The Conversation We Didn’t Even Know We Needed: An Unspoken Impact of the BYU Honor Code Change & Clarification

Free Holding Hand Picture, Download Free Clip Art, Free Clip Art ...

Image from Clipart Library

In his book Torn, Justin Lee introduces the concept of the Side A and Side B Gay Christian. The Side A Gay Christian believes same-sex relationships including intimacy within same-sex marriage is not inherently sinful. The Side B Gay Christian believes that being gay is not inherently sinful, but that God does not approve of gay sex.

Historically, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has aligned with the vast majority of Christian belief that homosexuality is inherently sinful regardless of behavior. However, on the issue of same-sex sexual orientation the church in recent years has taken the position of Side B Christianity.

As Elder Ballard confirmed, “Let us be clear: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that ‘the experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them.’” (“The Lord Needs You Now!” Ensign, Sept. 2015, 29).

But where does the church stand on how gay members should move forward in their lives?

The official position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that mixed orientation marriage is “not a remedy” and that church leaders should not encourage gay members to enter marriage as a panacea for their same-sex sexual orientation. Though, some feel called to that path nonetheless.

For gay members of the church who desire to live within church doctrines and do not see mixed orientation marriage as a healthy choice, the only other option is to choose celibacy.

It is important to consider why this is noteworthy.

Celibacy is Different than Being a Single Member in the Church

It is widely known that marriage and family is deeply rooted as fundamental to the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We sing about it in primary. We recite it as youth. We are pointed toward it as we return from our missions.

It is difficult when, for many reasons, a companion doesn’t materialize, or a person must search for a companion again. There are varying degrees of loneliness, isolation, judgement, and even marginalization that single members of the church experience. It’s just hard. Full stop.

However, there is always an open door for companionship for single members.

Celibacy, on the other hand, is a choice to remain single and chaste for an entire lifetime, regardless of whether a worthy partner comes into your life.

Most straight single members regularly pray they will find that “special someone.” Gay single members regularly pray they don’t.

What does all this have to do with the BYU Honor Code changes and clarification?

Consider the psychological and physical impact of watching friend, after friend, after friend seek for a companion, pair-bond with another person, and marry, knowing that will never be something you can do or have. Consider the psychological and physical impact of finding someone with whom you would like to share your life, but you must abandon that relationship because of its unsustainability with the doctrine of the church. Imagine the psychological and physical impact of this happening to you over and over and over again.

The church does require a small segment of its membership to live with this very real experience. To simply discipline or excommunicate those who cannot sustain this level of psychological and physical impact is unconscionable.  What can be done?

The church can take more seriously its ability to support sustainable celibacy.

When BYU dropped the “homosexual behavior” portion of its honor code, some saw it as an indicator of doctrinal changes to come. But, it actually opened a door to something far more in line with the church’s current statement of chastity(Abstinence from sexual relations outside of a marriage between a man and a woman), which could also make things immediately better for many Side B gay students.

Dropping the “homosexual behavior” portion of the honor code could allow gay individuals to physically, emotionally and spiritually thrive by developing legitimate same-sex intimate plutonic relationships—relationships that have a degree of physical and emotional intimacy but are not sexual.

There are many Side B gay Christians that are maintaining their commitment to a traditional Christian sexual ethic, AND sustainably supporting their physical, emotional, and spiritual health by choosing to have intimate platonic relationships.

The recent documentary Faithful explores just this sort of relationship between Marylu and Lauralie, two faithful gay Latter-day Saint women.

Faithful also illuminates the discrimination and rejection these two women experience from their faith community in their effort to find a sustainable way to stay faithful to the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as gay women. In the midst of their sacrifice of celibacy, why must they also endure the shaming and rejection of those who should be supporting, embracing and celebrating their effort?

Not every Side B gay member of the church will resonate with or feel the need for an intimate plutonic relationship. However, for many it could be a literal life line, and an anchor to staying in the boat of the gospel.

On March 4th Elder Paul V. Johnson, Commissioner of the Church Educational System confirmed that BYU’s honor code is “principle based.” The objective of a principle based system—from missionary teaching, to ministering, to church curriculum, to the BYU honor code—is to support the unique needs of individual members as they follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and live within the doctrine and values of the church. Essentially, a principle-based approach is the way to more sustainably and practically balance between what Elder Johnson reminds us as the “spirit as well as the letter of God’s laws.”

The Honor Code change could have allowed many Side B gay students to balance between greater physical, emotional and spiritual health while maintaining the law of chastity requirement. This is an example of a principle-based system working at its best for the unique needs of a particular population within the church membership.

For the clarification of the BYU Honor Code to say that, “Same-sex romantic behavior cannot lead to eternal marriage and is therefore not compatible with the principles of the honor code” was a deep blow to so may, but particularly to celibate gay members of the church. It felt as if the initial honor code change was a life raft in the stormy sea of celibacy, but the clarification pushed many gay members back into the raging waves to fend for themselves once again.

It is difficult not to feel as one gay woman described, “The church demands a unique and unqualified sacrifice from me, which I am making every effort to give, but in return I so often feel shamed and abandoned.”

No doubt there are many arguments from all sides against the consideration of intimate plutonic relationships.

“Gay people won’t be able to stop at a plutonic line.”

“Gay people shouldn’t have to stop at a plutonic line.”

“If gay people don’t like the honor code they should just leave BYU.”

“The church causes physical, emotional and spiritual harm. Gay people should just leave the church.”

“The doctrines of the church are clear, and anything other than absolute adherence to the black and white law is simply a slippery slope.”

Wherever we land on the statements above, we all have our vision of the perfect world. But, this is our world, today, right now.

Let us help each other thrive where we are. Helping each other thrive and also advocating for what we feel is right is not a zero-sum game. It is the game entirely.

Oaks and the First Commandment

Stuart C. Reid: Oaks does not deserve to be attacked over LGBT rights

At the Women’s Conference session on October 6, 2019, President Oaks gave a talk that gives an unusual and chilling interpretation of Jesus’s teachings. Referring to Jesus’s discourse that the first and greatest commandment is to love God, and the second is to love your neighbor, Oaks equates loving God with obedience to God’s laws. He also states that the second commandment to love one another does not supercede the first commandment to love God, which Oaks presumably uses to justify judging, condemning, and hating others who he thinks are not obeying God’s law. This is his argument for justifying bigotry which is based in hating others and not loving your neighbor.
Continue reading

Personal Revelation for LGBT Members and Surviving Spiritual Abuse

First Presidency at Conference

As an active member of the Church, I believe in personal revelation and depend on it in my life. It was personal revelation, received while in the temple, that led me to the decision to marry my now husband. I also understand that when the Brethren teach the principle of personal revelation (as President Nelson did in his “Five Truths” speech at BYU on September 24, 2019, see Truth #5), they have a different context than which we might all be thinking.

When pertaining to LGBT members seeking to know whether they should date and find love compatible with how God made them, personal revelation becomes very problematic for the Brethren. In response to President Nelson’s Five Truths, below are Five Rules that I think are implicit in all of the Brethren’s teachings on personal revelation. In effect, what they are saying is:

Rule #1: We are prophets and apostles. We are better than you, and we are more spiritual than you. We know what is best for you, better than you do. Continue reading

The Exclusion Policy Has Not Been Reversed

nelsonbyu.cit_ja_0002It is interesting how everyone seems to refer to the Exclusion Policy in the past tense. Media headlines have proclaimed the “reversal” of the policy, or report that the policy was “rescinded”. The truth is, the Exclusion Policy is neither reversed or rescinded. The wording of the policy in the Handbook has been slightly modified, but the hateful, bigoted policy is still there.  Continue reading

“Requirement Church” vs. “No-Reject Church” — A Sacrament Meeting Talk

Sacrament Meeting Talk 5.26

Charity and Unorthodoxy

At Ward Conference, bishop gave a speech about the ‘many paths to Mt. Fuji’ where he asked us to be respectful to those on ‘unorthodox paths’ in the Church and the Gospel. Today, I want to expand that idea with my thoughts on what that looks like on the ground and reveal ways in which we may unintentionally be pushing people away. Continue reading

Everything Changes

I recently fell in love with the musical Waitress (having already been in love with Sara Bareilles for years). For me, music is like scripture, in that a song can mean something different to me every time I hear it. I was driving to work early one morning listening to the Waitress soundtrack on repeat–it’s what I do–and I reached the song “Everything Changes.” It comes near the end of the show and helps wrap up what is a surprisingly chaotic storyline. Continue reading