The Maxwell Institute and the Honor Code

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Very true.

The unwritten order of things can also be called "cultural expectations". Nothing wrong with it as long as the limitations are recognized and not passed off as God's law.

What if it is God's law (or commandment)?

Are you saying God's commandments will always be written down, never just conveyed verbally?

 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Straw man. I don't think anyone here has said that.

Be that as it may be, someone said something indicating grooming standards are based on generalized principles of modesty and we have been talking about beards here.

I'm fine with the idea that wearing a beard is not immodest, but some people seem to think they are, and to anyone who thinks that, I ask why?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, Ahab said:

Be that as it may be, someone said something indicating grooming standards are based on generalized principles of modesty and we have been talking about beards here.

I'm fine with the idea that wearing a beard is not immodest, but some people seem to think they are, and to anyone who thinks that, I ask why?

 

We've been talking about both, modesty and grooming standards. They are fundamentally different in character, as President Oaks pointed out in the speech I linked to last night.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is actually a good argument against having specific dress and groom standards.  Currently our church's dress and grooming standards are very compelling for members and leave very little room for people to seek their own direction from God on the matter or to formulate their own plans that would address modesty issues.

Do you likewise think that clear standards should be removed for the Law of Chastity?  The Word of Wisdom?

The Church gives members of the Church relatively minimal guidelines on clothing.  But surely there must be some guidelines.

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not saying that the church is doing anything wrong with setting the standards that it does, I just don't see these scripture examples as being supportive of that like you do.

I'm glad we can have an amicable disagreement about such things.

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree.  The way that the church currently handles the dress and grooming of members does not really allow people to apply these principles in their own lives.

I think it does.  Consider the entry on "Modesty" in the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet:

Quote

Your body is sacred. Respect it and do not defile it in any way. Through your dress and appearance, you can show that you know how precious your body is. You can show that you are a disciple of Jesus Christ and that you love Him.

Prophets of God have continually counseled His children to dress modestly. When you are well groomed and modestly dressed, you invite the companionship of the Spirit and you can be a good influence on others. Your dress and grooming influence the way you and others act.

Never lower your standards of dress. Do not use a special occasion as an excuse to be immodest. When you dress immodestly, you send a message that is contrary to your identity as a son or daughter of God. You also send the message that you are using your body to get attention and approval.

Immodest clothing is any clothing that is tight, sheer, or revealing in any other manner. Young women should avoid short shorts and short skirts, shirts that do not cover the stomach, and clothing that does not cover the shoulders or is low-cut in the front or the back. Young men should also maintain modesty in their appearance. Young men and young women should be neat and clean and avoid being extreme or inappropriately casual in clothing, hairstyle, and behavior. They should choose appropriately modest apparel when participating in sports. The fashions of the world will change, but the Lord’s standards will not change.

Do not disfigure yourself with tattoos or body piercings. Young women, if you desire to have your ears pierced, wear only one pair of earrings.

Show respect for the Lord and yourself by dressing appropriately for Church meetings and activities. This is especially important when attending sacrament services. Young men should dress with dignity when officiating in the ordinance of the sacrament.

If you are not sure what is appropriate to wear, study the words of the prophets, pray for guidance, and ask your parents or leaders for help. Your dress and appearance now will help you prepare for the time when you will go to the temple to make sacred covenants with God. Ask yourself, “Would I feel comfortable with my appearance if I were in the Lord’s presence?”

That's 7 paragraphs.  20 sentences.  380 words.

To me, this guidance seems very much in line with Joseph Smith's statement to "teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves."

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And the 'generalized principles of modesty' are based on our leaders' opinions.

Well, no.  There are plenty of scriptures about "modesty" and the sanctity of the body.

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, but we can't explain why sleeveless shirts are immodest.  

But we can explain that there are clothing options that are more modest.  The "less modest" v. "more modest" paradigm works much better than the "modest v. immodest" paradigm.

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We can't explain why wearing a sleeveless shirt is spiritually harmful to us, for example. That's what I was speaking of.  

We also can't explain why driving 27 miles per hour is more risky than driving 25.

We could do this all day long.  I concede that dress and grooming standards have an element of arbitrariness to them.  But the alternative is what?  No standards at all?  

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We've tried explaining it in the past and we've gotten things like 'girls need to dress modestly for boys so they don't cause them to sin,' which has been really detrimental to both boys and girls in the church and created secondary problems (like college age boys who think it's appropriate to go up to girls at church schools and castigate them for not dressing modestly enough even though they are not actually dressed immodestly).

There is obviously such things as immodest clothing, or sexually provocative clothing.  I think the leaders of the Church want to discourage that.

The Church's article on Modesty is pretty good:

Quote

Modesty is an attitude of propriety and decency in dress, grooming, language, and behavior. If we are modest, we do not draw undue attention to ourselves. Instead, we seek to “glorify God in [our] body, and in [our] spirit” (1 Corinthians 6:20; see also 1 Corinthians 6:19).

Dress and Grooming

If we are unsure about whether our dress or grooming is modest, we should ask ourselves, “Would I feel comfortable with my appearance if I were in the Lord’s presence?” We might ask ourselves a similar question about our language and behavior: “Would I say these words or participate in these activities if the Lord were present?” Our honest answers to these questions may lead us to make important changes in our lives. Prophets have always counseled us to dress modestly. This counsel is founded on the truth that the human body is God’s sacred creation. We must respect our bodies as a gift from God. Through our dress and appearance, we can show the Lord that we know how precious our bodies are.

Our clothing expresses who we are. It sends messages about us, and it influences the way we and others act. When we are well groomed and modestly dressed, we can invite the companionship of the Spirit and exercise a good influence on those around us.

Central to the command to be modest is an understanding of the sacred power of procreation, the ability to bring children into the world. This power is to be used only between husband and wife. Revealing and sexually suggestive clothing, which includes short shorts and skirts, tight clothing, and shirts that do not cover the stomach, can stimulate desires and actions that violate the Lord’s law of chastity.

In addition to avoiding clothing that is revealing, we should avoid extremes in clothing, appearance, and hairstyle. In dress, grooming, and manners, we should always be neat and clean, never sloppy or inappropriately casual. We should not disfigure ourselves with tattoos or body piercings. Women who desire to have their ears pierced should wear only one pair of modest earrings.

And some scriptural references:

Quote

SCRIPTURE REFERENCES

• Matthew 6:22
• 1 Corinthians 6:19–20
• 1 Timothy 2:9
• Alma 5:53
• D&C 42:40–41
• D&C 121:45
• Articles of Faith 1:13

SCRIPTURE STUDY RESOURCES

• Topical Guide, “Chastity, Chaste”
• Topical Guide, “Modesty”
• Topical Guide, “Purity, Pure”
• Topical Guide, “Virtue, Virtuous”
• Guide to the Scriptures, “Body”
• Guide to the Scriptures, “Modesty”

And counsel from Church leaders.

And the Church's published "Learning Resources" and "Teaching Resources."

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You're right, it will always exist to some extent.  It is the extent that it currently seems to exist that I don't think is good.

Okay.  I don't really understand your position.  On the one hand, you are calling for less oversight from the Church ("teach them correct principles" and such), but then you keep referencing very specific types of clothing and questioning why they are considered inappropriate by some members of the Church.  Should we expect some diversity of opinion on these things?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

Quote

Immodest clothing is any clothing that is tight, sheer, or revealing in any other manner.

Young women should avoid short shorts and short skirts, shirts that do not cover the stomach, and clothing that does not cover the shoulders or is low-cut in the front or the back.

So that explains why the burka dress was invented.  Except it still reveals the woman's face. Which explains why women's veils were invented to cover their face.

I did notice while reading through that this time that the counsel was directed at young women.  And I've seen how some young women let their tops drop way down very low off their shoulders. It doesn't look very modest to me.

Maybe with older women who don't let their tops drop down so low it isn't such a big deal.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Ahab

[6EQUJ5]

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Greg Smith initially wrote a piece for Mormon Studies Review critiquing Dehlin’s podcasts. Dehlin heard about it and allegedly involved two General Authorities in trying to get the piece squelched. The director of the Maxwell Institute, without having read the piece, refused to approve it. 

Daniel Peterson’s removal as editor was concurrent with but not necessarily related to the ongoing drama pertaining to the censorship of the Greg Smith piece. 

Much later, after the whole mess had become public and there was a threat of a leak of the Greg Smith piece, it was published on the website of Interpreter, a Journal of Mormon Scripture, which Dan Peterson and others had founded not long after his ouster as editor of the Mormon Studies Review. At the same time, a separate piece by Greg Smith was published on the Iinterpreter website, giving his version of the back story pertaining to the censorship of his piece about Dehlin’s “Mormon Stories” enterprises. 

Those are the events as best I can recall and as concisely as I can relate them. Others in the know can correct me as necessary. 

Wow. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But assuming the the reason is spelled out in a way such as this, doesn't the decision to comply still come down to a test of obedience?

And in any event, do you reject the idea that there are some things we will be called upon by God to do that we don't immediately see the reason for but we do them anyway as part of the test of faith while in mortality? What about the concept of the Abrahamic test? What about, for instance, the decision to pay tithing when you're not sure you'll be able to make ends meet in a given month?

I don't think it is appropriate to create 'busy work' when it comes to sacrifices in order to keep the process of sacrifice as meaningful as possible.  I think it trivializes it when it becomes about every little choice we make.

I think some choices should be presented as doing it to build community or charity, etc.  When obedience is taught as the foremost reason for any choice, I think it can drain the joy out of being a member.

If the emphasis is on obedience, it becomes doing things because I am told to do them first and foremost and doing things because of love, wisdom, wanting to contribute, compassion,  fun can too easily be forgotten from what I have seen and experienced.

If we build on experiences that our leaders have solid reasons to ask us to do things, when it comes to times we have to take it on trust and obey, it will be done with a truer sense of what obedience is meant to do imo (bring our will into God's Will) than being obedient out of a habit of obedience.  Once one habit of obedience is broken, it is too easy for other habits to follow if that is our prime reason to act in those ways.

Edited June 15, 2018 by Calm

[bluebell]

56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Do you likewise think that clear standards should be removed for the Law of Chastity?  The Word of Wisdom?

The Church gives members of the Church relatively minimal guidelines on clothing.  But surely there must be some guidelines.

I'm glad we can have an amicable disagreement about such things.

I think it does.  Consider the entry on "Modesty" in the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet:

That's 7 paragraphs.  20 sentences.  380 words.

To me, this guidance seems very much in line with Joseph Smith's statement to "teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves."

Well, no.  There are plenty of scriptures about "modesty" and the sanctity of the body.

But we can explain that there are clothing options that are more modest.  The "less modest" v. "more modest" paradigm works much better than the "modest v. immodest" paradigm.

We also can't explain why driving 27 miles per hour is more risky than driving 25.

We could do this all day long.  I concede that dress and grooming standards have an element of arbitrariness to them.  But the alternative is what?  No standards at all?  

There is obviously such things as immodest clothing, or sexually provocative clothing.  I think the leaders of the Church want to discourage that.

The Church's article on Modesty is pretty good:

And some scriptural references:

And counsel from Church leaders.

And the Church's published "Learning Resources" and "Teaching Resources."

Okay.  I don't really understand your position.  On the one hand, you are calling for less oversight from the Church ("teach them correct principles" and such), but then you keep referencing very specific types of clothing and questioning why they are considered inappropriate by some members of the Church.  Should we expect some diversity of opinion on these things?

Thanks,

-Smac

At this point it's probably best to just agree to disagree.  But thank you for the discussion.   

[Hamba Tuhan]

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Wherein do they differ?

Well, for example, students of either sex at BYU can wear shorts as long as they're 'knee-length or longer'. Students of either sex at BYU-I, in contrast, must wear pants that are 'ankle length'. For women, this means specifically that capris are banned on campus as well.

Quote

When I used the word “”originated” I didn’t mean it in a historic sense.

Well, I'm glad you've cleared that up since the basic definition of originate according to the Cambridge Dictionary is 'to start something or cause it to happen', which is demonstrably not the case when it comes to BYU's dress and grooming rules.

Quote

I meant that they were a top-down directive, that the Board of Trustees was mandating them, not just signing off on or acquiescing to or “toleating” them.

So, just to be clear, do you sincerely believe that the decision to allow women at BYU to wear shorts whilst banning their counterparts 500 kilometres to the north from wearing capris is a top-down directive, 'originating' with the prophet himself? Or that it was the apostles who sat around in a meeting and decided to mandate that students at BYU-H must not wear medical scrubs whilst students at the other two BYU campuses may???

Edited June 15, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, Ahab said:

Or at least I think that is the reasoning behind the ban for men in higher leadership positions.

Thankfully, this 'ban' exists merely as a cultural adhesion, not in reality. If Church leaders genuinely wanted such a 'ban' to exist, they would have no trouble writing it out in a handbook. (After all, the handbook currently states the exact rules that must be followed in order to place a Christmas tree in a meetinghouse! I don't see the Brethren struggling in any way with being specific when they want to be.)

The bishop's first counsellor in my ward has a beard. I currently serve with the stake presidency, and I have facial hair as well ... which I grow out between my days of service in the temple.

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Are you saying God's commandments will always be written down, never just conveyed verbally?

There's a rather foundational story in the early chapters of 1 Nephi that suggests the importance of having a written record of God's commandments in order to avoid the inevitable mangling of the message that occurs over time whenever matters are just conveyed verbally.

Edited June 15, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

Are the Church's modesty standards reasonable, even if there is some level of arbitrariness to them?"  Again, I think "Yes."

I don't know.  Perhaps it's not a matter of "modest' v. immodest," and instead is a matter of "more modest v. less modest."

 

Unfortunately it is not taught as "more modest v. less modest", but the former.

And I do think it has at times crossed into unreasonableness, such as here:

Quote

“You can wear this under the dress,” Mom said. “Then it will be modest.”

4 years old...can't wear a sleeveless dress because it won't be modest.  That is just wrong.  Given the dress itself is okay to wear with the addition of a t-shirt, it cant be too pretentious.  Therefore it is whether or not it is too revealing.  For a 4 year old.

 

https://www.lds.org/friend/2011/06/hannahs-new-dress?lang=eng

 

I can just see the follow up, making sure babies' dresses are all below the knee even if that makes it too hard to crawl.  And onesies are okay, but a Tshirt and diapers that can expose that midriff...only on boy babies.

Edited June 15, 2018 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

From the second history:

Quote

1951 • Ernest Wilkinson becomes school president, a post he will hold for two decades while BYU's numbers of students, buildings and faculty swell by fivefold. Wilkinson will use the school's growth to justify broadening the Honor Code and wresting it from student control...

1965 • After an unsuccessful U.S. Senate run, Wilkinson returns to BYU and derides "go-go girls," "their pseudo-sophisticated friends" and "surfers," announcing that women at BYU should not wear slacks in academic or administrative meetings. He tells students in his fall address: "[W]e do not want on our campus any beetles, beatniks or buzzards. We have on this campus scientists who are specialists in the control of insects, beetles, beatniks and buzzards. Usually we use chemical or biological control methods, but often we just step on them to exterminate them. For biological specimens like students, we usually send them to the dean of students for the same kind of treatment."...

1967 • The administration seizes disciplinary authority from the Honor Council and the code is revised so that it includes drug use and applies to faculty, too. Wilkinson gets board approval to ask LDS stake (regional) presidents and bishops for reports on BYU students. Skirts must now cover the kneecap and cannot be form-fitting, while strapless dresses, spaghetti straps and pants are forbidden. Wilkinson tells students in September: "Last week I saw only one girl on this campus with a miniskirt and she didn't have anything to show." But Wilkinson doesn't get everything he wants: A revised version of the code printed in September's faculty handbook includes the truncated phrase "The church does not approve of any form of — ." The missing words are "artificial birth control," a ban of which the faith's governing First Presidency has declined to endorse....

Dress bans now include bare feet and sweatshirts, as well as culottes for women and Bermuda shorts for men, who must keep their hair short. The Honor Code is revised to say "virtue and sexual purity" instead of "high moral standards." Students object when they are excluded from that revising process and a committee is formed that includes the dean, four administrators and six students who write a "BYU Code of Student Conduct" — 15 rules that fall pretty well in line with Wilkinson's wishes. Wilkinson's effort to rid the campus of beards backfires, however, when he writes to parents of incoming freshmen that their sons should be cleanshaven. The Associated Press misreports that Wilkinson has banned beards, and after BYU issues a news release to say that beards are still permissible, the school newspaper reports a rise in student stubble. In 1969, Wilkinson bans beards....

1970 • Wilkinson continues to bemoan dress length and begins suspending violators of the dress standards after their first offense.

[Enter Oaks]

1971 • A survey reveals that 40 percent of students violate dress-and-grooming standards, and 85 percent do so knowingly. New BYU President Dallin Oaks tells students this fall, "I am conscious that you cannot make a great university by lowering hemlines and shaving chins. I have no desire to make the razor and the tape measure symbols of my administration."

[Enter Holland]

New BYU President Jeffrey Holland says general modesty is more important than the "endless debate as to whether a 'designer jean' is also a slack, or whether the fabric is cotton, polyester or denim, or whether it is colored red, white or blue."

 

 

Quote

"Wresting it from student control......seizes disciplinary authority from the Honor Council...."

Interesting choice of words.

I was a freshman in 1964-65. My roommate and I had beards. IIRC, the next year we were not allowed to have them. When I went back after my mission in 1968, we were not allowed to have beards, mustaches below the corner of the mouth, sideburns below the ear lobe, or hair over the collar.

Quote

"Last week I saw only one girl on this campus with a miniskirt and she didn't have anything to show."

I seriously question the accuracy of this quote.

Quote

1965 • After an unsuccessful U.S. Senate run, Wilkinson returns to BYU and derides "go-go girls," "their pseudo-sophisticated friends" and "surfers," announcing that women at BYU should not wear slacks in academic or administrative meetings. He tells students in his fall address: "[W]e do not want on our campus any beetles, beatniks or buzzards. We have on this campus scientists who are specialists in the control of insects, beetles, beatniks and buzzards. Usually we use chemical or biological control methods, but often we just step on them to exterminate them. For biological specimens like students, we usually send them to the dean of students for the same kind of treatment."

I was at that assembly. He had a good sense of humor which is reflected in his remarks about biological specimens. Among other things, he occasionally did 100 pushups on the Smith Fieldhouse floor before pep assemblies as the student body shouted out the count, once rode into an assembly dressed in full plate armor on a white horse, another time in the Cosmo costume, and put in a eponymous cameo appearance in the first humorous LDS/BYU movie, The Great Grass Cutter.  For all the demonizing of President Wilkinson, those were tumultuous times on campuses around the country that included violence against property and people. He did an admirable job of keeping some sort of sanity at BYU while maintaining a wholesome and academic environment free from protests and disruption. I'm not too impressed when some people try to paint him simply as a power hungry repressive martinet.

{EDIT} I just perused the 64-65 BYU Banyan....one bearded guy and one mustache. 65-66 Banyan, no beards or mustaches. 67-68 Banyan, two older students with beards. 69-70. Two beards on older students, more mustaches, one really droopy, and one fine set of muttonchops. Only one faculty member with a thin mustache in all four books.

I think the year was 1971 or 72. Dr. Ralph Laycock, director of bands and then the philharmonic orchestra, sported a set of healthy sideburns. I remember a review of a concert written in the Daily Universe by Paul Toscano criticizing him as being a "trendsetter" in the way of facial hair. How times have changed.

 

Edited June 15, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Well, for example, students of either sex at BYU can wear shorts as long as they're 'knee-length or longer'. Students of either sex at BYU-I, in contrast, must wear pants that are 'ankle length'. For women, this means specifically that capris are banned on campus as well.

Not a great deal of difference there. But it would appear that of the two, BYU-I has the more stringent standard. In your view, does that make BYU-I the more "quirky" of the two?

Quote

Well, I'm glad you've cleared that up since the basic definition of originate according to the Cambridge Dictionary is 'to start something or cause it to happen', which is demonstrably not the case when it comes to BYU's dress and grooming rules.

I would argue that by acting in its authority and putting in place the dress and grooming standards or revising them from time to time, the Board of Trustees "causes to happen" the presence of those standards on the respective campuses. That was my intended meaning, anyway.

Quote

So, just to be clear, do you sincerely believe that the decision to allow women at BYU to wear shorts whilst banning their counterparts 500 kilometres to the north from wearing capris is a top-down directive, 'originating' with the prophet himself? Or that it was the apostles who sat around in a meeting and decided to mandate that students at BYU-H must not wear medical scrubs whilst students at the other two BYU campuses may???

Yes, I believe the Board of Trustees deliberates from time to time -- perhaps with periodic input from the respective college administrators -- and specifies or sustains the dress and grooming standards along with other aspects of the honor code on the respective campuses. This is what I was given to understand from Dallin Oaks in the 1970s, and so far as I know that has never changed.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

There's a rather foundational story in the early chapters of 1 Nephi that suggests the importance of having a written record of God's commandments in order to avoid the inevitable mangling of the message that occurs over time whenever matters are just conveyed verbally.

I don't in the least dispute the importance of having a written record. I'm just not prepared to say it never happens that a commandment is conveyed verbally and perhaps not recorded until some later date.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I don't think it is appropriate to create 'busy work' when it comes to sacrifices in order to keep the process of sacrifice as meaningful as possible.  I think it trivializes it when it becomes about every little choice we make.

 

 

But in the eyes of God, it may not be merely "busy work," even when we don't see the clear purpose of it and might not for a long time. That is where the test of faith comes in.

Blessedly for most of us, those occasions are not constant or even frequent, but they do occur from time to time. I think for many of the early Church members, the command to practice plural marriage was an example of this.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

... I was at that assembly. He had a good sense of humor which is reflected in his remarks about biological specimens. Among other things, he occasionally did 100 pushups on the Smith Fieldhouse floor before pep assemblies as the student body shouted out the count, once rode into an assembly dressed in full plate armor on a white horse, another time in the Cosmo costume, and put in a eponymous cameo appearance in the first humorous LDS/BYU movie, The Great Grass Cutter.  For all the demonizing of President Wilkinson, those were tumultuous times on campuses around the country that included violence against property and people. He did an admirable job of keeping some sort of sanity at BYU while maintaining a wholesome and academic environment free from protests and disruption. I'm not too impressed when some people try to paint him simply as a power hungry repressive martinet.

It's nice to hear more about that side of him.  Since nobody is, he wasn't perfect, and the uber-illuminati might wrinkle their noses at some of the things that went on during his tenure, but he certainly deserves his due.  While some might argue (unfairly, in my view) that the reason he was able to remain in office so long is simply because he had the support of the BYU Board of Trustees (i.e., of the Brethren), while a longer tenure for university presidents was, perhaps, more common in days gone by, given the unrest that was so common in the 60s on other campuses, his nearly-20-year tenure at the helm of BYU was notable. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes, I believe the Board of Trustees ... sustains the dress and grooming standards along with other aspects of the honor code on the respective campuses.

Glad you're now willing to admit this is one possibility, Scott! 

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't in the least dispute the importance of having a written record. I'm just not prepared to say it never happens that a commandment is conveyed verbally and perhaps not recorded until some later date.

Perhaps you'll also agree that if the practice were widespread, it would be a poor way to govern a church of 14,000,000 members speaking literally dozens of languages and scattered across six continents and the isles of the seas?

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What if it is God's law (or commandment)?

Are you saying God's commandments will always be written down, never just conveyed verbally?

 

Yeah, this is part of the problem. What if?

When church members can't tell the difference between an utterance from a prophet being God's will, or personal opinion it creates a problem. It suddenly requires church members to treat the prophet's personal opinion as if it is God's law. Sometimes prophets may not even recognize where inspiration and their own reasoning comes in to play so they may not always recognize what is God's will and what is their own.

IMO- for a messenger from God to be useful, it must be clearly understood what is from God and what is from the messenger. If there is inconsistency or unreliability in the message it will either cause people to treat the messenger's words as if they are God's or dismiss God's words as if they are the messenger's.

[clarkgoble]

51 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yeah, this is part of the problem. What if?

When church members can't tell the difference between an utterance from a prophet being God's will, or personal opinion it creates a problem. It suddenly requires church members to treat the prophet's personal opinion as if it is God's law. Sometimes prophets may not even recognize where inspiration and their own reasoning comes in to play so they may not always recognize what is God's will and what is their own.

IMO- for a messenger from God to be useful, it must be clearly understood what is from God and what is from the messenger. If there is inconsistency or unreliability in the message it will either cause people to treat the messenger's words as if they are God's or dismiss God's words as if they are the messenger's.

The alternative is just to use the OT model where you were expected to find out yourself. Often the way a prophet was seen as a true prophet was if their prophecy came to pass. This of course caused a problem with distant prophecies but also with moral commands rather than predictions. You also got, as the era of Lehi showed, the problem of competing prophets. 

Really what you're saying is that God should only give directives if there's no way to be wrong about recognizing it as a divine directive. However that goes against the theological understanding of this life where the whole point is to not know what is divine in an easy way so we can progress. Further it's really an argument for infallibility but if there's one thing we know it is that there's not prophetic infallibility. 

Now I think that as we live and act in the spirit we get better at recognizing what is of God. However people tend to want prophets to know in a fashion completely different from how each of us know. That's just incorrect from everything I can see, not the least of which being Joseph's recognition that each of us are prophets and have that responsibility. Indeed that's the whole point of the gift of the Holy Ghost.

[Bernard Gui]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes, I believe the Board of Trustees deliberates from time to time -- perhaps with periodic input from the respective college administrators -- and specifies or sustains the dress and grooming standards along with other aspects of the honor code on the respective campuses. This is what I was given to understand from Dallin Oaks in the 1970s, and so far as I know that has never changed.

Quote

I remind you that the Honor Code of Brigham Young University was not initiated by the board and the administration. It is an outgrowth of the action of a group of students who felt strongly that the acceptance of a code of honor by those who attended this school would have a salutary effect upon all.

By an evolutionary process it has continued, with modifications, until it has become the standard behavior of those of the university and has been endorsed by its board of trustees. It is for all students to accept and agree to live by—a statement of principle concerning honesty, charity, purity, modesty, and commitment. https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/gordon-b-hinckley_codes-covenants/

 

Edited June 15, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yeah, this is part of the problem. What if?

When church members can't tell the difference between an utterance from a prophet being God's will, or personal opinion it creates a problem. It suddenly requires church members to treat the prophet's personal opinion as if it is God's law. Sometimes prophets may not even recognize where inspiration and their own reasoning comes in to play so they may not always recognize what is God's will and what is their own.

IMO- for a messenger from God to be useful, it must be clearly understood what is from God and what is from the messenger. If there is inconsistency or unreliability in the message it will either cause people to treat the messenger's words as if they are God's or dismiss God's words as if they are the messenger's.

Perhaps we could start a new hierarchy of SLC Magisterium pronouncements ....the highest could be called “ex tabernacula mormona,” (infallible); the next “ex marriotcentra,” inspired opinion; and the lowest “ex aedificatio ecclestica elevatorium,” prophets speaking as men only. We would know for sure whether accept or reject accordingly.

Edited June 15, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Atheist Mormon]

On 6/13/2018 at 10:23 AM, phaedrus ut said:

I've noticed that Benjamin Park is currently at BYU as a visiting fellow at the Maxwell Institute .  I have also noticed that he has quite a handsome beard.   Is the Maxwell Institute exempt from the dress and grooming standards of the Honor Code? Just curious. 

Phaedrus  

OK, I might have a serious issue with that beard called handsome........

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

Thanks, Bernard. 

Good to have it affirmed by President Hinckley that the board endorses the code, not merely tolerates it. 

Edited June 15, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[6EQUJ5]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Good to have it affirmed by President Hinckley that the board endorsed the code, not merely tolerates it. 

Your argument here is really weak, Scott.  You are trying to argue that the Board of Trustees actively endorses University dress codes.  But the problem is, if they really cared that much about the particulars, there would be unity of standards across all the BYU campuses.  There isn't.  So clearly they don't care enough about the minutia to make sure BYU-I students can wear shorts too, just like their provo counterparts. Obviously the bulk of these rules are formed by University administrations and simply signed off on.  And I'm guessing that unless the rules don't include anything absurd, the BoT just goes with it.