Byu Honor Code Matches New Handbook

[CV75]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think so.  The fact that you are presenting this using an absurd, contrived hypothetical rather militates against your point.

I've al;ways wanted a shot at saying something like this: Such an absurd, contrived hypothetical deprecates those who struggle with this issue every day of their lives!

[Anonymous Mormon]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

This is the portion of discussion I'm interested in exploring further.  We clearly disagree about appeals to authority, but I don't see any fruit in hashing that out.  

I agree that the current church leaders are clearly in the authoritative positions of power.  What I'm arguing for is an approach to defining sexual relationships in the context of the items I mentioned in my posts.  A multiple disciplinary and multi vantage point approach.  

 

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't agree with that definition for the LoC.  Its an anonymous author's interpretation captured in a snapshot in time.  The dominant church definition has evolved throughout time.  This online summary isn't a well developed and reasoned ethic for sexual relationships.  Its written for an elementary school level of comprehension.  We need a much more adult and robust approach to a very complicated issue.  

 

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

No offense to you Smac, but this kind of prescriptive and simplistic prohibition of behaviors is exactly what I'm talking about not being a well reasoned ethic for sexual relationships.  This is what gets me so disappointed with when it comes to the gospel.  The gospel is not a check marks list of behaviors to promote on one side and behaviors to avoid on another.  

 

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Your approach also sounds like a retreat into an appeal from authority, in this case a two paragraph long spinet from the church web site.  Many of these discussions I participate in eventually boil down to this approach, despite all the holes I point out with respect to it.  Oh well...

 

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't think the church has a clearly defined Law of Chastity, and I thought we both agreed on that from earlier comments.  I don't think we're getting anywhere either unfortunately, not for a lack of effort on my part though.  

 

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

And you continue to appeal to authority.  Even your complaint that I'm misapprehending the concept is an appeal to authority, i.e. "where the cited authority has jurisdiction".  I'm specifically asking for using reason as the basis for a development of a sexual relationship ethic.  No authority citing allowed, if that helps you understand where I'm coming from.  I want to look at different elements, that I talked about earlier, to determine what is a balanced, inspired and reasonable ethic on this topic.  

@hope_for_things

You have now spent the last 10 posts saying that both SMAC and I are doing a poor job at defining the Law of Chastity and asking for a new definition of a law of chastity that is based on culture and history instead of just authority. 

So, since you want to define it so badly, why don't you do so. What does this new law of chastity look like? And please let me know which of these you would consider sin under your new history/culture/life lessons law of chastity:

• Unmarried Same-sex sexual relationships
• Unmarried opposite-sex sexual relationships
• Married relationships where you are physically (kissing & cuddling) and emotionally intimate with people other than your spouse (with or without their consent)
• Pornography
• Masturbation

I would categorize all of the above as against the current law of chastity as taught by the Prophets. All would require a repentance and a visit to my judge in Israel to clear up. But since I am appealing to authority and you are dying to show a better way, I am curious what this new higher and better way would consider of the above situations.

And honestly, I really do want to know and hope you respond with your proposed Law of Chastity and why, since you have literally spent the last 10 posts telling all about how you think it's time for a new law that is not based upon scripture and prophets.

Edited February 21, 2020 by Anonymous Mormon

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

And honestly, I really do want to know and hope you respond with your proposed Law of Chastity and why, since you have literally spent the last 10 posts telling all about how you think it's time for a new law that is not based upon scripture and prophets.

Not a dismantled law of chastity, but a re-informed teaching developed through an egalitarian, non-authoritative harmonization of empirical data, and rationally adopted into the ethos.

@hope_for_things I hope I have captured your concept correctly. What do you propose as a start for a statement of principle?

Maybe you can synthesize and tweak some of the recommendations from these organizations for Church consumption (without any appeal to their of their methods' authority). Voila, 95%of the work is done! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexology_organizations

Edited February 22, 2020 by CV75

[provoman]

3 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

 

 

• Unmarried Same-sex sexual relationships
• Unmarried opposite-sex sexual relationships

I would categorize all of the above as against the current law of chastity as taught by the Prophets. All would require a repentance and a visit to my judge in Israel to clear up.

 

Isn't the issue about what "sexual relationships" means?

[Anonymous Mormon]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

Isn't the issue about what "sexual relationships" means?

I don't think so. If all Hope For Things is asking for is a definition of what the current Law of Chastity and 'sexual relationships' means in the church, then I am happy to point him to some good material. We could start with For Strength of Youth pamphlet and then work through the other dozen plus definitions in the Gospel Library app.

But I think Hope For Things is saying he wants to redefine (not dismantle!) the current church definition. Here are the specific ways of how Hope For Things will redefine e Law of Chastity:

• I personally don't want the law of chastity dismantled, I just don't want it defined in ways that aren't thoughtful, loving, harmonious with the gospel message
• I'm for responsible, loving, healthy, consensual, informed, and lawful sexual relationships
• I also would like to see the church come up with a developed and thoughtful sexual ethic
• We need a thoughtful approach that looks at scripture, tradition and peoples experiences, and tries to balance those out in a reasonable ways 
• a blending of scriptural interpretation, tradition and experience.  
• an approach to defining sexual relationships in the context of the items I mentioned in my posts.
• A multiple disciplinary and multi vantage point approach.  
• a much more adult and robust approach to a very complicated issue
• prescriptive and simplistic prohibition of behaviors is exactly what I'm talking about not being a well reasoned ethic for sexual relationships
• I'm specifically asking for using reason as the basis for a development of a sexual relationship ethic
•  No authority citing allowed ... determine what is a balanced, inspired and reasonable ethic on this topic.

So I am asking Hope For Things to go ahead and tell us what this is. Spell out what he means.

I am very excited to hear his new non-dismantled, thoughtful, harmonious, responsible, consensual, informed, tradition-based, people's experienced, balanced, reasonable, blending of scriptural interpretation with tradition and experience, multi-vantage point, robust, adult, non-authority-based, reason-based approach to the law of chastity. 

And then I gave a few examples of what I and 99% of active members likely believe is against the Law of Chastity currently to see if his new-found approach would agree with or disagree with these.

[Kenngo1969]

On 2/20/2020 at 1:00 PM, rockpond said:

[Re: Alleged "quickie" marriages followed by "quickie" divorces at BYU so as not, technically, to violate the Law of Chastity]

Argh!  I only did that twice!

Just kidding.

Felt like the right time for some levity.

Does your current spouse know that you're twice divorced?

(Hey, if you thought it was the right time for some levity, you ought to know, despite our limited, on-line acquaintance, that I wouldn't be able to pass up the chance to join in on the fun! )

[Kenngo1969]

16 hours ago, CV75 said:

I'm not a lawyer, but I would say "It depends." ...

Welp, you've already learned the most important answer anyone can give to any Socratic hypothetical that arises in law school, so ... congratulations!  You're well on your way!  (Out of pure curiosity,  to which law schools are you thinking of applying?)

 

[blueglass]

On 2/20/2020 at 12:53 PM, rockpond said:

It wasn't wishful thinking that made BYU remove the prohibition against same sex dating/hand-holding/kissing from the honor code.  Do you think they would make such a revision to the honor code and then publish it without the knowledge of the board of trustees?

Common sense suggests that their had to have been clear intent behind such a change.  Though, what that intent was still seems unclear.

Considering how the Nov 15' policy was a disaster, and "not well thought out" as church historian Elder Snow acknowledged in his interview - I am not surprised that there was "miscommunication" and bumbling mistakes and confusion yet again.  

The church owns BYU, and Canadian tithes and annual interest from the Ensign Peak Advisors quantitative trading algorithms can continue to fund the university if it loses federal funding for research, loans, etc.  Why did lawyers and board of trustees push to edit the honor code now in Feb 2020? 

Edited February 22, 2020 by blueglass

[CV75]

25 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Considering how the Nov 15' policy was a disaster, and "not well thought out" as church historian Elder Snow acknowledged in his interview - I am not surprised that there was "miscommunication" and bumbling mistakes and confusion yet again.  

The church owns BYU, and Canadian tithes and annual interest from the Ensign Peak Advisors quantitative trading algorithms can continue to fund the university if it loses federal funding for research, loans, etc.  Why did lawyers and board of trustees push to edit the honor code now in Feb 2020? 

I think it makes things simpler for students by leading them to deal with their moral concerns with their bishops, and their academic community concerns with their HCO. The ecclesiastical endorsement serves as the link between the two. The edit acknowledges and clarifies the distinctions and interrelationships between doctrine, principle and application/practice/policy, which members are being taught and encouraged to do through the CFM and council problem-solving processes. It is an example of living the Law of Chastity, the Golden Rule, and the Great Commandment, an opportunity for students to learn to integrate gospel doctrines and principles, or at least realize their common connection to Christ Himself.

Edited February 22, 2020 by CV75

[blueglass]

16 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think it makes things simpler for students by leading them to deal with their moral concerns with their bishops, and their academic community concerns with their HCO. The ecclesiastical endorsement serves as the link between the two. The edit acknowledges and clarifies the distinctions and interrelationships between doctrine, principle and application/practice/policy, which members are being taught and encouraged to do through the CFM and council problem-solving processes. It is an example of living the Law of Chastity, the Golden Rule, and the Great Commandment, an opportunity for students to learn to integrate gospel doctrines and principles, or at least realize their common connection to Christ Himself.

If I understand correctly you are saying that by removing the prohibition against outwardly affectionate homosexual behavior from the honor code it will make it more clear for bishops to freely grant ecclesiastical endorsements to lgbtq students who are in a relationship and dating.  Meaning that now behavioral affection between couples of any sexual orientation will not result in discrimination against receiving an endorsement to attend any church university.  Does anyone know if this also applies at SVU? 

Edited February 22, 2020 by blueglass

[carbon dioxide]

On 2/20/2020 at 6:29 AM, stemelbow said:

Wow.  It sounds like the Church is really struggling here.  There isn't the hardline stance well-defined and how to do with anymore.  When those statements come out there is tons of backlash.   I wonder how the Church is going to evolve on this, and if small steps are being taken now.  

Not sure how this is evidence of struggling.  I see it calibrating itself more to the actual truth.  All sin is based on an act (commission) and inaction (omission).  Its not a sin to be heterosexual, homosexual, pedophile, or anything else in terms of orientation.  The choices one makes is what decides if one commits a sin.  All this does is tell homosexuals that they stand on the same neutral  ground that heterosexuals do.  Now the decisions you make decide whether you leave neutral ground. 

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Why did lawyers and board of trustees push to edit the honor code now in Feb 2020? 

I think if there were not directions from above, there may have been previous discussions on how to separate the HCO from doing what amounts to pastoral care and leaving them focused on academic oversight, such as cheating and plagiarism.  Then when the word came out the handbook would be changed the powers at BYU consulted SL headquarters about it and they were told what the change would be so they had some time to discuss it and get their change ready.  But the response quality suggests not a lot of time to hammer it out.

Edited February 22, 2020 by Calm

[carbon dioxide]

17 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

 

@hope_for_things

 

• Unmarried Same-sex sexual relationships
• Unmarried opposite-sex sexual relationships
• Married relationships where you are physically (kissing & cuddling) and emotionally intimate with people other than your spouse (with or without their consent)
• Pornography
• Masturbation

This is the 21 century.  Probably should include sex robots, especially coupled with artificial intelligence.  That is becoming a thing as well.

[Peppermint Patty]

With all of the conflicting opinions on here and elsewhere, yesterday I called the Honor Code Office at 801-422-2847 and asked a nice lady named Kim if it was now okay for gay people to hold hands, kiss and date on and off campus. Kim told me the Honor Code Office has been flooded with questions about this and BYU’s position is that same sex kissing, holding hands and dating are not in violation of the Honor Code. If anyone is still confused about what this means then please call the Honor Code Office yourself at 801-422-2847. This should provide some clarity to all of the confusion surrounding this issue.

[Kenngo1969]

41 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

This is the 21 century.  Probably should include sex robots, especially coupled with artificial intelligence.  That is becoming a thing as well.

Mosiah 4:29-30.

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, Peppermint Patty said:

With all of the conflicting opinions on here and elsewhere, yesterday I called the Honor Code Office at 801-422-2847 and asked a nice lady named Kim if it was now okay for gay people to hold hands, kiss and date on and off campus. Kim told me the Honor Code Office has been flooded with questions about this and BYU’s position is that same sex kissing, holding hands and dating are not in violation of the Honor Code. If anyone is still confused about what this means then please call the Honor Code Office yourself at 801-422-2847. This should provide some clarity to all of the confusion surrounding this issue.

Ask a simple question, and get a simple answer -- how refreshing!

...but nor are they in compliance with it if associated with other more egregious behaviors and activities.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

If I understand correctly you are saying that by removing the prohibition against outwardly affectionate homosexual behavior from the honor code it will make it more clear for bishops to freely grant ecclesiastical endorsements to lgbtq students who are in a relationship and dating.  Meaning that now behavioral affection between couples of any sexual orientation will not result in discrimination against receiving an endorsement to attend any church university.  Does anyone know if this also applies at SVU? 

I am no authority, but I would say ecclesiastical endorsement depends on what you mean by “outwardly affectionate homosexual behavior” and what is entailed in “a relationship and dating” (see my response to Peppermint).

[provoman]

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

If I understand correctly you are saying that by removing the prohibition against outwardly affectionate homosexual behavior from the honor code it will make it more clear for bishops to freely grant ecclesiastical endorsements to lgbtq students who are in a relationship and dating.  Meaning that now behavioral affection between couples of any sexual orientation will not result in discrimination against receiving an endorsement to attend any church university.  Does anyone know if this also applies at SVU? 

I think, and based on what peppermint patty and others have stated, dating, kissing, holding hands between couples is not an automatic loss of endorsement. 

And on a case by case basis (BYU tweet) conduct of couples will be reviewed and determinations will be made as to whether the conduct violated standards.

[blueglass]

On 2/21/2020 at 2:10 PM, hope_for_things said:

Kissing and holding hands prohibition I was referring to was in the old BYU honor code.  You can call these things merely applications of doctrine, but these applications are getting people expelled from school and disciplined in church. 

Although it is good that byu and churches will no longer discipline or expel students for some homosexual affection, I still think the church faces a serious problem with what Nathan Kitchen calls the "rainbow stained-glass ceiling".  Elder Oaks gave a talk last conference in the relief society conference session that really disturbed my wife and she came home in tears, because she has friends in homosexual marriages she has met in grad school and Oaks seemed ok with casting these individuals to lower kingdoms of glory which is singular isolation insanity.  Health, happiness and well-being is only possible with a social eternity, as the new gospel topics essay says, "Church members imagine exaltation less through images of what they will get and more through the relationships they have now and how those relationships might be purified and elevated."  Doctrinally just like the church had to be shaken and remove the hardened eye scales to learn the true meaning of 2 Neph 26:33 "all are alike unto God' we need to explore and mine a more expansive meaning to the rich resource available in D&Cov 130:2 "that same ^asociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with ^beternal glory". 

Edited February 22, 2020 by blueglass

[blueglass]

1 hour ago, Peppermint Patty said:

With all of the conflicting opinions on here and elsewhere, yesterday I called the Honor Code Office at 801-422-2847 and asked a nice lady named Kim if it was now okay for gay people to hold hands, kiss and date on and off campus. Kim told me the Honor Code Office has been flooded with questions about this and BYU’s position is that same sex kissing, holding hands and dating are not in violation of the Honor Code. If anyone is still confused about what this means then please call the Honor Code Office yourself at 801-422-2847. This should provide some clarity to all of the confusion surrounding this issue.

Thanks for checking on this.  My cousin is a psychology professor and therapist/counselor at BYU provo.  Will ask as well and report back.

Edited February 22, 2020 by blueglass

[Calm]

So anyone know if given that it appears Chastity standards have been punted back to be handled solely now by bishops by the HCO, has anything been said about the dress code?  I see cleanliness and legal standards as appropriate under the new standard and beards as well because that is like having to wear a school uniform, but what about clothing that is said to be "immodest"?  Will they be refusing to accept calls about a young woman wearing a too short skirt, for example?

If someone does call the Honor Code office, ask them if it impacts anything else please.

Edited February 22, 2020 by Calm

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

So anyone know if given that it appears Chastity standards have been punted back to be handled solely now by bishops by the HCO, has anything been said about the dress code?  I see cleanliness and legal standards as appropriate under the new standard and beards as well because that is like having to wear a school uniform, but what about clothing that is said to be "immodest"?  Will they be refusing to accept calls about a young woman wearing a too short skirt, for example?

If someone does call the Honor Code office, ask them if it impacts anything else please.

Held hands, exchanged kisses and shared embraces are not to be considered interior clothing enhancements.

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Not sure how this is evidence of struggling.  I see it calibrating itself more to the actual truth.  All sin is based on an act (commission) and inaction (omission).  Its not a sin to be heterosexual, homosexual, pedophile, or anything else in terms of orientation.  The choices one makes is what decides if one commits a sin.  All this does is tell homosexuals that they stand on the same neutral  ground that heterosexuals do.  Now the decisions you make decide whether you leave neutral ground. 

Itd certainly be a good move if the church viewed homosexuals and heterosexuals on equal ground.  A nice step forward.  I'm skeptical but we'll see 

[MustardSeed]

9 pages is an indication of how difficult it is to transition from dictates and rules to establishing a personal relationship with God and governing the self.!

oh how we love rules. 

[ALarson]

15 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I don't think so. If all Hope For Things is asking for is a definition of what the current Law of Chastity and 'sexual relationships' means in the church, then I am happy to point him to some good material. We could start with For Strength of Youth pamphlet and then work through the other dozen plus definitions in the Gospel Library app.

But I think Hope For Things is saying he wants to redefine (not dismantle!) the current church definition. Here are the specific ways of how Hope For Things will redefine e Law of Chastity:

• I personally don't want the law of chastity dismantled, I just don't want it defined in ways that aren't thoughtful, loving, harmonious with the gospel message
• I'm for responsible, loving, healthy, consensual, informed, and lawful sexual relationships
• I also would like to see the church come up with a developed and thoughtful sexual ethic
• We need a thoughtful approach that looks at scripture, tradition and peoples experiences, and tries to balance those out in a reasonable ways 
• a blending of scriptural interpretation, tradition and experience.  
• an approach to defining sexual relationships in the context of the items I mentioned in my posts.
• A multiple disciplinary and multi vantage point approach.  
• a much more adult and robust approach to a very complicated issue
• prescriptive and simplistic prohibition of behaviors is exactly what I'm talking about not being a well reasoned ethic for sexual relationships
• I'm specifically asking for using reason as the basis for a development of a sexual relationship ethic
•  No authority citing allowed ... determine what is a balanced, inspired and reasonable ethic on this topic.

So I am asking Hope For Things to go ahead and tell us what this is. Spell out what he means.

I am very excited to hear his new non-dismantled, thoughtful, harmonious, responsible, consensual, informed, tradition-based, people's experienced, balanced, reasonable, blending of scriptural interpretation with tradition and experience, multi-vantage point, robust, adult, non-authority-based, reason-based approach to the law of chastity. 

And then I gave a few examples of what I and 99% of active members likely believe is against the Law of Chastity currently to see if his new-found approach would agree with or disagree with these.

I know you are asking for a response from Hope For Things....But, I don't see why you have to make it so complicated.  I posted this earlier (from a lesson still on the church website).  I know this is from 2003 and words have been added to the Law since then, but it is still an example of how the Law of Chastity could be stated to include those entering a SSM:

Quote

 

The Law of Chastity

What is the law of chastity?

We are to have sexual relations only with our spouse to whom we are legally married. No one, male or female, is to have sexual relations before marriage. After marriage, sexual relations are permitted only with our spouse.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-39-the-law-of-chastity?lang=eng

 

I acknowledge that within this same lesson, it states that "homosexual behavior" is a serious sin.  But what exactly is "homosexual behavior"?  Dating?  Holding hands with the same sex in a romantic manner?  Kissing?

All those now appear to be acceptable as long as it does not lead to a SSM or actual sex (which is forbidden for heterosexual couples too).

I can see more changes being made and things evolving to those entering a SSM being held to the same standards of sexual morality as those entering heterosexual marriages.  No pre-marital sex and no adultery, etc.   I know many disagree and believe this will never happen.  But these are probably the same members who believed it would never be ok for gay couples to kiss publicly and openly date and show affection on the BYU campus.  One thing that I do know for sure....there are more changes coming.  None of us know what those are, of course (except possibly some of our leaders if any are currently being discussed privately).

Edited February 22, 2020 by ALarson