Byu Honor Code Matches New Handbook

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

think it depends on the kind of happiness they are looking for.

Well, I think most LDS people would like to eventually find a partner to settle down with and perhaps start a family with. That's kind of a basic human drive (and there are always exceptions of course). I guess since we are talking about college students, maybe four years of single life isn't that big of a deal anymore. The average age at first marriage in America has risen substantially since I was at BYU.

[SteveO]

I think there’s going to be a talk in April that will be the source of much angst and disappointment.  
 

If we believe the church is guided by prophets who speak and express the will of the Lord, I’d really struggle with the idea that the mind and will of the Lord hasn’t been made known concerning the matter by now.

For a couple years, I thought the crisis of faith would come from people like me who would have to realign their beliefs to conform with the possibility that the Lord would finally lift the regulations on homosexuality and same sex marriage.  I’ve been trying to prepare myself to exercise the faith that the Lord speaks through prophets, and that whatever change comes, I’ll be able to accept it.

I’m not so sure anymore.  I think the crisis of faith is going to come from those who are still expecting a change on the matter.  Are they preparing themselves in the way I have?  At the possibility that the Lord’s will may be diametrically opposed to their’s?  I don’t think so.  It seems they’ve made up their minds and are just waiting for the leadership to “catch up”.

[jbarm]

Hate to burst the bubble of you progressive types but I have it on good inside information from BYU Admin that nothing has really changed with the honor code.

Relying on second hand info from activists and activist prog-Mo professors is not a wise choice.

Only thing that has happened is the message has been bungled (not unusual). Gay dating, PDA etc is still not allowable on campus and will result in problems for any student involved.

Want to get some good gay dating and PDA in while in college?  Go to ANY other school in the state ... they will make you a hero.

jb

Edited February 23, 2020 by jbarm

[katherine the great]

28 minutes ago, jbarm said:

Relying on second hand info from activists and activist prog-Mo professors is not a wise choice.

The professor said he got his info directly from the Honor Code office.

[CV75]

27 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Well, I think most LDS people would like to eventually find a partner to settle down with and perhaps start a family with. That's kind of a basic human drive (and there are always exceptions of course). I guess since we are talking about college students, maybe four years of single life isn't that big of a deal anymore. The average age at first marriage in America has risen substantially since I was at BYU.

That, and then there are different kinds of happiness. Some who make great sacrifices to keep their covenants find a deeper happiness even when they cannot find a partner in this life -- even deeper than some partners and married people in the various kinds of relationships and marriages they might enter into. 2 Nephi 5:27 alludes to the manner of happiness, which I take to mean after the plan of happiness, which has Christ at the center. Thus a student who identifies as gay might well find great happiness in what BYU has to offer.

[blueglass]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Wilkinson’s spy scandal was focused on  political ideology, not sexual orientation,  as far as I can tell. I don’t see that it’s a sustainable notion or historically accurate that reporting violations of the honor code is traceable to that episode. 

You could be right.  It may have been more the action of the standards office not Wilkinson himself that began the security files log of suspected gay students.

From Rocky O'Donavan's essay, "A Brief History of Homosexuality and Mormonism, 1840-1980":

 

Quote

[1967 Wilkinson received permission to ask Mormon bishops at BYU to provide the BYU Standards Office with lists of students who were “inactive in the church” or who had confessed to “not living the standards of the church.” The number of students visiting the Standards Office subsequently rose dramatically. The first year of the new policy, Standards counselled seventy-two students who were “suspected of homosexual activity.”111 The discovery spurred the university into action in which security files were kept on suspected Gay students, student spying was encouraged,112 and suspensions/expulsions increased significantly. One student, suspended from the university on suspicion of homosexuality, was taken to court by BYU for trespassing when he was spotted on campus after his suspension.113 Even prospective teachers at the Language Training Mission on BYU campus had to be interviewed by a general [p.155]authority, because a “homosexual ring” had seemingly infiltrated the campus. Church leaders wanted to be assured that no Lesbians or Gay men were teaching missionaries at the language school.114
In 1969 the board of trustees ruled that Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual students “would not be admitted or retained at BYU without approval from the General Authorities.”115 Three years later Apostle Marvin J. Ashton was asked by trustees to help further define a policy on homosexuals at BYU because the new president of the university, Dallin Oaks, was concerned about what to do with students or school personnel who were not overtly homosexual.116 Six months later trustees ruled that those who were not “overt and active homosexuals” could remain at the university’s discretion and upon recommendation by the “ecclesiastical leader having jurisdiction over the case.” However, those who were “overt and active” would still be automatically expelled unless a general authority recommended otherwise.117 In early 1978, Gerald Dye, the chair of University Standards reported what the “set process” was for “homosexual students referred to Standards” for counseling:

    1) They are asked to a personal interview with Standards … to determine the depth or extent of involvement; previous involvement, if any, of offender; does the student understand the seriousness of the matter; if the branch president or bishop [is] aware.
    2) The individual’s branch president or home bishop is contacted.
    3) Standards is to determine if the offense is serious or not.
        a) serious: repetition; ****/oral intercourse.
        b) less serious: experimential [sic]; mutual masturbation.
    4) Action taken.
        a) If determined to be serious the student is expelled.
         b) If less serious, the student may remain at BYU on a probationary basis.
    5)  Standards also acts as an intermediary between the student who remains and a counseling services. Students who remain are required to undergo therapy.118

references:
111:  “Annual Report Summary of Cases,” 1 Sept. 1967 to 31 Aug. 1968
112: Brigham Young University Bulletin: Catalog of Courses, 1968/70, 39-40
113: K. A. Lauritzen to E. L. Wilkinson, 18 June 1969
114:  Interview with E. M., 14 Aug. 1991
115: Minutes, BYU Board of Trustees, 2 May 1973,
116: Minutes, BYU Board of Trustees, 6 Dec, 1972
117: Minutes, BYU Board of Trustees, 2 May 1973
118: Interview with Gerald Dye, 1 Feb. 1978

 

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, blueglass said:

You could be right.  It may have been more the action of the standards office not Wilkinson himself that began the security files log of suspected gay students.

From Rocky O'Donavan's essay, "A Brief History of Homosexuality and Mormonism, 1840-1980":

From what I've read, it was Dallin H. Oaks who started the "system of surveillance" that you may be referring to.  Here's some info:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigham_Young_University_LGBT_history 

Quote

 

Ban on gay students

BYU policies, including the complete ban on students attracted to the same sex in the 60s, are decided by the Board of Trustees, composed of general authorities.[22][23]

Before 1959 there was little explicit mention of homosexuality by BYU administration,[2]:375,377,394 but by 1962 a ban on homosexual students was enacted, though not mentioned in the media or in literature provided to students. On 12 September 1962, apostles Spencer Kimball and Mark Peterson and BYU President Ernest Wilkinson agreed on a university policy that "no one will be admitted as a student ... whom we have convincing evidence is a homosexual."[2]:379 They agreed to share information about individuals cases of homosexual members between general church administration and BYU administration.[24] This policy was reiterated in Wilkinson's address to BYU in September 1965 when he stated "we [do not] intend to admit to this campus any homosexuals. ... f any of you have this tendency, ... may I suggest you leave the University immediately .... We do not want others on this campus to be contaminated by your presence."[25][26][27] The next month general authorities again stated that the "University does not permit any known homosexual to enter or remain at BYU", though they decided "for the purposes of admission or retention at BYU" that masturbation (or "self abuse") was "not considered homosexuality."[28] This decision forbidding the enrollment of homosexuals at BYU was again repeated in meetings on 27 January 1966 and 25 January 1968 and was codified in the 1967 version of the Honor code. The approved version read "homosexuality will not be tolerated", while the proposed sentence banning "masturbation" was removed in committee.[29]

The complete ban on any students with a homosexual orientation was softened a decade later by Wilkinson's successor, Dallin H. Oaks, in a 19 April 1973 Board of Trustees meeting. There it was decided BYU would allow students who had repented of homosexual acts and forsaken them for a lengthy period of time. Additionally, students guilty of irregular sexual behavior (not including fornication or adultery equivalents) who were repentant and showed evidence that the act(s) would not be repeated would be admitted while overt and active homosexuals would still be barred from remaining and enrollment.[30][31][32]

Surveillance

BYU bans extramarital sexual activity for straight students and further forbids any same-sex dating or physical expression of attraction including hugs for students identifying as LGBTQIA+.[10][33][34]

Under Oaks, a system of surveillance and searches of dorms of problem students, including suspected homosexuals, was implemented.[35] This included electronic recording devices which BYU Security Chief Robert Kelshaw confirmed in 1975 had been planted on students to gather information. In reference to the widespread campaign to find homosexuals among BYU students, Oaks stated, "Two influences we wish to exclude from the BYU community are active homosexuals and drug users, and these subjects are therefore among those with which our security force is concerned."[36]

Four years later BYU's newspaper reported Oaks asking BYU security to be "especially watchful" for any student homosexual infractions.[37]:126[38] Stake outs by BYU security looking for license plates of BYU students at gay bars in Salt Lake City[39][40] and fake contact advertisements were placed in a gay Salt Lake City newspaper to ensnare gay students[41][39] resulting in the arrest of former BYU student David Chipman.[37]:126[42][43] However, the director of public relations for the university stated that by 1979 Oaks ordered BYU security to stop surveilling gay bars and to cease posting entrapment advertisements.[39]

 

 

[blueglass]

 

48 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

The professor said he got his info directly from the Honor Code office.

From the video the professor also was told form the honor code office that they will take a lot more measures to ensure Respect of lgbtq students.  More strict measures against homophobic bullying and taunting - a push to becoming more Christlike.  

[blueglass]

50 minutes ago, ALarson said:

From what I've read, it was Dallin H. Oaks who started the "system of surveillance" that you may be referring to.  Here's some info:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigham_Young_University_LGBT_history 

 

Looks like from the 1965 Wilkinson devotional where he said homosexuals should "self deport" or leave the university voluntarily he was indeed fearful that they would "contaminate" the culture at the university.  I looked up this 1965 talk and there are a lot of wild parts.

A few excerpts:
 

Quote

"As to the men, we do not want on our campus any beatles, beatniks, or buzzards!"

"We have on this campus scientists who are specialists in the control of insects, beatles, beatnicks 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.

We have not been bothered much by beatles on our campus because of our extensive population of sea gulls.  This is one example of what we call biological control.  If any of them escape the gulls, we have oversized girls' hairnets, which can be purchased at the Bookstore, for them to wear."

"Certain kinds of people who seemed to be odd balls and had no regard for the culture or responsibilities of a civilized people were first characterized as "dead beats" and are now referred to as "beatniks."  There is no place at BYU for the grimy, sandaled, tight-fitted, ragged-levi beatnik.  If any appear on our campus we intend to "tick them off".

"Ordinarily buzzards are scavengers who live as predators and parasites, willing to attach the weak and consume the dead.  On the BYU campus they are those who try to get through college by deceiving their parents, sponging on others, and by academic cheating.  There is no place for such a "bird" on the BYU campus. 

As to the dress standards of women, we want no "go-go girls" nor their pseudo-sophisticated friends, nor will we tolerate any "surfers".  And for faculty members who are behind time on their modern high school terminology, LaVar Rockwood informs me that a "go-go girl" is a "sexy, scantily-dressed girl," and a "surfer" is one who is sloppily clad, often in a T-shirt or shorts, and sometimes barefooted.  Indeed, it is out of place for girls to wear slacks to any class or appear in them in any academic or adminstrativ ebuildoin ogn the campus.  This includes secretaries as well. 

 

[blueglass]

More great quotes from the Wilkinson talk:

Quote

Finally, although we admit this is a "Happy Hunting Ground" for those of the opposite sex, may I suggest that it is entirely improper and offensive to others for there to be public display of affection on the part of the students.  this generally occurs in the springtime when "A young man's fancy turns to what the young ladies have been thinking about all winter," but it is not confined to any one season, as I have noted the last few days.

There are proper places for proper controlled exhibition of affection, but those places are not on the lawns, nor in our housing areas, nor in any of the public places on this campus.  We cannot condone such "sickening" conduct at the BYU.  We also have authority this year from the Board of Trustees to give publicity to offenders, where we deem it desirable. 

I have no idea what he means by "publicity to offenders" - is this a mug shot in the daily universe? 

Edited February 23, 2020 by blueglass

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, SteveO said:

I think there’s going to be a talk in April that will be the source of much angst and disappointment.  
 

If we believe the church is guided by prophets who speak and express the will of the Lord, I’d really struggle with the idea that the mind and will of the Lord hasn’t been made known concerning the matter by now.

For a couple years, I thought the crisis of faith would come from people like me who would have to realign their beliefs to conform with the possibility that the Lord would finally lift the regulations on homosexuality and same sex marriage.  I’ve been trying to prepare myself to exercise the faith that the Lord speaks through prophets, and that whatever change comes, I’ll be able to accept it.

I’m not so sure anymore.  I think the crisis of faith is going to come from those who are still expecting a change on the matter.  Are they preparing themselves in the way I have?  At the possibility that the Lord’s will may be diametrically opposed to their’s?  I don’t think so.  It seems they’ve made up their minds and are just waiting for the leadership to “catch up”.

Huh, I tend to think it's absurd that any mortal has some direct line to the divine will of a Supreme Being and that more humility is in order. I just want the church to be better where it can be, and good where it is not.

[katherine the great]

40 minutes ago, blueglass said:

A few excerpts:

It sounds like Wilkinson just really didn't like young people in general. His remarks are very caustic and full of venom! I'll bet he enjoyed his post retirement years (away from college students) very much! 😂

[JAHS]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I just tried to find a definition for “queer” on Google and was left scratching my head. The explanations offered were so fuzzy as to leave me to conclude that the term in pop usage is virtually undefinable. 

I think queer was supposed to be a general term for people who are gay or bisexual or who are not really sure what they are. A bisexual person is Queer but a queer person is not necessarily bisexual, they might just be gay😵

The Q in LGBTQ could also stand for Questioning.

 

[blueglass]

14 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I think queer was supposed to be a general term for people who are gay or bisexual or who are not really sure what they are. A bisexual person is Queer but a queer person is not necessarily bisexual, they might just be gay😵

The Q in LGBTQ could also stand for Questioning.

 

urban dictionary definition 6.  ?  _ i have no idea - can an individual who identifies as queer on this board please help?

6. an identity used because the terms gay, lesbian, or bisexual are not sufficient for their inner feelings

[Calm]

In San Fran area in 70s it essentially meant anyone not heterosexual and cisgender  though that label wasn't used back then, heterosexual alone would have been, but actually that isn't as precise. It was used like LGBT+ is now....at least in news articles and the conversations I heard at school (several classmates were semi'out').  I worked in a bookstore managed by a lesbian and she had a big section that was labeled "queer" which included the full spectrum.  Don't know current usage though.

Edited February 24, 2020 by Calm

[CV75]

Often when topics touching on morality come up on campus, students introspect and an increase in bishop interviews follows. I wonder if leaders are seeing that after this week.

[SteveO]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Huh, I tend to think it's absurd that any mortal has some direct line to the divine will of a Supreme Being and that more humility is in order. I just want the church to be better where it can be, and good where it is not.

Right, you think the church is just another social institution that needs some policy updating.  It’s ironic that everyone pushing for these changes, are the same ones who are downplaying the role of active revelation today.

You’d take away one of the main aspects of what makes the church unique.  Which makes it increasingly obvious to me, you guys are on the wrong side of the issue.  

If gay marriage is the will of the Lord, I’ll figure out a way to work with it.  But if gay marriage is allowed only because it has come to be “absurd that any mortal has some direct line to the divine will of a Supreme Being”...then what’s the point of continuing on in this endeavor?

[smac97]

4 hours ago, SteveO said:

I think there’s going to be a talk in April that will be the source of much angst and disappointment.  

If we believe the church is guided by prophets who speak and express the will of the Lord, I’d really struggle with the idea that the mind and will of the Lord hasn’t been made known concerning the matter by now.

For a couple years, I thought the crisis of faith would come from people like me who would have to realign their beliefs to conform with the possibility that the Lord would finally lift the regulations on homosexuality and same sex marriage.  I’ve been trying to prepare myself to exercise the faith that the Lord speaks through prophets, and that whatever change comes, I’ll be able to accept it.

Same here.  I haven't been trying very hard, though.  I just don't think this change is going to happen, so anticipating it is more of an abstract hypothetical than anything else.

4 hours ago, SteveO said:

I’m not so sure anymore.  I think the crisis of faith is going to come from those who are still expecting a change on the matter.  Are they preparing themselves in the way I have?  At the possibility that the Lord’s will may be diametrically opposed to their’s?  I don’t think so.  It seems they’ve made up their minds and are just waiting for the leadership to “catch up”.

I agree.  And I think for some of these folks this "waiting" will sooner or later firm up and transition into a sort of ultimatum mindset.  And then . . . an exit.

I think this is already happening, actually.

Thanks,

-Smac

[provoman]

4 hours ago, jbarm said:

Hate to burst the bubble of you progressive types but I have it on good inside information from BYU Admin that nothing has really changed with the honor code.

Relying on second hand info from activists and activist prog-Mo professors is not a wise choice.

Only thing that has happened is the message has been bungled (not unusual). Gay dating, PDA etc is still not allowable on campus and will result in problems for any student involved.

Want to get some good gay dating and PDA in while in college?  Go to ANY other school in the state ... they will make you a hero.

jb

Your post is interesting, as there more information available and attributed to HCO in favor of same-sex dating, than there is available and attributed to BYU/HCO that informs that same-sex dating remains prohibited, I am not saying same-sex is accepted at BYU campuses because there are so many articles claiming it as truth.

And given the numerous "I was told by *insert name* from HCO" that gay dating is ok, and almost nothing attributed to HCO to rebut, I would say this is not a "bungled" message. 

[ALarson]

3 hours ago, blueglass said:

Looks like from the 1965 Wilkinson devotional where he said homosexuals should "self deport" or leave the university voluntarily he was indeed fearful that they would "contaminate" the culture at the university.  I looked up this 1965 talk and there are a lot of wild parts.

Yes, that speech is difficult to read today.  That's a period in BYU's history that I doubt anyone is proud of (including the surveillance that took place).

Although there are discussions going on regarding what these most recent changes mean, I hope there is one thing we can all agree on.....we have made great progress in how we show love for and acceptance towards our gay brothers and sisters.

Edited February 24, 2020 by ALarson

[Hoss]

On 2/21/2020 at 12:10 PM, smac97 said:

As you like.

I don't think that works.  Such disciplines and vantage points are all necessarily subordinate and secondary to revealed doctrines.

For example, no amount of sociological data espousing the merits of same-sex marriage can overcome a revealed commandment.  No survey of anthropological studies about extra-marital sexual activity through the ages can overcome the revelatory prohibition against fornication.  And so on.

Because this is the Lord's church.  It is guided principally by revelation to living prophets and apostles, not by "history and tradition" (which are, therefore, "decidedly secondary" to revelation).

It means it came from God through revelation.

English Common Law owes its origins to "history and tradition."

Christmas and birthday celebrations owe their origins to "history and tradition."

My kneeling before my then-girlfriend to ask her to marry me was derived from "history and tradition."

And so on.  There are lots of things that are derived cumulatively from social and individual habits, practices, observances, and so on.  The Law of Chastity is not one of those.  We believe it is revelatory.  It was given to us through past and present prophets and apostles, not through amorphous "history and tradition."

In the end, no, it is not.  "{N}o prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."  (2 Peter 1:20)

You seem to be thinking that the Brethren are just making it up as they go along.  Or that individual members are at liberty to disregard prophetic counsel whenever it becomes inconvenient or difficult to follow such counsel.  Neither of these is correct.

The leaders of the Church speak authoritatively as to the doctrines of the Church.  We are each, of course, ultimately free to disregard such things.  But what we can't do is formulate a bespoke and personalized re-definition of the doctrines of the Church (such as the Law of Chastity), foist it on others (including, presumably, the leaders of the Church), and expect such a re-definition to be meaningful and enforceable.  That's just not so.  

Secondary to revelation, yes.

I'm not sure they need to be separated.  But the latter predominates over the former.

Like this.

I don't know what "change" means in this instance.  You'd have to be more specific.

I think anything that man has a hand in is susceptible to at least some measure of fallibility/errancy.  Hence the wisdom in Elder Andersen's remarks: "There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find."

You seem to be attempting to set up a sort of "Sovereign Citizen"-style approach to the Restored Gospel.  Where each person gets to define things for himself, and where the Church and its leaders have no authority.  I don't think that will work.

Both.

I'm not sure I am denying complexity.  I'm just cutting to the chase.  

Not really.

I don't know what this means.

Thanks,While same-gender attraction is real, there must be no physical expression of this attraction.

-Smac

A quote from Elder Holland: "While same-gender attraction is real, there must be no physical expression of this attraction."

'No physical expression' would definitely include kissing and the like. BYU"s new honor code seems to be at odds with Elder Hollands remarks.

[Anonymous Mormon]

6 hours ago, SteveO said:

I think there’s going to be a talk in April that will be the source of much angst and disappointment.  

I agree. There is a very vocal minority on this board and in the church that are pushing for same-sex marriage marriage to be allowed in the church and in the temple (i.e., sealings). They seem to see this announcement as a step in this direction. I don't see it. 

I believe that the Eternal God is in charge of this church. He is unchangeable and doesn't care about what is popular. He is willing to lose 1/3 of his children at the get-go because these children believed that if they got enough numbers behind their alternative plan, then God would cave in and go along with what is not right. It didn't work out well for them because even though God loves his children, he won't change eternal principles. The same has happened over and over again throughout scripture.

I believe the Proclamation to the World was given by God via prophets. At the time it came out ZERO countries in the world allowed same-sex marriage, the majority of the US opposed same-sex marriage, and gender fluidity was not a well-known or accepted idea. Fast-forward 25 years and everything has changed. Based upon this, it's clear to me that the Proclamation on the Family to the World was prophetic and given by God, and just in the nick of time.

Listen up world, here is what God has revealed in a proclamation via his Prophets to his children and it ain't going to change because it is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

• Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God
• Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.
• God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife
• Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.
• Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony
• Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

Everyone should read and then re-read the above. It's very clear what God is saying via his prophets and apostles. If you believe that prophets receive revelation and that God is asking them to put out a proclamation to the world, then it's pretty clear what God's opinion is.

Just because BYU changes the honor code so that the responsibility for being the Judge in Israel rests with the Bishop and not the honor code office, this doesn't change anything. His proclamation still stands.

I am 100% certain that all these same people who are celebrating today will be angrily yelling at BYU and the church again in the next few months because we don't conform to the world's standards, but instead the Lord's. And I expect it's only getting louder and more abrasive in the future.

[Hoss]

On 2/21/2020 at 3:40 PM, Analytics said:

You seem to be dodging my point. Allow me to offer a specific example.

When I was in college and was dating LDS women, it was quite common to hold hands and cuddle. I remember one girl I knew who approached me and said quite matter-of-factly that she needed to somebody to cuddle with and that she was sure she could trust me to be her cuddle buddy. I don't think I ever even dated this particular girl, and nothing happened that I felt was the least bit "sinful." We just walked around campus holding hands, talked, and sat in her dorm room cuddling. I suppose we both enjoyed it in a heterosexual way, but we were both very clear where the line was, and didn't cross it. Didn't really even come close to it.

If the rules are "no sex outside of [heterosexual] marriage" and "don't cheat on your spouse", then according to the penumbra what we were doing would probably be considered okay, right? Then why wouldn't it also be okay if the person I was doing it with happened to be another guy? To make the case that it is okay to cuddle with a girl but bad to cuddle with a guy, you need to come up with extra anti-gay rules, like the ones that BYU removed from the Honor Code.

 

Quote from Elder Holland: "While same-gender attraction is real, there must be no physical expression of this attraction."

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, provoman said:

Your post is interesting, as there more information available and attributed to HCO in favor of same-sex dating, than there is available and attributed to BYU/HCO that informs that same-sex dating remains prohibited, I am not saying same-sex is accepted at BYU campuses because there are so many articles claiming it as truth.

And given the numerous "I was told by *insert name* from HCO" that gay dating is ok, and almost nothing attributed to HCO to rebut, I would say this is not a "bungled" message. 

Why hasn’t there been anything authoritative or first hand to confirm it?

[Meadowchik]

5 hours ago, SteveO said:

Right, you think the church is just another social institution that needs some policy updating.  It’s ironic that everyone pushing for these changes, are the same ones who are downplaying the role of active revelation today.

You’d take away one of the main aspects of what makes the church unique.  Which makes it increasingly obvious to me, you guys are on the wrong side of the issue.  

If gay marriage is the will of the Lord, I’ll figure out a way to work with it.  But if gay marriage is allowed only because it has come to be “absurd that any mortal has some direct line to the divine will of a Supreme Being”...then what’s the point of continuing on in this endeavor?

I'm not sure what you're saying. What's that main aspect that makes the church unique?

ETA: I wouldn't think of the church at all except for it being the center of my world for forty years.  It's not just "another social institution" to me. I think it can do profound good and I want it to be better. 

Edited February 24, 2020 by Meadowchik