On a current controversy involving BYU

(by Dan Peterson sic et non blog)

Part 1

Several have urged me to comment on the Honor Code revisions at Brigham Young University with regard to homosexuality, and I suppose it’s time that I say at least something.  Herewith, therefore, several propositions.  They are neither exhaustive nor systematic, and I offer them here in no particular order:

1.  Although this topic has obviously inspired controversy in some circles, until today (when a student mentioned it to me and I heard news of a demonstration elsewhere on campus) nobody at BYU has so much as alluded to the topic in my hearing, except for one passing conversational reference to it from the chairman of my department (Asian and Near Eastern Languages).  Not only hasn’t it loomed large, it just hasn’t been on my radar screen.  That radar screen has been occupied by teaching, committee meetings, midterms, student papers, and the like.
2. Some hope and expect, reasoning by analogy from the cessation of plural marriage in 1890 and the lifting of the black priesthood restriction in 1978, that same-sex marriages will ultimately receive approval from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and be solemnized for all eternity in the temples of the Church.  However, although God is free and sovereign and entirely capable of surprise — as C. S. Lewis liked to say, Aslan is not a tame lion — I have no such expectation.  This for at least two reasons, one much stronger and more serious than the other:
3. First, from a purely secular perspective: None of the living apostles seem at all inclined to make such a change, and, actuarially speaking, they are likely to be in charge of the Church for decades to come.
4. Second, from a doctrinal perspective:  The removal of the priesthood ban for blacks was, theologically speaking, a small matter.  It altered little if anything of substance beyond itself.  So, too, the granting of priesthood to women — which I don’t expect, but which is conceivable — would not fundamentally change our doctrine.  By contrast, regarding homosexual marriages as the functional equivalent of heterosexual marriages in the eternities would not only be contrary to fact — they are, for purposes of generating posterity, simply not functionally equivalent — but would require a virtually complete transformation of our understanding of the purpose of life, the plan of salvation, and the nature of the eternities.
5. Brigham Young University is an integral part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and is likely to remain such.  In that light, it exists not only to be a university — in the manner of UCLA, Colorado State, Princeton, and Cal State Fullerton — but to assist in the formation of committed young Latter-day Saints.  Its general direction is, therefore, tightly controlled by the leadership of the Church, and should be.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/03/on-a-current-controversy-involving-byu-1.html?fbclid=IwAR2pU_zQ0zq8DMVnmtRY3ZX9GOFQkEp-IU0r4nVnMaF5FwkcBiXlclj1CGM

Part 2

6.  The announcement of the revision of the Honor Code was not well handled.  It left many people in a state of perplexity and uncertainty.

7.  It’s understandable that some concluded that public expressions of same-sex attraction would now be welcomed on the BYU campus.

8.  Those drawing that conclusion should not have been surprised to see a “correction” from the Church and the University.

9.  The fundamental problem is that Church and University leaders want to be charitable and kind but, at the same time, do not feel authorized to rescind or overturn the teaching of the Church that full sexual expression can only properly occur within a heterosexual marriage.  It’s an expression of the perennial conflict between truth and justice, on the one hand, and mercy, on the other.  The trouble is that it’s a terribly difficult line to walk.

10.  Church and University leaders are not motivated by “hate.”  It is inflammatory and unjust to accuse them of such.

11.  Nobody should be surprised that Brigham Young University is not neutral on, or indifferent to, the sexual behavior of its students and faculty.  While other schools pay no attention to that dimension of life, BYU does and always has.  Expecting it to change in that regard is unrealistic.  Sexuality — e.g., family — is at the heart of Latter-day Saint lives and lifestyle.

12.  BYU has always demanded chastity outside of heterosexual marriage from both its faculty and its students.  That did not change with the recent alteration of the Honor Code.

13.  Dating and romantic kissing and such things tend to lead to fuller sexual expression, whether married or heterosexual or not. It would be unrealistic on BYU’s part to pretend otherwise, or to affect the belief that such acts are completely without significance or likely outcome.

14.  There was a time at BYU when even heterosexual displays of public affection (PDAs, as they were called) were frowned upon.  This was not unendurable.

15.  Church and University leaders recognize that people who are romantically attracted to others of the same sex have a hard row to hoe within the Church community and are trying to be as supportive as they can be without compromising what they believe to be revealed standards and expectations of behavior that they cannot change.

16.  Will we lose some, especially perhaps among the young, because the Church cannot change?  Likely yes.  And this is a matter of pain, not of indifference.  But our freedom to maneuver is limited.  And we cannot maintain the Church by ceasing to be the Church.

Perhaps I’ll have more to say.  Perhaps not.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/03/on-a-current-controversy-involving-byu-2.html?fbclid=IwAR3ueAvVeqgv96P9unAnvit2XePI1wMvKM8M448r5GN9qJnbhcrkrXBLuGE