasn’t changed the doctrine at all in the slightest. Saying otherwise is just a plain lie.
You’ve made this about equality, when in reality it’s about living the commandments of God as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It’s like saying, why can’t I be Buddhist and still meat or fish? This is unfair to us meat eaters! Or why can’t I be catholic and not have affairs with other women, it’s not fair to us that are polyamorous. Choosing not to live the principles of a religion that you choose to follow will not change the religion you have chosen to follow, it will however change you personally. At some point people need to face reality here and understand that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a religion that follows certain precepts, and like Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Catholicism , etc… we have these precepts and disciplines to live by. The gates that you’ve said will one day open for same sex marriage will not happen in this religion. Don’t mislead people that it might.
Looks like Bryce Cook, Jim Brau, and Mr. Anon at the honor code office (if he really existed) spoke out of hand, and too soon. Look, there is a giant marketplace of churches and organizations where people can find a home. Muslims who want to eat bacon should maybe quit being Muslim, 8r just eat bacon anyway, without demanding or expecting that an entire organization or church should change to accommodate the beliefs and desires of a few.
Jack – gloating over the church’s latest hammer blow against LGBTQ people isn’t exactly Christlike. The handbook (and Elder Oaks’ own words) say that sexual immorality will be treated the same, whether homosexual or heterosexual. “Sexual immorality” means sex, not hugging or kissing or handholding. So the Honor Code Office took it at its word, and I myself verified it with the Office, as did Professor Brau and numerous students – there was nothing anonymous about it. Sadly, senior church leaders reinstated the old policy with a now unwritten rule, and in the process left a a number of vulnerable LGBTQ students in the lurch. It was a really underhanded thing to do.
As for basically telling us to leave if we don’t like it, is that what you really want? You only want people who act and think like you do in the church? Also, how are we demanding or expecting the church to change? Is it not possible to have discussion and discourse on an issue when people are legitimately suffering? Have some empathy here.
Geez Bryce, are you going to continue misleading the lgbt community saying that this is a “hammer blow” when in reality they’ve changed nothing all along? It was clear that the doctrine of the church didn’t change and Byu’s honor code is tied directly to that doctrine. You purposely are creating an expectation in the church on a change in fundamental doctrine where there is none, nor will there ever be. You know better and your kind of talk just causes contention and drives a wedge between the lgbt community and the church further. The doctrine is solid, don’t expect this to change.
Geez Nicolas are you really going to keep misconstruing what other people say and write? Ask the LGBT crowd if it was a hammer blow to them. It’s been devastating to them. I guess you’ve never been whiplashed by an organization like this has done to them. Still, though, at least you could exercise some imagination in what it might be like–maybe even listen to some people with differing views. You and Jack come out of nowhere and throw these insults around. Poor form, my friends. And also not winning anyone to side.
Nicolas, how can you say with a straight face that the the church “changed nothing all along”? Or that I created some expectation that the doctrine changed. I did nothing of the kind. What happened at BYU had nothing to do with changing doctrine and everything to do with a policy stance that completely changed. The new handbook says the doctrine is the law of chastity, defined as no sex outside of man/woman marriage. The policy should conform to that principle, and that’s how the Honor Code office and students interpreted it – until the church reversed the policy (without adding back the deleted part). Your hardliner attitude and failure to look beyond your own certainty is what causes contention and hurts our LGBTQ members.
I still don’t get why people like Bryce, Brau, Augenstine, Erica Munson, Washburn, Ostler (? maybe), while not necessarily advocating doctrinal change, would readily welcome a “revelation” accepting same sex marriage (but not fornication). The ancient church was very exclusive when it came to behavior. People were expected to die daily with Christ, crucifying their desires, their wants, their old ways, their very personalities, on the cross, and become new creatures. Christ warned that he came with a sword, meaning the gospel would divide people, even families. This has nothing – nada – to do with love. The church can always and forever deny same sex couples the privilege of ordinances etc, and still be totally guilty of loving them. To the narrower issue of the BYU honor code, either they’re guilty of piss poor communication, or else their are some activists in the ranks who have a rift with the 15.