Elusive Reasoning among Expansive Latter-day Saints
Ralph Hancock
Of all the diverse responses to Elder Holland’s speech in BYU’s August 23th opening conference main event, none is more illuminating than the recent Faith Matters interview with Patrick Mason and Tom Christofferson, entitled “Elusive Unity at BYU.” The term “elusive” indeed applies, as a close examination of the podcast will show.
Elder Holland’s speech, in which the apostle reminds BYU faculty and administrators of their duties as Latter-day Saints mentoring Latter-day Saints and more generally representing the Church and its doctrines, has become a very prominent flashpoint of controversy, a controversy focused mostly on Holland’s comments concerning that status of homosexuality in Church doctrine and on the BYU campus. All parties to the Faith Matters discussion strive to hear Elder Holland’s remarks charitably, recognizing the difficulty and complexity of the situation he was addressing. The interviewers Aubrey and Tim Chaves approach the topic, which, as they avow, feels “particularly polarizing and raw,” with some trepidation, begging their audience’s “grace … as we navigate this tricky territory.” They do not fail to challenge their guests with serious questions, and the guests respond in mild and measured tones with genuine efforts to address them. Thus, this interview provides an excellent case study of intellectual challenges – and challenges to intellectuals – that arise from the growing tension between Church teachings, especially as concerns sexuality and the family, and certain notions and sensibilities that hold sway among so many of those who wish to be thoughtful as well as faithful. The producers of the Faith Matters podcast have provided an essential service to those of us striving to understand this tension; they have opened a window onto the minds and souls of faithful Latter-day Saint intellectuals and their followers who are struggling to reconcile their faith with their best understanding of the nature of our modern society and of its ethical demands.
Just what did Elder Holland say to the BYU community gathered in the Marriott Center last month? Addressing a concern that “some faculty are not supportive of the church’s doctrines and policies and choose to criticize them publicly,” Holland reminds the BYU community of the university’s distinctive mission. While welcoming “healthy debate,” he makes it clear that it is imperative to “stay in harmony with the Lord’s anointed, those whom he has designated to declare church doctrine and to guide Brigham Young University as its trustees.” Citing Elder Oaks citing Elder Maxwell, he asks BYU scholars to “handle, as it were, both trowels and muskets,” that is, to assume responsibility both for building the temple of learning and for defending the kingdom. And he singles out as a special concern the university’s duty to defend “the doctrine of the family … and … marriage as the union of a man and a woman,” particularly with respect to “the whole same-sex topic on campus.” He strongly counsels “love and empathy” for those who experience “this same-sex challenge,” but insists that “we have to be careful that love and empathy do not get interpreted as condoning and advocacy, or that orthodoxy and loyalty to principle not be interpreted as unkindness or disloyalty to people.” To maintain this distinction between love and advocacy, he counsels, will require that BYU more fully embrace its “unique” mission as so memorably expressed by President Kimball in his Second Century Address of 1975 to the BYU community.
Faith Matters takes it as a given that Elder Holland’s speech was “troubling” to many, including, it is implied, to most of its audience. It is the turmoil occasioned by the speech that Faith Matters hopes to calm by sharing the perspective of “expansive thinkers” Brothers Patrick Mason and Tom Christopherson. These invited guests and pillars of the Faith Matters project began by expressing love and respect for Elder Holland and appreciation for the loving service he has provided, including individual attention to Latter-day Saints experiencing same-sex attraction. Patrick Mason also had very kind words for BYU, for his personal experience there, for the university’s distinctive mission and for its important role in higher education in the United States. Then, having accorded all credit to Elder Holland for his good will and diligent service, Faith Matters turned to the main business of the day: the challenge of processing troubling features of the apostle’s speech.
All four interlocutors agree that there was something harmful, even abusive in Elder Holland’s remarks, despite the acknowledged admixture of love and the unquestioned good intentions. In a word, he tried to help but he hurt.#Elder Holland hurt people because, by giving some satisfaction to parents of BYU students concerned about heterodoxy on campus he raised the specter of an atmosphere at BYU hostile to those who identify as part of “the LGBTQ community,” to “the reality of their lives.” Elder Holland hurt people because, by criticizing a student’s coming-out in a graduation ceremony, he discriminated against the minority and in favor of the majority who are free to celebrate their traditional marriages and families. He hurt people because he spoke of same-sex attraction as a “challenge,” while it should be seen simply as a real, authentic experience, one that is deeply interwoven with a person’s sense of self, and indeed an essential quality of some members’ eternal identity. As Patrick Mason averred, in the most bracing and lucid moment of the interview, there is now “real, serious, unsustainable” conflict in the Church between the doctrine of the Church and the “real experiences” of LGBTQ members. (My emphasis.) This view of the status of homosexual orientation as a fundamental, essential experience that must not be questioned, the very ground of moral reasoning and spiritual concern, goes to the heart of the difference between Elder Holland’s counsel and the hurt experienced by those represented at Faith Matters. Elder Holland, on the other hand, sees same-sex attraction as a “challenge,” an orientation experienced by a person, no doubt very often at a very deep level, for reasons we cannot explain, but one that necessarily presents an obstacle to a Latter-day Saint’s efforts to participate in the plan of salvation as it has been revealed. This plan as understood in Church doctrine is as “heteronormative” as a plan can be, grounded in a belief in heavenly parents, male and female, and an eternal destiny to be like them.
The Faith Matters stance towards this Plan appears to be, shall we say, complicated. Tom Christofferson, for example, expresses support for obeying rules of chastity (there is “no exception from commandments”), but he resists any logic that would tie these rules to a male/female understanding of the purpose of life. The commandment prohibiting sex outside a heterosexual marriage must be accepted, but apparently only as a kind of unintelligible brute fact, detached from any shared and enduring vision of meaning and purpose. The regulation of conduct, while accepted for now, must not be understood in a way that accords any cosmic privilege to heterosexuality over homosexuality. For Christofferson and his interlocutors, it is best to limit the gospel to “following Christ,” and to let go of any notions tying present, traditional ideas of the family to some eternal design. (In what follows I will not always attribute points to individuals among the four participants, two interviewers and two honored guests.  There were no disagreements expressed among the four – all clearly felt themselves to be on the same “side” of the main question at hand.  The interviewers, especially Ashley Chaves, deserve credit for raising some good questions, and at least one fundamental question, as we will see.  But they were more than happy to accept their guests’ answers without much follow-up and with no apparent residual difference of viewpoint.  In the end the podcast conveyed a sense of satisfaction shared by all thoughtful Latter-day Saints that the Christofferson and Mason had shown a way forward, a way around the troubling implications of Elder Holland’s speech.) When Ashley Chaves ventures to point to the elephant in the room, noting that there is more doctrine in the Church – including a certain teaching distilled in the Family Proclamation -- than the idea of following Christ as Christofferson understands it, the consensus that emerged was very clearly that the Proclamation was, to say the least, dispensable. Ours is the Church of Jesus Christ, not of The Family. You don’t need a PhD in history to note that the Church’s teaching on the family has changed since the 19th century. (Much laughter here.) The only family that really matters eternally is the whole human family, the “body of Christ,” which includes appreciation for the diversity of all its members, and especially for those who are now considered “least honorable.” Love (understood as unqualified acceptance) for the universe of humanity, understood as the totality individuals each defining his or her (or whatever pronouns may apply) own identity, is the pure essence of the gospel, the truth that remains once traditional prejudices in favor of a certain family structure are eliminated.
Ashely Chaves expressed a concern that Elder Holland’s speech felt like a warning to stop open discussion in the name of unity. She speaks on behalf of a member who wants to be unified with the prophet, but also wants to leave ream for “healthy disagreement.” But Patrick Mason notes that the conflict in the church at present is real, serious, and “unsustainable.” This is because the apostolic teaching on sexuality is at odds with the “real experiences” of “LGBTQ” members. Clearly, for these thoughtful Latter-day Saints at Faith Matters, we should be open to “healthy disagreement” regarding Church doctrine, but certain “real experiences” are beyond questioning and exempt from interpretation.
How should faithful Latter-day Saints regard the Faith Matters position? Faith Matters does well to counsel love and patience in the midst of uncertainty and disagreement. But it is clear that it has a definite perspective on this disagreement and how it must eventually be resolved. Faith Matters has unquestioned faith in certain ideas or principles, and this faith shapes its response to Elder Holland’s unintentionally offensive or abusive speech. We have already noted the bedrock of this faith: the idea of the absolute authority of the self as it experiences and understands itself. There is no appeal beyond the identity experienced or asserted by the individual, what is held up as the “real experience” of members who experience sexual inclinations or orientations not in line with the man/woman idea of marriage must not be questioned in any way.
In the Faith Matters interview, a number of other arguments are cited in support of the authority of the self’s identity and experience. One is the argument that the inclusiveness of the gospel requires that doctrinal boundaries be widened so as to appeal to the maximum number of people. The body of Christ must include a boundless “diversity of members” unlimited by any doctrine except that of “love” understood as “compassion.” We are really trying to “broaden the circles” of our culture and community, Faith Matters explains, in order to help them become as expansive and inclusive as they can be—both for those who already feel “super comfortable” at Church, and for those who are “trying to find a place to fit in.” The circle must be broadened, and teachings redefined, so that all may feel “super comfortable.”
On this view, we have no competence to judge between wheat and tares; all judgment as to moral compatibility with Church unity must be left to Christ at the end of times. It is wrong, on this view, for members to express confidence in moral distinctions supported by revelation. In response to Elder Holland’s acknowledgment that BYU’s upholding of the Church’s moral teaching might prove costly in terms of certain “professional certifications,” Faith Matters holds that BYU must not sacrifice its prospects for a broader reach into the academic mainstream by clinging to narrower Church teachings concerning marriage and sexuality.
In support of this position grounded in the real experience of the self and in inclusiveness unlimited by doctrine, Patrick Mason in the Faith Matters interview also puts a great emphasis on the authority of “science.” Mason’s long digression on the marvels of the scientific method as the tried and true way to Truth is remarkable in its simplicity and conviction. What is not clear is just how the basic moral premise defended by Faith Matters, the sanctity of the self and the “experience” it claims, is supposed to be supported by “science.” Modern science, after all, is supposed to be based on a clear dichotomy between “facts” (the domain of science), and “values,” which are left with no rational status. Does Mason believe that “science” can by itself provide an adequate answer to the question of the ultimate purpose of life, and thus of the place of our powers of procreation in relation to that ultimate purpose? It seems more likely that Mason’s understanding of the method of the natural sciences as the complete model of rigorous reason simply accepts without question the authority of the modern, self-affirming self, and assumes that “science” will work towards the dissolution of more traditional understandings of morality.
As we have seen, the Faith Matters position in favor of the absolute experience of the self, borderless inclusiveness, and reason as critical scientific method (from which only the Self is exempt) is reconciled with the Gospel by means of a reduction of Restoration Christianity to an idea of “love” purified of all commandment or purpose that might contradict the experience of the self. Faith in the self as the ultimate ground of truth and meaning, in boundless inclusiveness, and in the “scientific method” as the essence of critical thinking thus define the Faith Matters approach to moral questions in the contemporary Church. And to these we must add the essential role played in the Faith Matters worldview by the idea of continuing revelation: if we can only be patient, understanding the present limitations of many members of leaders, then we can hope for new revelation which will align official church teaching with the faith of Faith Matters.
Given these commitments, it is not surprising that Elder Holland’s speech was experienced as harmful or abusive. The whole question between Elder Holland and his patient advisors at Faith Matters concerns the distinction between loving and condoning, that is, between seeing sexual orientations that diverge from the revealed norm as “challenges” and see them as expressions of eternally valid and uncriticizable identity. And it should be noted here that Elder Holland’s distinction between loving persons and condoning proscribed behaviors or unorthodox teachings is hardly new. It is evidence of the confusion wrought be the “complex” reasoning of intellectuals considered “expansive,” their distaste for the simple categories of either/or, that they were somehow surprised and disappointed that the apostle should insist upon the difference between loving a person and agreeing with a person’s opinion on a moral question. Elder Oaks’ classic general conference address (October 2009), Love and Law, is a notable example. But Elder Holland himself has long been very clear on the question, as in his remarkable “The Cost and Blessings of Discipleship” (April 2014 General Conference):
At the zenith of His mortal ministry, Jesus said, “Love one another, as I have loved you.”16 To make certain they understood exactly what kind of love that was, He said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments”17 and “whosoever … shall break one of [the] least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be … the least in the kingdom of heaven.”18 Christlike love is the greatest need we have on this planet in part because righteousness was always supposed to accompany it. So if love is to be our watchword, as it must be, then by the word of Him who is love personified, we must forsake transgression and any hint of advocacy for it in others. Jesus clearly understood what many in our modern culture seem to forget: that there is a crucial difference between the commandment to forgive sin (which He had an infinite capacity to do) and the warning against condoning it (which He never ever did even once). (my emphasis)
It is hard to understand how any thoughtful Latter-day Saints attentive to General Conference teaching could be surprised to hear once again from the apostle’s mouth the clear distinction between loving a person and condoning that person’s immoral behavior or erroneous opinions about morality. Elder Holland, it must be recognized, remains quite attached to what certain thoughtful members regard as simplistic either/or thinking.
I believe Patrick Mason is correct when he judges the present conflict between Church teaching and the “lived experience” of “LGBTQ” members and their advocates to be “unsustainable.” On the one hand, Elder Holland and Church teaching in general teaches that we must love those who “struggle” with orientations that do not align with the plan of salvation but must not “condone” sexual behaviors or understandings of the deepest meaning of sexuality that spring, not at all from the Gospel, but from the modern idea of the self-affirming self as the touchstone of morality. On the other hand, Faith Matters embraces the view, increasingly dominant in contemporary society, that individuals should proudly embrace orientations or self-definitions not consistent with the plan of salvation. As Patrick Mason at least, among the Faith Matters voices, seems at bottom to understand, we really are confronted with an “either/or” question of morality and religion.
The Faith of Faith Matters is not compatible with Elder Holland’s faith. A close examination of the Faith Matters position makes it clear that we will have to choose between its faith and Elder Holland’s. The talk of “complexity,” the rejection of “either/or thinking,” the rather empty rhetoric of “building bridges,” provides a rather thin veil for the hope that Church will sooner or later abandon Elder Holland’s faith for one that puts no boundaries on “inclusiveness” towards the demands of the modern self.
The rhetoric of building bridges of “complexity” and thus somehow overcoming “either/or thinking” is simply a way of averting our eyes from an unsustainable tension. It is time to recognize that Faith Matters (at least as represented in this interview) is committed to a faith quite different from Elder Holland’s. And this faith in the absolute priority of the claimed “experience” of the self is certainly widely held among Latter-day Saints who consider themselves thoughtful or, to use Faith Matter’s term, “expansive,” in the sense of open to the modern morality that is now increasingly dominant in Western societies, at least among the most prominent and powerful voices and institutions.
Returning to Elder Holland’s focus on the mission of BYU, it seems quite probable that the Faith Matters version of the faith holds sway among many professors and students at BYU. We will all have to decide whether our loyalty is to this version or to the doctrine as understood by Elder Holland and the Church for which he speaks. No doubt there is much complexity to explore in issues surrounding sexuality and the gospel, and many bridges to build, but in the end Patrick Mason is right that the present tension between the final authority of personal experience and the moral doctrine at the core of the Plan of Salvation is unsustainable. This is an either/or that will have to be faced at BYU, and in the Church more widely.
  This article originally appeared at Public Square Magazine
About the author
Ralph C. Hancock
Ralph Hancock is Professor of Political Science at Brigham Young University, where he teaches political philosophy. He is the author of Calvin and the Foundations of Modern Politics (Saint Augustine’s Press, 2011) as well as The Responsibility of Reason: Theory and Practice in a Liberal-Democratic Age (Rowman & Littlefield, 2011), and the editor of several volumes. He has also translated numerous books and articles from the French, including Pierre Manent’s Natural Law and Human Rights, and has published many articles on the intersection of faith, reason and politics. Dr. Hancock is also co-founder of Fathom the Good Curriculum.
