I’m sorry to say it, but the liberals have taken over BYU. Perhaps it happened when Jon McNaughton warned of it years ago. Or maybe they must have taken it over in 1909 and 1925, when the First Presidency stated that the Church does not have an official position on evolution, these statements officially reiterated and published and distributed by the BYU Board of Trustees in 1992. Or perhaps it just happened on February 19th, when a cabal within the Honor Code Office finally put their long term plans into motion. To read many responses to the recent changes in the BYU Honor Code, one would imagine this to have been the result of a Provoan Game of Thrones struggle. (Less green death fire. More green death jello.)
Some people have reacted negatively to the change because they simply do not want to see two men or women being affectionate:
-“Are students and parents who are uncomfortable seeing homosexual behaviors on campus just supposed to get used to it or leave?”
-“Are we going to see gay couples at BYU? Are we going to see increasing displays of gay pride and professors who don’t care about the Church’s standards?”
-“Even if we don’t allow homosexual relations, our tents have been pitched towards Sodom. Along our trajectory, there will be a steady decline in the morality of students attending BYU.”
There’s more to it though. A good portion of the negative comments regard the idea of even allowing such behavior on BYU’s campus. By not punishing two guys holding hands, the thinking goes, we tacitly encourage their path to gay fornication. They feel that even to date, hold hands, and kiss (DHHK) is to blatantly violate the law of chastity:
-“What is the point of dating as Latter-day Saint young adults? It is to find a spouse and to get married and sealed in the temple.”
-“Pursuing romantic relationships in the direction of spiritual death is not okay.”
-“Even hand holding and kissing is a dead end, as those things eventually lead to more physicality in a relationship. Why would we encourage people to go down that road?”
And probably my favorite comment of all:
-“The HC change is a beautiful call. It dares the rot to proudly present itself and will force the Mormies to take their heads out of the sand and choose a side. I’m also hopeful it will force the average male student to Chad up so he’ll avoid any confusion as to which way he swings.”
Some of the responses related to the concern that education in the humanities tends to decrease faithfulness in the church:
-“For whichever of the possible factors educated humanities types tend to falter, one can imagine these factors are likely in play for BYU professors focused on the humanities. Pity them. Love them. And perhaps at times remind them that their opinion and “reality” isn’t universal to all smart people.”
The reality is, these professors pretty much exist in all departments at BYU. They exist in the physical and biological sciences, where I was taught on much of the overwhelming research through the years that did not support the Church’s repeated narrative regarding gay individuals. They exist in the Marriott School of Management, among all the professors that repeatedly have to fight against mysogyny, myopic points of view, and gay bashing that exists among incoming MBA students. (Much of which my friends in the MBA program directly encountered from other students.) And they exist in the ecclesiastical leaders and religion faculty, who actually have interacted with gay individuals, realizing that none of the choices available to them within the church are good ones, and as such, recognize the moral dilemma these individuals face.
Here are some things I feel I have to reiterate to individuals behind some of these responses:
- Gay people exist. We are real. It isn’t a phase. It isn’t a weekly flavor of ice cream. No matter what you may have read or heard, the vast majority of cases are not just a preference or passing curiosity. (And there are plenty of gay guys named Chad, too.)
- “I don’t want to see that” is not a good reason to maintain the previous double standard. Professor Brau in the finance department of the Marriott School noted that the workplace will have plenty of LGBT individuals, and that it’s necessary to learn to be welcoming. He mentioned that a former student had recently been fired from their company for making homophobic comments to a gay coworker.
- Gay people consistently have not had opportunities to model and practice good social dating behavior in adolescence and young adulthood. Carol Lynn Pearson has remarked “We throw them in the gutter and then shame them for getting dirty.” Particularly at BYU the previous explicit honor code double standard allowed for subterfuge, sexual hookups, and increase in the potential for abuse. While open dating policies do not guarantee a lack of sexual activity or abuse, I always support sunlight as a disinfectant.
- Every choice has consequences, including celibacy. Anyone proclaiming celibacy for someone else needs to be able tell their gay friends and family to their faces that God’s plan for them is to be single for the remainder of their lives and still regularly attend a church that places the utmost importance on married sexual relationships and the resultant families. I want people to realize the practical implications of their requirements for others.
- Equity in treatment is a good reason for this policy. Has punitive action ever turned anyone straight? I hope plenty of guys and girls DO chastely date at BYU, learning the highs and lows of initial dating that their straight friends usually discover earlier in adolescence. After BYU they may continue to sexual activity. Others may choose to be single. I agree with one comment on this point: “Starving gay students from affection is sure to send them straight into the arms of a same sex partner but relaxing and trusting students to use the spirit to come to their own righteous decisions seems logical and healthy to me.”
In any case, it seems that the liberals have been in plain sight at BYU for over a century, and it looks like they are there to stay*. I’ve always appreciated Pres. David O McKay’s emphasis that the Church was made for the members, not the members for the Church. “He pitched a big tent and then told members of all stripes that he welcomed them to join him and build the Church within it.” No matter the responses, I ultimately think two guys or two girls holding hands at BYU could still have a lot to offer in this tent.
- *I do not actually think the liberals have taken over BYU. I thoroughly appreciated that my time at BYU was filled with people and professors of all types.
- Some of the responses attribute this BYU situation to willful misinterpretation from individuals. Since the changes came down from CES, is it possible that the GAs didn’t think through the consequences of the language change? Is it possible that they DID think through the consequences and support this change?
- Is it possible that this change is related to Sports, as some have suggested?
- Is it really actually weird to see two guys hold hands? Is it any weirder than standing by your brother in line at Disneyland while he makes out with his girlfriend? (That’s happened to me plenty of times. I generally don’t support intense PDA in public.)
- Do you feel there will be any blowback towards BYU, from above or below?
- Of all those in the FP/Q12, which one/ones do you think is/are the most prepared/capable of engaging with “the gay” in regards to the church?
I have an Episcopalian friend who recently told me that the Mormon missionaries were repeatedly showing up at his door. He hasn’t answered because he obviously isn’t interested but he also did not want to be rude to them. I recommended he answer the door and politely them that he was gay and that his best friend (me) is a gay member of the church and that he is aware of how the church treats the LGBTQ community. I guaranteed him they would never knock on his door again. That’s how the Mormons work. Enough said…
Excellent work. Thank you so much for the cool-headed response to the less than cool-headed reactions you cited. Something I still can’t do very well..
You missed the sentence I thought was most amazing;
“Alumni want to know, students want to know, and parents want to know what is going on with the university and if its safe to send their kids to BYU” SAFE
Are the gay kids going to start bashing the homophobes? To make up for when they were bashed? Or if you child comes out, have they been converted?
Can it be correct that sodomy was illegal in Utah until last year? So you could dob in gay people to the police. And a gay person could not report violence against them, without being arrested themselves. SAFE?
“On January 29, 2019, the state House approved a bill to repeal provisions in regard to sodomy and adultery, in a 74-0 vote, with 1 abstention. It was approved by the Senate on February 22, in a 25-2 vote, with 2 abstentions, and signed by Governor Gary Herberton March 25, 2019.[6][7]”
Its not just BYU then the state government is also undermining the rights of straight people to discriminate against gay people?
Make BYU Great Again
My brother came out as gay after his mission while at BYU in the late ’90s. He was a respectful, but persistent advocate for change with the administration – requesting an LGBT student organization and a dialogue. Ultimately he was asked to leave BYU.
After this HCO announcement, one of our sisters sent the siblings a concerned message along with the news story. She is upset that BYU is running amok and wondering how the Church is going to get things back under control over there. She’s wondering if her child who attends BYU (and is not yet out of the closet to her) will be safe from these “influences”.
She and the Take Back BYU folks don’t seem to appreciate that BYU faculty and administration don’t get to make rules like this independently of the Church. The Pres. of BYU is an Area 70. The trustees include the president of the Church and other apostles and the CES is tightly supervised.
My take: Putting this change forward at BYU is a lower risk proposition that making the same announcement as a new Church policy. The perceived (misperceived) distance between the Church and BYU makes it less shocking. It speaks immediately to the age group that is most concerned about LGBTQ+ issues and is most likely to leave the Church over those issues. It the move gets enough heat – it’s much easier to walk-back a BYU policy than a Handbook policy (a la the POX).
I hope this is the ecclesiastical equivalent of sending a canary down the mineshaft.
And I really hope that the broader Church membership doesn’t strangle the canary.
One thing that has been striking for me is that the homophobic beliefs of some of the commenters you cite seems stronger than their belief that there are no mistakes made by church authorities. Maybe I have misunderstood them in the past but I feel like many of them have seemed very attached to the idea that there are not mistakes in policy or teaching by general authorities of the church. I think that has been a major argument they have made in support of church policies regarding LGBTQ people.
E
Yes I have been banned from M because I said equality for women and gays was coming, and that was interpreted as opposing the church leaders.
Now they are doing it. So they are conservatives first, and mormons second, and only when church leaders are sufficiently conservative/republican. I had wondered where their priorities lay? With the election coming I am hoping someone at conference, points out the responsibility to vote for morality/moving to country toward christs teachings of caring for the poor etc.
I see this as a couple of steps closer to accepting gay marriage, and perhaps a strategy to introduce it incrementally, so it is easier for the conservatives.
People saying this will lead to gay marriages and sexual relationships are absolutely right. I 100% support gay marriage and homosexual relationships and believe they should be normalized in the Church. Therefore, I don’t mind that allowing LGBT dating will lead to LGBT relationships, but that will happen. The purpose of dating varies due to certain values, but among adult college students (in the Church, anyway) I think it’s safe to say that purpose falls into one of two categories:
1) if one considers premarital sex immoral, the purpose is to date with an eye towards marriage.
2) if one doesn’t, one dates with the goal of getting in a sexual relationship.
Am I off my rocker? Obviously the Church encourages “friend” dating among teenagers and discourages steady dating, but after you go to college or serve a mission, a switch is flipped, and the primary goal is to find an eternal companion. To assume that LGBT BYU students who have grown up hearing this sort of eternal marriage rhetoric will be content to remain in celibate same-sex partnerships even after graduation (realizing there are many who will stay celibate in order to finish their education while dating at BYU) seems like a stretch to me. Maybe that’s not what you’re arguing, but that was my impression.
Again, I fully support equal rights for all LGBT members of the Church. And I see the new policy similarly to the November policy: something will have to change sooner rather than later. This policy doesn’t go far enough.
Of course, not all relationships work out, but I don’t think most adults date with the intent of bowing out before things get more serious either relationally or sexually.
Right, Dylan!
Naturally, gay individuals will look for gay relationships and gay marriages. That’s as it should be! …whether or not some folks inside the church want to accept that or not.
Previously what happened was gay individuals being pushed into heterosexual marriages which almost always resulted in divorces, erosion of both adult parties’ self-esteem and dependent children’s confusion and feelings of abandonment or alienation. Or lonely lives of forced celibacy. Or people pushed out of the church to create safe emotional spaces for themselves. Or, worst of all, suicides.
It’s more than time that the church came to grips with the fact that people are born otherwise than heteronormal (as in demographic norms)and that it isn’t their fault. Faithful saints came to terms with the ’78 change in the extension of the priesthood to Black males and the church is better and stronger for it. They’ll come to terms with accepting gay members as worthy human beings no more flawed or “sinful” than anyone else. And, when they do, they’ll be better people and more saint-like for it.
It’s been almost 50 years since a dear friend committed suicide in college because he was gay. The world has changed. It’s about time the church does. What happened to my friend, including the years of shame and anxiety and secrecy and pain that he lived with every day until he couldn’t’ anymore, shouldn’t happen again. And it NEVER should have been inflicted on anyone in the name of “worthiness” or virtue.
dou·ble en·ten·dre
/ˌdo͞obl änˈtändrə,ˌdəbl änˈtändrə/
noun
a word or phrase open to two interpretations
I thought that BeenThere’s comparison of the BYU policy change to sending a canary down the mineshaft was quite apt. Call it a pilot project or a trial rollout of a new product?
Think that comparisons with the Church’s renunciation of polygamy might also be helpful. Despite the 1890 Manifesto and the 1904 “Second Manifesto” of 1904, the Church did not do an immediate 180-degree pivot. It was gradual. Some members of the Q12 took polygamous wives after 1890. An older friend of mine claims that his grandfather, Rudger Clawson, took a polygamous wife in Colonia Juarez in Mexico in 1917. Many Mormon families had elderly aunts who lived into the 1950s, who had married polygamously.
LGBT acceptance is a very new phenomenon. The issue first came to the front in the US only in 1969, with the New York riot over police crackdowns. 50 years is a small piece of modern history. And the Church is a Conservative slice of our culture, which has to square major changes with the idea of revelation from God.
My personal opinion is that Church-wide acceptance of LGBT members will not take as long as the transition away from polygamy. Too many families in the Mormon Corridor have LGBT children, and this is an issue that has given impetus to trickle-up revelation, with many Stake Presidents giving candid feedback from the local level. I am not predicting that there will be a sudden change a la 1978 Priesthood revelation (and remember, it took almost 40 years after the Revelation, for the Church to junk the discredited folk doctrines about the Ban), but it is clear to me that the Church leadership has BEGUN to come to grips with the LGBT issue, and I don’t think there is any turning back. The process might be neithet elegant nor pretty, but I think it has begun.
@Skdadyl 8:45
I’ve wondered how individual missionaries interact with “the gay.” In my mission, it wasn’t something we engaged with much (or at all), since culturally and by the government it was severely discouraged.
@Brian 10:05
Thank you. I’m much better at responding in written words rather than verbally. It’s still always a challenge for me.
@Geoff – Aus 11:22
There are so many other comments that are very revealing of the concern and actual fear that individuals have regarding this change. Since aside from a vocal minority, I do think most students won’t actually be bothered by it (most post-millennial kids have already interacted with other gay kids throughout their schooling) I feel that more of the concern is coming from parents. I think it would be fascinating to research the social interactions that these concerned parents have. Some of them mention that they do have gay “friends” (I put friends in quotes because I would suspect that they are more acquaintances than friends.) Do these adults actually interact with other gay adults in workplaces, in public, and socially? Do they have conversations with them? Do they allow them to talk about their “gay” family life, or do these adults prefer them not discussing it? Do they see them with partners? I suspect that their actual social interactions would be with people that “struggle with same sex attraction” and those conversations would rarely talk about gay things outside the context of the church. Anyone that considers themselves gay would probably not have a close social interaction with individuals that don’t even want to think about gay expressions of affection in public. I’m actually curious about this…
@BeenThere 1:03
Thank you for your comment. I’m sorry to hear about your brother’s experiences there.
I find your take to be intriguing. That would imply that the GAs directly over CES are aware (as opposed to the comments calling this a slipup and intentional misinterpretation by BYU HCO rogue officers) and consciously monitoring the situation to determine steps going forward. I can see how that would be a reality – as the “young people” at BYU go, so goes the future of the church type of thing.
Regarding the broader Church membership, I’m surprised that I have yet to hear tons of talk about it at church. I wonder how much play this will get among membership that doesn’t have some direct ties to BYU. I wonder how they feel about the national news response – or if they feel they are “fake news.” It will be interesting to see if anyone addresses it at the different firesides/devotionals in the immediate future.
@E 1:10
It is interesting which issues would overcome a belief that leadership of the church as a whole makes no mistakes. I would suspect that there is a probably a normal distribution curve. Outliers on both sides would have issues that trump the “prophets make no church leadership mistakes,” while the majority in the middle would be against something one day and for it the next if Pres. Nelson commanded it.
@Dylan 7:47
No, I think the vast majority of gays won’t stay in a celibate relationship after graduation. There ARE some though, that DO want a celibate romantic partnership. I have friends that talk about it periodically. They want the social interaction and committed companionship without losing anything in the church as well.
My sharing of the comment on letting the students decide for themselves was to illustrate that I agreed with that point – even though they probably have a different desired outcome. In general, I like to emphasize the reality of “the gay” to stress that these are real people, with real practical consequences to life choices. In conversations in the above shared commenters’ circles though, it often doesn’t come across that way. The worst of them stress that the gay can be overcome in this life. The best of them pity and emotionally support their friends that suffer from same-sex attraction. I doubt most of them would be able to confront that friend and talk about God’s plan for them individually. I still think the idea that gay people could actually be part of God’s divine plan is too much for them. Conceptualizing it as one of many weaknesses of mortality is the only way they can consider it.
@alice 8:35
I’m so sorry about your friend. I wish I had a solution.
@Taiwan Missionary 10:33
I’m beginning to agree with you and BeenThere’s assessment.
1) the changes came from CES with direct GA oversight. CES is not a liberal vanguard in the church.
2) while I’ve been surprised at the PR blind spots of the FP previously (see the Nov 2015 Policy mess, surprise at the pushback to Prop 8) to not think about the changes when explicitly removing language on “the gay” would be a huge example of continued ignorance
3) BYU is a good microcosm of Post-Millenials in the church. Contrary to jokes and popular belief, there’s a wide variety of beliefs there – often just under the surface when you get to know the person.
I think I also agree with you that the FP/Q12 is has BEGUN to come to grips with the gay. It’d be interesting to poll them and find out what they honestly believe. Additionally, I wonder if the former mormonandgay website affected their beliefs at all. That site has slowly been losing testimonial videos as the individuals in them end up with partners.
A side question, for anyone. Of all those in the FP/Q12, which one/ones do you think is the most prepared/capable of engaging with “the gay” in regards to the church?
I agree with you in wondering how well some people know gay people even if they do have some associations or contact. Why, after all, would someone open themselves up to someone they can detect has a preconceived attitude about them?
Altho there’s no avoiding the fact that individuals are individuals and probably run the spectrum of human qualities, the gay folks I’ve been fortunate enough to have in my life are kind and empathetic and emotionally generous. Probably from feeling like outsiders in most of the circumstances of their lives and not being willing to burden anyone else similarly.
And, as you say, JD, I think it’s an older generation who are still burdened with prejudice. It’s heartening to see that younger people can accept more people for who they are by nature and go on about their business enjoying friendships and ordinary collaborations freely. We’ll have a healthier society because of it and a healthier culture at the BYUs.
We’ll have a stronger more vibrant and creative economy as well as companies like Disney discovered long ago!
There was a discussion of this on M* last week.
Altho the folks there are very much of the mind that the liberals have taken over BYU (as if….), there’s an interesting letter from a faculty member. This person is very sanguine about the change of tone and says his or her impression is that it’s very well received on campus if not off. And he or she notes that there’s zero chance that the matter didn’t have thorough discussion and assent from the very highest levels of the church . This person is very unambiguous about the fact that a new attitude is here to stay.
Naturally, that’s one person’s opinion but it’s an opinion from direct experience and a stake in the eventual outcome of the new directive becoming part of the campus culture and graduates’ prospects for eventual employment and opportunity to thrive in a changed employment world.
Not sure the pro anti is age related or political view.
JD, I actually worked very closely with the missionaries, both Sisters and Elders, in my ward a few years ago and I always told them up front I was gay and shared my struggles with them. I will say that every single one of them were incredibly kind and understanding and treated me like I was just ME! And I loved them for it. Most of them agreed that it would suck to be celibate and treated like a second class member of the church but I knew right then that the young millenial Mormon generation would be the ones who would bring about the changes…hence BYU. My initial comment was half joking but not really. I have seen the Bishopric in my ward discourage the teaching of LGBTQ investigators during missionary correlation meetings.
@Skdadyl 5:24
I’m so happy that they simply treated you like a person. I’ve found that some tend to demonize, while others lionize the gays.
I agree with you – the younger and post-millennials will make a big difference.
Regarding missionary teaching, from a practical and darkly funny perspective, I don’t think most Bishoprics know what to do with the gays that they already HAVE.
@JD in response to your question about which GA’s are best equipped to deal with this issue … I think Elder Gong. His son is gay and they seem to have a good relationship (by his son’s own account). He was my SP for a while and I thought he was a brilliant, thoughtful, humble man.
I also have hope for Elder Holland, simply because he seems to be a really compassionate person, and Uchtdorf because, well, he’s European and culturally they tend to be more progressive on this. And Christofferson obviously has thought about this a lot.
I think there are definitely those among the GA’s who can be good at this but that they are largely blocked at the moment by Nelson and Oaks.
I think this is true for a lot more Mormons than everyone tends to imagine, across all age cohorts. There’s a huge pressure to perform orthodoxy but when you get past the surface, tons of Mormons have heterodox beliefs or practices (and the Next Mormons survey is a big set of data points here). You might never know it if you just show up to Sacrament Meeting and Sunday School because people keep it on the DL.
@ Elisa 10:29
I think I agree with you. In general, anyone who has been able to interact in a family or close friend way likely has more preparation in engaging openly. I know several of the older GAs have grandchildren and great grandchildren that are LGBT as well though, though I would assume that growing up with a gay family member (E Christofferson) or parenting a gay child (E Gong) likely gives them decades of experience to know the person first, before “the gay.” You get a better glimpse into their wholeness, dreams and goals, good and bad qualities, which really hinders both a reduction of them into an ominous category (the gay agenda, or the “globohomo agenda” as I’ve heard it called recently) and increases one’s ability to recognize the practical individual implications of policy.
@Kullervo 12:02
Thank you for reminding me of that. I can easily get frustrated and snarky, and reduce people into categories, which is bad all around.
plot twist the liberals have NOT taken over … as of 3/4/2020.
Don’t know what to say. It didn’t take long did it?
https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2020/03/04/after-byu-honor-code/?fbclid=IwAR2IUdTE6gZ-Yk4Kq6ZlC5V10-sMJqYI4N1sSWtj8qx7Y_hg2XfPxyy6BGw