Idaho Honor Code

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

This is good news! Assuming innocence until proven guilty and allowing the accused to have representation.  That is a huge step forward for BYU especially considering we are only in the second decade of the twenty first century.

[bsjkki]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I had no idea basic human interaction is now beyond most bishops and most kids. Their job is not to discern trauma. It is not even to discern sins except as they need to help people repent of them. It is to help people progress spiritually. 

When did everyone decide bishops are therapists and then got angry that they are not? When did we decide only therapists can interact with kids? I thought I was doom and gloom but this worldview is terrifying.

Bishops are not therapists. Bishops are not trained. Most are just doing their best. 

Bishops deal with hard issues. Bishops are sometimes in over their heads. 

Dealing with “sins” often opens up a psychological can of worms. I can’t imagine having to do that.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, bsjkki said:

Bishops are not therapists. Bishops are not trained. Most are just doing their best. 

Bishops deal with hard issues. Bishops are sometimes in over their heads. 

Dealing with “sins” often opens up a psychological can of worms. I can’t imagine having to do that.

The idea that confessed sins often bring out all kinds of psychological debris is probably untrue. Even if it is true I trust the power of the atonement to heal more then I trust secular therapy.

[MustardSeed]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The idea that confessed sins often bring out all kinds of psychological debris is probably untrue. Even if it is true I trust the power of the atonement to heal more then I trust secular therapy.

I trust both together! That’s a powerful combo. 

[bsjkki]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The idea that confessed sins often bring out all kinds of psychological debris is probably untrue. Even if it is true I trust the power of the atonement to heal more then I trust secular therapy.

Ok. I’m going to bow out. Thanks Nehor for the debate. My personal experiences prove your first statement untrue but I am unwilling to go into that again. 

Your second statement, in some situations, is dangerous.

 

[The Nehor]

36 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I trust both together! That’s a powerful combo. 

And bishops often send people to therapy if they feel it is warranted, with or without sin. I have written many checks to therapists. I still rate Christ over therapists.

21 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Ok. I’m going to bow out. Thanks Nehor for the debate. My personal experiences prove your first statement untrue but I am unwilling to go into that again. 

Your second statement, in some situations, is dangerous.

 

Your anecdotal experience proves my speculative general statement untrue? What if I counter with my anecdotal experience? Do they cancel each other out?

Stating the atonement is more powerful then therapy is dangerous? Should I expect book burnings of the scriptures to stamp out this dangerous notion?

Edited July 11, 2019 by The Nehor

[let’s roll]

42 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Bishops are not therapists. Bishops are not trained. Most are just doing their best. 

Bishops deal with hard issues. Bishops are sometimes in over their heads. 

Dealing with “sins” often opens up a psychological can of worms. I can’t imagine having to do that.

A bishop points those he counsels to the Savior and invites them to avail themselves of His comfort, wisdom and healing.  People are free to choose how to respond to that invitation.  If they accept the invitation, I’m certain the Savior won’t be in over His head.

That said, as the father of a marriage and family counselor, I know they can offer tools which, if learned and implemented, can be used to improve decision making and help process information in a healthier manner.

[sjdawg]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, it does not take a psychologist to recognize guilt or denial. This is also where discernment often does come in.

You have more confidence in Bishops than I do

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, sjdawg said:

You have more confidence in Bishops than I do

Or maybe I have much less confidence in therapists. Actually, probably both.

[Amulek]

9 hours ago, sunstoned said:

This is good news! Assuming innocence until proven guilty and allowing the accused to have representation.  That is a huge step forward for BYU especially considering we are only in the second decade of the twenty first century.

You make this sound as though BYU is 'behind the times' on this issue when, in fact, they are actually ahead of the curve here.

Assuming innocence and allowing representation are part and parcel of what we expect when it comes to the criminal justice system, but universities aren't required to do anything like that because all they are doing is controlling access to their institution - an institution which you have no affirmative 'right' to attend.

As such, the overwhelming majority of universities do not have anything close to procedures analogous to the criminal justice system when it comes to adjudicating issues relating to student behavior.

Seriously, just google 'university kangaroo court' and you'll get pages and pages of examples. 

It is only just recently that schools have begun to receive any sort of push-back on these issues at all. Most schools are just staying quiet and waiting for the noise to pass so they can just keep on doing what they've always done.

BYU, on the other hand, has decided to implement changes which will benefit their students during these proceedings. They are among the first-movers on this front and should be sincerely recognized for the positive changes being made - rather than receiving backhanded complements from critics who happen to find disfavor with the school's chartering organization.

 

[The Nehor]

23 minutes ago, Amulek said:

You make this sound as though BYU is 'behind the times' on this issue when, in fact, they are actually ahead of the curve here.

Assuming innocence and allowing representation are part and parcel of what we expect when it comes to the criminal justice system, but universities aren't required to do anything like that because all they are doing is controlling access to their institution - an institution which you have no affirmative 'right' to attend.

As such, the overwhelming majority of universities do not have anything close to procedures analogous to the criminal justice system when it comes to adjudicating issues relating to student behavior.

Seriously, just google 'university kangaroo court' and you'll get pages and pages of examples. 

It is only just recently that schools have begun to receive any sort of push-back on these issues at all. Most schools are just staying quiet and waiting for the noise to pass so they can just keep on doing what they've always done.

BYU, on the other hand, has decided to implement changes which will benefit their students during these proceedings. They are among the first-movers on this front and should be sincerely recognized for the positive changes being made - rather than receiving backhanded complements from critics who happen to find disfavor with the school's chartering organization.

Edit: I will be honest. I expect we will fall off the horse one way or the other depending on the next election cycle.  I hope I am wrong.

 

I mostly agree but the “woke” kangaroo courts are not long-standing. As much good as the recognition of the serious problem of sexual assault is universities fell off the other side of the horse to compensate with many using a presumption of guilt as the starting point for allegations with ridiculous stories of exonerated students being pulled back in in “double jeopardy” hearings. I do not want to pretend these processes are judicial or suggest they should be but the basic principles of our judicial system should be followed in any investigation.

Fortunately the pushback against this overzealousness is compensating. I just hope it does not swing back the other way back to the old way where allegations of assault were downplayed or ignored on many campuses.

BYU schools get extra flak because most people do not consider the allegations themselves to be serious at all. Other campuses deal with sexual assault and plagiarism and harassment of other students. BYU has these too but the stuff that makes the news is having consensual sex, drinking alcohol, violating curfew, dress code violations, and things most would find silly.

One clarification: Earlier in this thread I emphatically stated that the student basically does not have rights except what the school gives them in these investigations. I hope I did not give the impression that I endorse unfairness or encourage universities to abuse this power; I was just stating the reality of what is. I do not know what the solution is. Having these decisions decided by the judicial system is probably unwise but without something like that there are few safeguards.

Edited July 11, 2019 by The Nehor

[MustardSeed]

For the record, I am a huge fan of GOOD bishops and GOOD therapists.  There are both.  

And there are, always have been, and always will be, bad both.  You know, humans. 

But a good therapist and a good bishop are worth their weight in diamonds.