Thursday, February 27, 2020


BYU no longer prohibits Homosexual Behavior

BYU is my alma mater. Part of my experience at attending this private Church university was to live by the strict observance of the Honor Code. No beards, wearing Church issued modest gym attire and not being able to drink caffeine. Included in the Honor Code was the specific ban on homosexual behavior, including sexual relations and “all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings.”

However, this week that all changed.  In the update, all references to homosexual behavior has been removed. Many national news media outlets has reported that section was deleted from the Honor Code. BYU students who were confused at the changed called the Honor Code office and they said that staff  told them it meant they would no longer be disciplined for dating, holding hands with or kissing people of the same sex.

This week  a video recording was released where a BYU professor says school’s gay Honor Code change is 'a blessing

After watching the video myself, I sent the above link to family members who are currently serving in callings in the Church. I asked for them to share with me their thoughts. This was an email response I just received from one of them.

"Hmmmmm.... where are my thoughts?? For the first 3/4 of the video I have to admit, I was confused! Where is the clarification?? I was really trying to stay with him and it wasn't until he posted the one sentence bomb directly from the honor code office, "The honor code no longer prohibits that."
I use to think I was in the majority with my opinion (not that that matters) but i'm realizing that I'm slowly becoming the minority. What a helpless feeling! I'm so use to being a black and white person but now I feel I'm being asked or forced to live in the gray and what s most difficult and unsettling is this is just the tip of the iceberg!!! Soon there will be no limits, no boundaries anywhere with this issue"

After hearing about the Honor Code change, a current BYU student sent the following letter to the President of BYU, Kevin Worthen and Members of Brigham Young University administration.

Here is a copy of that letter. It is well written and worth the read.

February 22, 2020

Dear President Worthen, and members of Brigham Young University administration,

My original intent in this writing was to bring to the administration’s attention some teachings I fear, if left unchecked, would allow the adversary to lead BYU students and alumni “carefully down to hell,” as Nephi warned would happen in the last days. Man made 1 philosophies, both apparent and subtle, have woven themselves into the curriculum of many BYU courses. Not only are they contrary to gospel teachings, they cripple faith in Christ and teach acceptance of sin.2

On Wednesday February 19th, deletions concerning homosexual behavior were made to the honor code. As the student body reacted to these changes, I felt a more solemn responsibility devolving upon me. I have covenanted to be a witness of God at all times, in all things, and in all places. I feel it my duty as one who bears His priesthood to write as the Spirit directs.

Please know that a letter of this nature is not something I take lightly, and is the result of much prayer and fasting. Consequently, I do not write my own thoughts, but write according to the Spirit of God which is in me.

Christ invites us to repent and come unto Him as a little child. The idea of going back to go 3 forward is a profound one, especially in light of the fact that children know nothing. Not only do they know nothing, but they know that they know nothing. Conversely, Jacob warns, ...When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish. But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God. (2 Nephi 9:28-29)

There is eternally a spiritual danger associated with learning: pride. Mankind has an inclination towards it. It’s eternally a part of a pattern we call “the pride cycle.” As soon as we get a little of something, as we suppose, we immediately begin to set ourselves up. This 4 is the nature and disposition of almost all men. This is the great barrier that dictates why many are called, but few are chosen.

Due to this fact, we are eternally at risk of falling prey to this error. Even an angel with authority in God’s presence was cast down because of pride. We’re never fully safe from its 5 grasp, and historical patterns suggest that it is always our inevitable downfall.

Academic institutions worldwide are guilty of setting aside His counsels. They trample the God of Israel under their feet by setting Him at naught. We are guilty of doing the same 6 when we ignore His word, asking instead for things which we cannot understand.7

The Lord has been unequivocal in His declaration that marriage between a man and a woman is in the image of God. There are no exceptions. I’d think this matter clear enough, but am continually surprised by how many members (faculty and student alike) believe this doctrine to be changeable, man made, or even contrary to God’s true character.

One class in which I am currently enrolled, Sociality of Gender, starts day one on the basis that gender is sheerly a social construct. It leaves no room for legitimate biological differences, or makes any attempt to support or understand the assertion laid out in The Family: A Proclamation to the Word, that gender is an essential characteristic and part of one’s eternal identity. While I understand the value in considering opposing viewpoints, no effort in this class is made to consider more than one. The required text, entitled Questioning Gender, reads in one passage the following:

“As sociologists who understand the importance of social construction, in this textbook we’ll assume a strong social constructionist perspective. This means that most of the time we’ll talk about gender rather than sex categorires, assuming that both are socially constructed. We’ll talk about women and men rather than females and males. ... “Most theorists who argue from the strong social constructionist point of view would say that , yes, of course we have physical bodies. The problem is that our categories--male and female--don’t accurately describe the reality of those physical bodies. In fact, many would argue that the diversity in our physical bodies is greater than our categories would lead us to believe. They might go so far as to argue that our belief in how bodies should be gets in the way of our perceiving the way bodies actually are. Because we believe that everyone should have a penis or vagina, we tend to ignore the repeated cases of people who have both. Because we believe that one’s biological sex category should match up with the gender one expresses, we stigmatize transgender people, who violate these norms.”9

Later in the book, another paragraph reads,

“We began this chapter with one vision of what sexuality might look like in a world without gender. John Stoltenberg’s (2006) vision of having sex without having a sex is also a world where solidity of the links between sexuality and gender becomes a little more fluid. A queer theory approach gives us another vision of what sexuality unhooked from sex category and gender might look like. Kate Bornstein (1994) is a transwoman, and in her book Gender Outlaw, she suggested what desire might look like uncoupled from these other categories. Instead of basing our sexual choices on the particualr genitalia someone does or does not posses, which is assumed under the categories of homosexual and heterosexual, what if we chose based on the particular type of sexual activity we prefer? Bornstein proposed a set of colored bracelets that could be worn to indicate the type of sexual activity preferred by individuals as well as their preferred position of dominance or passivity. An orange bracelet would indicate “anything goes,” while a light blue bracelet would indicate a preference for oral sex.” Surely the kinds of things one likes to do sexually are an important component of sexual compatibility, perhaps as important as if not more important that someone’s sex category or gender. Someone’s sex category or gender doesn’t necessarily tell us anything about what they do or don’t like to do sexually.” 

To put it mildly, it takes a good deal of study to acquire some forms of ignorance. Such ignorance is what fills the minds of the students enrolled in these courses at BYU. In other courses I’ve taken, like Anthropology, professors champion a postmodern reality, denying objective reasoning while embracing the idea that our reality is socially constructed. These teachers “teach with their learning, and deny the Holy Ghost.” As degrees multiply, so too 10 does spiritual ignorance.

Unfortunately, the effect that these teachings have on students is equally disheartening. Following are just a few posts made by students in an online discussion assignment:

“This week it was interesting to think about the fact that everything we grow up thinking and believing about our own gender is completely structured by the society we live in. What we as a culture choose to accept as being good or bad or right or wrong is then put into place. I found it so interesting that some of the rituals done in other cultures to create masculinity were exactly the things other cultures found tolessen their masculinity. It’s all about perspective and tradition and how we 11 choose to look at things. This is why it’s important to take a class like this so that we can broaden our horizons and understand there’s more than one answer.” 
“Chapter five reading was honestly super interesting to me, especially the one section that gives the heteronormativity questions. I’ve never thought about or asked myself the why behind my sexual orientation. Maybe it's because of the church’s beliefs or the way I’ve grown up or both combined. It was also interesting to think about how heterosexual activity has never been questioned before, it’s always been accepted as the norm. The book referenced near the beginning of the chapter also seems like an interesting point of view to have about sexual orientation and sexual actions. If we were to break down categories and live in a world without these preconceived notions I think there would be less judgment about sexual orientation.” 
“I really loved reading about those things too. You do start to wonder how heterosexual relationships just became ‘the norm’. I think the way the world is going we are starting to recognise that there isn't just one norm.” 
It saddens me to think that this is what BYU has become. We have gone from defending the truths revealed in scripture, to tolerating sin, to living in fear of speaking truth, to teaching these things ourselves. This brings me to the recent revisions made to the honor code.

As you know, the previous honor code stated explicitly that “[h]omosexual behavior is inappropriate and violates the Honor Code. Homosexual behavior includes not only sexual relations between members of the same sex, but all forms of phsycial intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings.”

Last week, this was removed. Whether the percpetion was intentional or not, every media news outlet (including Deseret News) reported on BYU’s decision to permit same sex dating. The world rejoiced.

Granted it may have been a decision that BYU’s administration was wrestling with privately for a very long time, the only way an honor code revision of this nature could be made is by setting aside the Lord’s counsel. The result has been an influx of homosexual behavior on campus. If these effects were unintentional, failure to unequivocally clarify such will have the same effect as if they were not. Such a clarification would result in disapproval from every media outlet presently commending our “step in the right direction.”

If the effects of these changes were intentional, and the Church Education System and Board of Trustees anticipated and planned to welcome homosexual behavior on campus, then the God of Israel has been set at naught, period. Even if we don’t allow homosexual relations, our tents have been pitched towards Sodom. Along our trajectory, there will be 12 a steady decline in the morality of students attending BYU. We will begin to look more and more like any other secular university, and less and less like the light of the world, or the salt of the earth. And when salt loses its savor, it’s “thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and trodden under foot of men.”13

"Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord. And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord; First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord." (D&C 112:24-26)

The Lord of the Vineyard will prune the branches that bring forth wild fruit. If BYU continues to allow these teachings and this behavior to infiltrate its grounds, its people and all those whom it affects will become ripe in iniquity. Then will that which Samuel prophesied be likened unto us:

[And the author quotes:  Helaman 13:5-8, 13-17, 24-29, 30-33]

The strength of Jehovah is found in those who make His arm theirs. If we fail to trust Him and lean to our own understanding, we will be left to our own devices when these things come. The arm of flesh cannot turn the Missouri river out of its course.14

It is not too late to avoid these calamites, but I testify by the same Spirit of revelation by which these prophecies were given that these things will surely come to pass if we don’t repent. I pray that the Lord’s anger be turned away from us, and that we would repent and be saved. I know I am nothing, but I know of these things myself; my words will be vindicated by God because I speak the truth according to the Spirit of God, the scriptures, and all the holy prophets.

With much love,

Cameron Mayer

1 2 Nephi 28:21
2 As opposed to teaching “an everlasting hatred against sin and iniquity.” Alma 37:32
3 3 Nephi 9:22
4 D&C 121:39
5 D&C 76:25
6 1 Nephi 19:7
7 Jacob 4:14
8 For the record, research suggests that the “repeated cases” the author references accounts for between .05% and 1.7% of the population, depending on the study and the measure
9 Question Gender, Robyn R. Ryle
10 2 Nephi 28:4
11 Per the textbook, the initiation rituals this student is referencing deal with boys of age performing oral sex on older men in order to initiate them in to masculinity.
12 Genesis 13:12
13 Matthew 5:13; 3 Nephi 12:13, 3 Nephi 16:10-15
14 2 Nephi 4:34, D&C 121:33. No man can prevent God’s justice, whether that be to blessing or to cursing



Good thing BYU still does not allow facial hair. That has NOT been removed from the Honor Code. HEAVEN FORBID that we look anything like the man who the University is named after.


PNW_DPer said...

Reminds me of a saying; "Another episode of an empire in its final stages of ruin and decay", and Sir John Glubb's writings on the life of empires. The US is nearing the end of Glubb's 200 to 240 year life cycle of a typical empire.

It seems that when even the most conservative holdouts start falling into the cultural abyss, to include even "...polluting the Holy Church of God" as described in Mormon 8:38, the end of something must be very near.

Mormon in Mormon 3 describes the specific iniquity that caused the Nephites to be swept off the face of the land as waging aggressive war against their enemies beyond justified self-defense, with the final destruction occurring about 20 or so years after the initial aggression. The US has been waging aggressive war against enemies that pose no threat to our homeland since at least 2003 - see Rock Waterman's "Pure Mormonism and War" series for more details.

My own opinion is that war is the father or incubator of much or most of the cultural degradation and collapse of society, including our own, going back to WW2 and the cultural revolution that started in the '50's and noticeably worsened from the '60's until today.

Anonymous said...

So two guys can kiss each other on campus if they are clean shaven, but if two guys on campus are kissing who have beards, this would draw the line and they would be reported for their beards. I guess some lines aren’t meant to be crossed.

Anonymous said...

The letter you attached is excellent and gets right to the (correct) point - that BYU and by extension, church leaders, have set aside the commandments of God. Heck, I don't consider myself to be all that faithful and I can see what is going on.

I'm sure the letter writer will likely soon face a, what do they call them now, "membership council"? I mean, you can't question the brethern without being called out for apostasy these days.

Personally, I see this move by BYU (and the church) as a pivot point. How much further do you have to go then to say that homosexual marriage is OK, and by extension, homosexual sealings in a temple? Not much further at all.

Keep up the good work. I appreciate your posts.

Anonymous said...

I remember hearing in a talk called Preserving the Restoration given in 2014 in Arizona, that there were changes under way or that would be under way soon, that would jar members more and more. I wonder if he was onto something...

OpenMind said...

I feel bad for Cameron. A 4 year university education and yet basic reading comprehension eludes him. Someone should let him know BYU isn't forcing him to hold hands, kiss, or marry another dude and that nothing about his freedom of choice is being affected. Though I can appreciate how scared he must be thinking he is going to be forced to show affection to someone of the sex he is not attracted too by the almighty church leadership. Must be a horrible thing that. I wonder if feeling that unease would maybe give him some compassion and understanding for the lack of freedom and unrighteous dominion shown to homosexual people by the lds church for years. Probably not though, he is far too righteous for that.

Too bad BYU can't just murder the people that don't fall in line with them like brigham young did. For their own salvation of course. Brigham would be disappointed in what the university named after him is doing. They don't even have harems for the dudes to kick it in! What a disgrace to BY name.

Anonymous said...

Satan has led the church since Joseph and Hyrum were removed in 1844. The Lord has tolerated considerable departures by membership and leaderships, about as much as He tolerated Israel before destroying and scattering them. Like all mankind, He has given each member a certain length of rope to hang ourselves or to make for a useful and productive existence. His love transcends the inherent weaknesses of mankind and His arms are always outstretched for each of us, but He must be near His limit with us by now.

This post and the comments illustrate Satan's methods in 'tying the noose'; he is patient and subtle. It is time for the general membership of the church to wake up and learn to see the church as it actually exists. It is not that 'all is NOT well in Zion', but that Zion truly does not exist currently.

Rob said...

I’m sorry, I’m not sure you read or understood his letter. I can’t find anywhere where Cameron asserts that he is being forced to exhibit homosexual behavior— as you seem to assert before tongue in cheek jokes about self righteousness.

I think, I’m your haste to attack Cameron, you missed his point entirely. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) holds itself as the only authority on the full truth with 15 prophets seers and revelators at its head. Those same LDS leaders sit on the board of trustees at BYU and are involved in not only the BYU honor code changes, but also LDS church handbook changes in general.

These same men (or at least, the majority with the prophet included) signed a proclamation to the world about the nature of the family, gender, and even gender roles. The proclamation asserts that “ Disintegration of the family [as defined in the proclamation] will bring "calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."”

The irony of this honor code change is that it openly defies the same principles taught in the proclamation. Cameron is only highlighting the irony of the LDS church accepting behavior clearly against the proclamation.

One could reasonably assume (and have already) that this is a preparatory move to allow same sex couples to be married, and continue to be in full fellowship of the church. At the very least, the show of physical affection with one you are courting or dating is a preparatory move to determining if you are physically and sexually compatible. By allowing this type of behavior, it could be perceived as a stepping stone to allowing sexual activity.

In their own proclamation, it states that these changes will bring upon the world calamity. IF you believe in the LDS church’s claims to authority, then you must either believe that calamity is eminent, or the previous prophets seers and revelators who signed the proclamation were just wrong. Cameron is appealing to the believer to highlight this discrepancy.

As another ironic aside— if sex, gender and their roles are clearly defined and foundational principles of religion, behavior inconsistent with those truths were cast aside from the honor code before bearded men, coffee drinkers, bare shoulders on women and extreme hair.

Cameron was right to point out the fallacy of both holding up the proclamation as true doctrine, and allowing homosexual affection to take place.

OpenMind said...


I was not attacking Cameron so much as defending all of the people he was ignorantly attacking indirectly and apparently because they are barely human in his eyes and not worth direct involvement. Thus the letter to the lds hierarchy which is a clinic in precisely how to take the name of the Lord in vain. A person even remotely capable of living the first great commandment and the second which is like unto it could not have written a judgement, hate, and hubris filled letter like we find here. It was shocking to read.

If one wants to pick apart lds issues, this is a strangely insignificant one to choose. Brigham young was a murderous traitor with a literal harem of women for his use and abuse. Current lds leadership going back and forth and contradicting themselves about the proclamation to the world is small potatoes compared to the secret combination used by brigham young to start this whole condemned disgrace.

I read and understood the spirit of that letter all too well. I'm well acquainted with darkness.