Brigham Young University (BYU) is owned and operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which has a vested interest in keeping its college-aged members on the straight-and-narrow road of orthodoxy and loyalty to the faith. Indeed, the church has long known that its members who graduate from BYU are more likely to marry within the faith, remain actively engaged with the church in later adulthood, and to raise their children to be believers. BYU is supported by members’ tithing donations, and in return offers subsidized affordable tuition to faithful members of the church, making it a very attractive option for large Mormon families. This creates a perfect scenario for the church, as young adult members are often pressured to attend BYU, where their families (and the church) hope they will receive an education that keeps them strong in their commitment to the church.
Mandated Lessons in Marginalization
Recently, a student taking a course from the college of Religious Education at BYU posted online the following screenshot of one of their exams:
The course in question—The Eternal Family (REL C 200)—is offered through the department of Church History and Doctrine and is one of three offerings that meet a general education requirement under the heading of “Doctrinal Foundations.” Notably, one of the other offerings is a parallel course by the same name, but offered through Family, Home, and Social Sciences. The degree of overlap between these two courses with the same name is not clear. From students who have taken the course, I’m told that it is much the same course, but is 3 credits instead of 2, and incorporates more material covering the social science on family processes, in addition the the material covered in REL C 200. I am also told that most students don’t even realize that there are multiple course offerings that cover this general education requirement, and that the system communicates this poorly. That said, the listing for the REL C 200 Eternal Family course includes the following description and expected course outcomes:
Devoted to teachings on the Plan of Redemption and the central role of the family in that plan. The doctrine of the family is explored as it is taught throughout the standard works and in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," as well as through the temple and saving ordinances and covenants. BYU Course Description, REL C 200 The Eternal Family
Factual — Students will be enabled and inspired to understand, explain, promote, and defend the doctrine of the family. Conceptual — Students will be prepared to evaluate questions and sources of information regarding the family in the light of scriptural and prophetic teachings. Spiritual — Students will increase their understanding and testimony of the central role of the family in the plan of salvation as taught in the scriptures and the words of modern prophets-particularly "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." Application — Students will be enabled to follow the Holy Spirit as they apply the truths learned in this course to their own marriage preparation and eternal families. BYU Course Outcomes, REL C 200 The Eternal Family
It is abundantly clear that the purpose of the “Doctrinal Foundations” general education requirements is the indoctrination of BYU students in an effort to reinforce orthodox belief among its graduates before sending them off into the world at large. This class in particular is wholly focused on feeding students a semester long inculcation in heteropatriarchy, with repeated reference to “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” and the greatest hits in General Conference addresses and other church resources produced mostly by the church’s more conservative leaders.
The associated readings for The Eternal Family course happen to be listed online. As such, we can get a pretty detailed look at what is being taught to BYU students in this course, as part of their general education requirements. Of particular importance to the exam question above, is the unit entitled “The Eternal and Essential Nature of Gender.” The learning objectives of this unit include knowing “the doctrines related to prophetic instruction on same gender attraction and same gender marriage,” and feeling “compassion for those with same gender attraction and an understanding of the Lord’s plan of salvation for all His children.” It is in this context that the following readings are assigned:
- 5.1 Eternal Marriage: Principles, Possibilities, and Promises (Michael Goodman)
- 5.2 Same-Sex Attraction and Transgender (ChurchOfJesusChrist.org)
- 5.3 Two Great Commandments (Dallin H. Oaks)
- 5.4 The Divine Institution of Marriage (LDS Church Newsroom)
- 5.5 The Keys and Authority of the Priesthood (Dallin H. Oaks)
The exam question above is clearly referring to the first of these readings, which is a chapter from the 2011 book, “Voices of Hope: Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Same-Gender Attraction” edited by Ty Mansfield and published by church-owned and operated Deseret Book. Notably, Ty Mansfield is a board member of North Star, an organization with ties to the LDS Church that specializes in therapy for “same-gender attraction” and “gender dysphoria” and has a history of involvement with conversion therapy. Apparently, Ty Mansfield is featured considerably throughout this course unit, as students also report being required to watch videos (1, 2). Indeed, the Voices of Hope publication is part of a larger campaign promoting their treatments for LGBTQ+ individuals, particularly members of the church. The author of the assigned chapter, Michael Goodman, is faculty in the Church History and Doctrine department, where he also serves as Chair of the In-service Committee and of the Online Course Creation Committee for The Eternal Family course. He also occasionally serves as an instructor for the course.
So, what does this assigned reading—written by the man behind the curriculum of this requirement-fulfilling general education course—teach BYU students about LGBTQ+ identity? Here is the specific excerpt to which the exam question is apparently referring:
As we follow Heavenly Father's plan, our bodies, feelings, and desires will be perfected in the next life so that every one of God's children may find joy in a family consisting of a husband, a wife, and children. Michael Goodman, Voices of Hope, 2011
That’s right—the “correct” answer to the exam question above is that same-gender attraction is “a temporary condition that will be resolved in the next life.” This teaching that anything other than cisgender heterosexuality is an abnormal deviation that requires healing through the resurrection is the sort of rhetoric that contributes to suicidal ideation among faithful LGBTQ+ members. Furthermore, the very theology of this idea reveals profound queerphobia. The idea that heaven won’t truly be heaven unless all the queer folk have their sexuality rewritten through a program of celestial conversion therapy speaks to a deep disdain for queer identities. It suggests to LGBTQ+ members that God does not want them in the Celestial Kingdom, but wants some version of them that does not exist in this present reality. As Blaire Ostler has eloquently expressed it, the idea that queer identities will be erased and supplanted with cisgender heterosexual ones is to erase an entire group of people in an act of celestial genocide.
Of course, the idea Goodman is selling here is not one of his own creation. He is merely echoing the ideas that leaders in the LDS hierarchy have vocalized in official settings. Consider the following responses given by Elder Dallin H. Oaks (Quorum of the Twelve) and Elder Lance B. Wickman (First Quorum of the Seventy) in a 2006 interview with Church Public Affairs staff over topics relating to marriage equality:
ELDER WICKMAN: One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, “Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?” Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence. The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is this: 1) It is that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season. 2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me. Every blessing—including eternal marriage—is and will be mine in due course. ELDER OAKS: Let me just add a thought to that. There is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband, a wife, and posterity. Further, men are that they might have joy. In the eternal perspective, same-gender activity will only bring sorrow and grief and the loss of eternal opportunities. Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman 2006 Interview with Church Public Affairs
Queerphobic Perspectives on Psychology
Unfortunately, the thinking behind the exam question above reflects a pervasive sentiment in the LDS church and at BYU. This is not the only example of students being exposed to harmful, LGBTQ-phobic rhetoric as a part of their instruction. Recently, another student tweeted about a similar scenario, in which a quiz question in a BYU psychology course (LDS Perspectives on Psychology, PSYCH 353) also displayed blatant bias against the LGBTQ+ community:
I was able to find a 2017 syllabus for the course online, which reveals a great deal about the perspectives being taught in the course, as they relate to issues of gender and sexuality. Indeed, Unit 6 of the course is specifically on “Sexuality, Marriage, and Family.” Notably, among the required readings are articles by prominent LDS voices in the efforts to develop treatments to “cure” LGBTQ+ individuals of their nonconformity to the church’s standards of cisgendered heterosexuality:
- Byrd, A.D., & Olsen, S. (2001). Homosexuality: Innate and Immutable? Regent University Law Review, 14(2), 383-422.
- Hafen, B. C. (2009). Same-sex attraction. Address given to the 19th Annual Evergreen International Conference, 2009, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Albert Dean Byrd was former president of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), a research organization that has long advocated for conversion therapy to “cure homosexuals.” Byrd was also the Director of Clinical Training for LDS Social Services and a Clinical Professor at BYU. He published prolifically on the subject of therapeutically encouraging heterosexuality, including a book actually entitled, Encouraging Heterosexuality.
Elder Bruce C. Hafen is an emeritus general authority, who served for fourteen years in the First Quorum of the Seventy, and later as the president of the St. George Temple. He was also heavily involved in Evergreen International, which was affiliated with NARTH and shared a common vision in assisting people “to diminish same-sex attractions and overcome homosexual behavior.” Evergreen International was closely linked to the LDS church, with numerous general authorities serving on its board of directors, but eventually closed and merged with North Star in 2014. Importantly, in the 2009 address assigned as a required reading for this BYU psychology course, Elder Hafen instructed:
If you are faithful, on resurrection morning—and maybe even before then—you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex. Some of you may wonder if that doctrine is too good to be true. But Elder Dallin H. Oaks has said it MUST be true, because "there is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband and wife, and posterity.' And 'men (and women) are that they might have joy." Elder Bruce C. Hafen, First Quorum of the Seventy 2009 Address to Evergreen International
The instructor for the LDS Perspectives on Psychology course is Edwin Gantt, a signatory of the Radical Orthodoxy manifesto (as is Ty Mansfield) and regular contributor to Public Square Magazine, an outlet for largely conservative LDS thought. His contributions include diatribes on the perils of secularization, which he has used as a platform to question whether sexuality is an integral part of one’s identity:
Thus, it is not surprising to find so many members of the Church struggling to understand Church teachings and policies regarding sexual intimacy and marriage in the face of what has become taken-for-granted truth of our modern world: sexuality is identity. . . . Our sexuality, then, is not something that just happens to us, something over which we have no control and in the creation of which we play no participatory part. Nor is it merely the sort of “existential given” or “biological condition” in the face of which we must surrender ourselves through acceptance, accommodation, and embrace. . . . Sexual identity and sexual desire are neither pushed into, nor pulled out of us by powerful abstractions such as drives, needs, or sexual orientations. And, because this is so, our sexual identities and desires are no more central to our lives than any of the other morally meaningful and relational phenomena of which our lives are made. . . . It goes without saying that such a view of sexuality, one in which sexual desire is understood as innately and fundamentally active and morally agentic, has implications for a wide variety of human activities, including diagnoses and therapies, interpersonal relationships, marriages and families, and our larger conceptions of morality and the good life. Edwin Gantt, BYU Psychology Professor 14 January 2020, Public Square Magazine Emphasis my own.
In light of such comments, perhaps it is unsurprising that Gantt is fond of promoting the literature of the church’s champions of conversion therapy as required readings in his course on LDS Perspectives in Psychology. Gantt’s personal endorsement of these perspectives is abundantly clear in his course syllabus, where he later describes what he sees to be the value of the above assigned readings:
Elder Bruce Hafen and Dr. A. Dean Byrd both prod us to be a little more skeptical about what psychologists tell us is indubitably the case about sexual desires and relationships. The bulk of the research regarding the nature of homosexuality upon which many claims in the social sciences and the larger culture rest is not nearly as conclusive as it has been depicted, and is informed by many pre-investigatory philosophical assumptions that have not been fully explicated or evaluated. Elder Hafen also makes a clear distinction between experiencing same-sex attraction and engaging in inappropriate sexual behavior. NOTE: In the optional reading, Dr. Jeffrey Robinson emphasizes the role of moral agency in sexual attraction and sexual activity, particularly homosexual attraction. In fact, he argues that the term “drive” is a misnomer, representing as it does a problematic engineering metaphor that does not accurately reflect the role of moral agency in our thoughts and desires. Robinson further explains how sexual arousal is a physical sensation akin to thirst, and that arousal itself carries no interpretation until we give it one. Some aberrant interpretations may become habitual and very difficult to discard, but this does not mean that we do not have the capacity to explore new ways of interpreting sexual arousal. Robinson’s approach provides valuable insight into the issue of same-sex attraction, and how to assist those who struggle with this temptation. Edwin Gantt, BYU Psychology Professor PSYCH 353 Syllabus, Fall 2017 Emphasis my own.
A Pervasive, Systemic Problem
REL C 200 and PSYCH 353 are not the only classes where a student will encounter the promotion of queerphobic rhetoric as part of the course curriculum—these are just two examples of which I have been able to gather significant information. I highlight these because they demonstrate that such rhetoric is often a foundational component of the curricula at BYU, and that it is not limited to a singular department. Rather, the promotion of queerphobic messaging is a pervasive, systemic problem at BYU. This is likely a surprise to no one, as BYU is notorious for using its Honor Code to marginalize and discipline LGBTQ+ students. The issues over the Honor Code came to a head earlier this year, as LGBTQ+ students experienced whiplash over the silent removal of a clause from the Honor Code prohibiting displays of “homosexual behavior,” which was reinstituted two weeks later. This precipitated protests across multiple campuses, outside of the church’s headquarters in Salt Lake City, and even in New York City; but the furor over these changes was squelched by the spring shutdowns in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
An additional example from just this year is the publication of Saving Faith: How Families Protect, Sustain, and Encourage Faith, written by LDS apologist/polemicist, Egyptologist, and BYU religion professor, John Gee. This book was quickly pulled off shelves by BYU and Deseret Book after students complained over the following passage:
While ‘the vast majority of individuals who suffer childhood trauma do not become gay or bisexual’ it is still a viable hypothesis ‘that adverse childhood experiences may be a significant—but not determinative—factor in developing homosexual preferences. John Gee, BYU Religion Professor Saving Faith: How Families Protect, Sustain, and Encourage Faith
What makes Gee’s case remarkable is that BYU and Deseret Book were so quick to respond to backlash from the community by pulling the book from their shelves. This stands in contrast to the apparent apathy regarding the promotion of queerphobic rhetoric being taught as part of their core curricula across campus, or their uncompassionate policies that discriminate against LGBTQ+ student relationships.
A Culture of Toxicity and Hate
The effects produced by promoting rhetoric that marginalizes LGBTQ+ students as part of university curricula are not insignificant. Foremost, these teachings are harmful to the emotional and mental well-being of LGBTQ+ students and their loved ones. The experience of being taught by one’s university professor that their innate sexuality or gender identity is an aberration that must be cured—either through clinical therapy or through Christ’s resurrection—is devastating to one’s psychological well-being. Exam questions that reinforce these queerphobic messages represent an abusive power dynamic that marginalizes LGBTQ+ students. This is exacerbated by the effects of living under BYU’s discriminatory Honor Code, which treats LGBTQ+ relationships differently than cisgender heterosexual relationships. These all represent forms of abuse affecting LGBTQ+ students.
Additionally, the promotion of queerphobic rhetoric and university policies on campus creates a climate in which the abuse and marginalization of LGBTQ+ students is viewed as acceptable. This encourages conservative-minded students who already harbor queerphobic sentiment to act out in ways that further marginalize LGBTQ+ students on campus. Consider the behavior of a stridently conservative segment of students at BYU and BYU–Idaho in response to the LGBTQ+ student demonstrations precipitated by the whiplash caused by the changes to the Honor Code in the spring of 2020. Anti-LGBTQ+ students plastered campus with copies of the Family Proclamation and organized readings of the document over loudspeaker on campus, with the sole intent of antagonizing LGBTQ+ student demonstrators and their supporters. They created websites and Twitter accounts dedicated to the effort to root out so-called apostates at BYU—especially faculty—who promote liberal ideas, particularly about gender and sexuality. They organized counter demonstrations and tried to “smoke out” LGBTQ+ student demonstrators with their diesel trucks. To the LGBTQ+ students—who were simply petitioning for equal treatment to their cisgender heterosexual counterparts—these strident acts of opposition on the part of radically orthodox students at BYU only adds to the abuse and marginalization they experience on campus.
To close, I want to present one last screenshot of an exam question from the requirement-fulfilling, REL C 200 (The Eternal Family) course. The accepted answer to the question is “False.” However, I think you will find that to many LGBTQ+ students attending BYU, or other CES schools, their unceasing first-hand experience with pervasive and systemic marginalization at the hands of their fellow students, their professors, and through university policies, makes the answer to this question a soul-crushing “True.”
Oh my gosh! This is horrible!!