Byu Honor Code Matches New Handbook

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I note that 'participation in gambling activities' is no longer specifically mentioned either. Clearly the Church is signalling that gambling is now perfectly OK as well. There's a casino just three blocks from where I work. I'm off!

I'm back. I just couldn't do it. Apparently my sense of right and wrong doesn't depend on BYU's honour code ...

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't get Twitter. At all. But when I clicked on the tweet, I saw a follow-up(?) one:

I should also point here that I also don't get BYU. At all.

When I was in my master's program at a large public university in the American Midwest, we had a large-ish contingent of BYU graduates arrive one semester to pursue postgraduate study. After only a few weeks, one of our recent converts whom I picked up for church each Sunday asked me why they all seemed so bitter and edgy, like they didn't actually enjoy being Church members the same way she was enjoying it. I told her I honestly didn't know, but it was unmistakable.

Were they progressives? That may have had something to do with it. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 hours ago, JulieM said:

When did they remove the section about gambling (if there was one) like they removed the two paragraphs about homosexual behavior and how it is no longer a violation of the code?  

Last week. Please see the links in Anonymous Mormon's post.

Quote

Do you have quotes from anyone who spoke to an officer at the Honor Code office about this?  Any media coverage?

If that hasn’t taken place, your comparison is not really valid.

Because, apparently, people falling all over themselves is what makes an issue 'really valid'???

Edited February 26, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Anonymous has a good point.  Something removed may not mean the brethren approve, but rather that they no longer choose to babysit us with rules. Maybe we get to grow up and live with our own choices. 

But look at the immediate fallout. 
 

So much for “teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves,” eh?

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I have an honest question for everyone who feels like this change is the church accepting, allowing, or endorsing same-sex dating and same-sex kissing.  

The previous honor code mentioned that pornography was not allowed with this statement: "involvement with pornographic, erotic, indecent, or offensive material."

The new honor code doesn't mention this, it only says, "Live a chaste and virtuous life, including abstaining from any sexual relations outside a marriage between a man and a woman."

If I call the honor code office and they say that they will no longer kick out students who are struggling with pornography, should I read this as an acceptance, allowance or endorsement of pornography usage by the church? 

Do you all see something different in the fact that they got rid of the line about pornography v. the line about forms of "physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings?" Does this streamlined change make one of these activities more accepted by the church than another? Do you believe that if BYU is no longer making it officially against the Honor Code to view pornography, that BYU students are now allowed or invited to go out and view lots of pornography?

Note: for those that haven't looked, here are links to old and new honor code rules:

New: https://policy.byu.edu/view/index.php?p=26
Old: https://web.archive.org/web/20200115092007/https://policy.byu.edu/view/index.php?p=26

If the intent of Church leaders was not to start allowing gay couples to (heaven forbid) hold hands, hug and kiss, it is pretty irresponsible of the Church leaders to let this wild fire continue for days and throughout the news media of this country without correcting the assumptions and reports from the HCO in a timely manor.

Coming back a week or two later and having to say that the relaxation of the rules for gay couples was just a misunderstanding and is once again as it was before is going to cause an even bigger firestorm against the Church.  I believe most people outside the Church, have no idea that the Church prevents gay couples from holding hands hugging or kissing with a penalty of being expelled from school.  Now that this issue has brought national attention, going back to the old rules is only going to reinforce the already widely perspective that the Church is pretty anti-gay.  I may not be a prophet, but I certainly can see nothing but continued bad publicity for the Church on LGBT issues.

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Anonymous has a good point.  Something removed may not mean the brethren approve, but rather that they no longer choose to babysit us with rules. Maybe we get to grow up and live with our own choices. 

Yes, I agree.

But we have numerous reports of statements from officers in the honor code office specifically stating that students can now openly date members of the same sex, and openly hold hands, hug and kiss.  One statement is from a BYU professor.  And, there is also a change in the official handbook.

Add to that, we have what the Prophet recently told BYU students:

“we also clarified that homosexual immorality would be treated in the eyes of the Church in the same manner as heterosexual immorality.”

 

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/russell-m-nelson/love-laws-god/

So, it’s easy to see why many believe this is a real change.

If there’s been a misunderstanding or errors made, everyone here has said they are waiting for clarification if that’s true.

Edited February 26, 2020 by JulieM

[JulieM]

27 minutes ago, california boy said:

Now that this issue has brought national attention, going back to the old rules is only going to reinforce the already widely perspective that the Church is pretty anti-gay.  I may not be a prophet, but I certainly can see nothing but continued bad publicity for the Church on LGBT issues.

Yeah, if the leaders now take back what was reported and seen as progress and acceptance (even if was an honest error), it will be a PR nightmare I think.

[Anonymous Mormon]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

If the intent of Church leaders was not to start allowing gay couples to (heaven forbid) hold hands, hug and kiss, it is pretty irresponsible of the Church leaders to let this wild fire continue for days and throughout the news media of this country without correcting the assumptions and reports from the HCO in a timely manor.

I think that the honor code has been trying to say this. For example:

Quote

“Just know that the Honor Code remains the same and as we have [done] so often in the past, we handle the questions that arise on an individual case by case basis,” a representative from BYU’s communications office told The Christian Post Thursday. 
https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2020/02/25/despite-removing-homosexual-behavior-ban-from-honor-code-byu-remains-anti-gay/

Or this:

Quote

"The Honor Code Office will handle questions that arise on a case by case basis," the university tweeted. "For example, since dating means different things to different people, the Honor Code Office will work with students individually."
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/21/us/brigham-young-homosexual-behavior-honor-code-trnd/index.html

 

 

8 hours ago, california boy said:

Coming back a week or two later and having to say that the relaxation of the rules for gay couples was just a misunderstanding and is once again as it was before is going to cause an even bigger firestorm against the Church.  I believe most people outside the Church, have no idea that the Church prevents gay couples from holding hands hugging or kissing with a penalty of being expelled from school.  Now that this issue has brought national attention, going back to the old rules is only going to reinforce the already widely perspective that the Church is pretty anti-gay.  I may not be a prophet, but I certainly can see nothing but continued bad publicity for the Church on LGBT issues.

I agree. I think what happened is BYU was trying to make the honor code less punitive and less about kicking students who are trying their best out of BYU. If a student struggles with pornography, I don't want to see them kicked out of BYU. If a LGB student is working to live a chaste life but kisses someone of the same sex while at BYU as they are trying to figure out how to navigate being a member of the church and also having those feelings, I don't want to see them kicked out of BYU. And I think that was the point of the change.

What I don't believe is that BYU expected people to assume that BYU and the church are now actively accepting or inviting these behaviors. BYU is not trying to promote these behaviors, but many people are reading into this that it is the case.

I definitely don't think that the honor code office expected BYU students to Instagram pictures of themselves sitting at the feet of the Brigham Young statue with a giant stack of Playboys celebrating that the church now accepted pornography and inviting passer-bys to come and read with them. I am guessing they didn't expect the same thing from the LGBT community either (but hind-site being 20-20, they probably should have since it is a very vocal and active community). 

Now to your point, how do they put the genie back in the bottle in clarifying beyond the statements above (that no one seems to be paying attention to) and similar that the church and BYU are not encouraging same-sex relationships (dating, kissing, etc.) while not having a huge media backlash? I don't know. But I bet the delay in response is because they know that they have to get the announcement exactly perfect since no matter what they say there will be angry people on both sides.

Edited February 26, 2020 by Anonymous Mormon
clarity

[rockpond]

40 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I definitely don't think that the honor code office expected BYU students to Instagram pictures of themselves sitting at the feet of the Brigham Young statue with a giant stack of Playboys celebrating that the church now accepted pornography and inviting passer-bys to come and read with them. I am guessing they didn't expect the same thing from the LGBT community either (but hind-site being 20-20, they probably should have since it is a very vocal and active community). 

Under no circumstances should they have expected the removal of the paragraph on gay dating/affection to NOT have generated a social media firestorm.  The Church and all of its entities/organizations have had years of good/bad experiences to learn this.  If they didn't know this would happen, that's entirely on them.

[ALarson]

I spoke to a Mother last night (at a social gathering) who has a son who is gay.  I knew him growing up and he was and is just an incredible young man who was raised in a very strong LDS home with a lot of love and support.  I've watched his parents struggle with him coming out to them that he is gay and they have handled it extremely well, IMO.

This young man served a mission and attended BYU.  She related how it was during those years at BYU when he revealed to them that he is gay and he told them he was dating another returned missionary who was also attending BYU.  These parents got to know this other young man and his family.  The Mother of the boy her son was dating, did not accept that her son was gay and their relationship became strained (her's and her son's).

When this other Mother's son graduated from BYU (a year before my friend's son graduated), she called and reported my friend's son to the BYU Honor Code Office....telling them that he was gay and dating.  This other Mother's own son was "safe" at that point, so what she did was really hurtful to my friends and their son.  They learned that the HCO opened a file on their son at that point and he did feel he was being watched (I honestly don't know if that was true though...) and his Bishop was notified who required monthly worthiness interviews with their son until he graduated from BYU a year later.  It was such a traumatic experience for this boy which resulted in very negative feelings towards the church.

(This topic came up last night, because many at this gathering were discussing this recent change....most were very supportive of what they'd heard and others really didn't comment.)

Anyway....I came away feeling that if the result of this change is that now no one will have to go through what this young man experienced, this is progress and a very positive change.  It appears (from what individuals have been told by officers at the HCO) that gay students can now openly date, publicly hold hands, hug and kiss.  No more hiding who they are and who they choose to date.  

I do expect some doubling down regarding SSM and that this will be a big part of the clarification that hopefully is coming (either in an announcement form or in GC).  I think that is definitely to be expected here.  But I do not see where they can walk this back to where we were before and have students treated like this boy was treated when he attended BYU.  

Edited February 26, 2020 by ALarson

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, JulieM said:

Yes, I agree.

But we have numerous reports of statements from officers in the honor code office specifically stating that students can now openly date members of the same sex, and openly hold hands, hug and kiss.  One statement is from a BYU professor.  And, there is also a change in the official handbook.

Add to that, we have what the Prophet recently told BYU students:

“we also clarified that homosexual immorality would be treated in the eyes of the Church in the same manner as heterosexual immorality.”

 

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/russell-m-nelson/love-laws-god/

So, it’s easy to see why many believe this is a real change.

If there’s been a misunderstanding or errors made, everyone here has said they are waiting for clarification if that’s true.

And I believe that it was President Hinckley who first taught that principle (same standard for homosexuals as well as heterosexuals) but I can't find the quote.

It's nice to finally see policy coming into alignment with teachings.

[CV75]

15 hours ago, rockpond said:

I disagree with the idea that we can put these things into separate silos:  BYU honor code here, Ecclesiastical Endorsements there, and general church policy somewhere else.  There is significant overlap.  If BYU honor code allows gay dating but bishops are terminating EE's for gay dating than you really haven't permitted gay dating at BYU, so why remove it from the HC?

Further, these are not separate and distinct organizations.  BYU's Board is chaired by President Nelson and has six other apostles with the remaining members all being general authorities/officers.  Given this, I think that the honor code, EE requirements, and church policies should all align.  Or, if they don't, some direction ought to be given for local leaders to reconcile the differences.

I agree the are closely related organizations with shared values under the same leadership. I'm talking about the role and expectations of the Trustees of the University(ies) and the Authorities of the Church when it comes to answering individual's questions about how a policy change affects them. I am also taking about what constitutes an official answer which is typically provided by university administration and local ecclesiastical leaders.

This is why I took the consistent statements that have been reported from the HCO to be official and that these questions were answered. The same with regards to questions about ecclesiastical endorsement from local church leaders. Academic [/ecclesiastical] trustees are not supposed to manage the affairs of the student body [/members of the faith community organizational units] directly, so yes, that is as unlikely as the administration making major policy changes without board [/council] approval.

[rockpond]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

If the intent of Church leaders was not to start allowing gay couples to (heaven forbid) hold hands, hug and kiss, it is pretty irresponsible of the Church leaders to let this wild fire continue for days and throughout the news media of this country without correcting the assumptions and reports from the HCO in a timely manor.

Coming back a week or two later and having to say that the relaxation of the rules for gay couples was just a misunderstanding and is once again as it was before is going to cause an even bigger firestorm against the Church.  I believe most people outside the Church, have no idea that the Church prevents gay couples from holding hands hugging or kissing with a penalty of being expelled from school.  Now that this issue has brought national attention, going back to the old rules is only going to reinforce the already widely perspective that the Church is pretty anti-gay.  I may not be a prophet, but I certainly can see nothing but continued bad publicity for the Church on LGBT issues.

This is 100% true.

[CV75]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A can of worms has been opened, and for better or worse, there needs to be some clarification.

The thing is, because dating means so many different things to so many people, the "case by case" approach is probably the clearest and fairest clarification that can be given.

[ALarson]

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Last week. Please see the links in Anonymous Mormon's post.

Where in his post does he discuss gambling?

Can you quote where gambling was specifically referenced in the BYU Honor Code like "Homosexual Behavior" was and where it is now removed?  

(I wasn't aware of this, so I'm now curious as to what other changes have taken place now.)

Edited February 26, 2020 by ALarson

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I'm talking about the role and expectations of the Trustees of the University(ies) and the Authorities of the Church when it comes to answering individual's questions about how a policy change affects them. I am also taking about what constitutes an official answer which is typically provided by university administration and local ecclesiastical leaders.

In this case, university trustees, church authorities, university administration, and local ecclesiastical leaders are all a part of the same organization.  They all ought to be united.

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This is why I took the consistent statements that have been reported from the HCO to be official and that these questions were answered.

Yes... that gay dating and same sex shows of affection are no longer prohibited.

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The same with regards to questions about ecclesiastical endorsement from local church leaders.

I don't see that this has been answered.  If I were a bishop right now, with a gay BYU student in my ward, I would not know if gay dating should prevent him from getting his EE, though from a policy standpoint, I would have to say that it wouldn't.

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Academic [/ecclesiastical] trustees are not supposed to manage the affairs of the student body [/members of the faith community organizational units] directly, so yes, that is as unlikely as the administration making major policy changes without board [/council] approval.

The student body and the faith community are the same group of people, in this case.  And academic and ecclesiastical trustees are the same people.

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The thing is, because dating means so many different things to so many people, the "case by case" approach is probably the clearest and fairest clarification that can be given.

And so far, the reports are that students (and at least one professor) have been told that it's now ok for gay students to openly date, publicly hold hands and hug & kiss.  Those are not in violation of the Honor Code.  This appears to be how the HCO is responding to questions as they are approached "case by case" or even with general questions.

That may change if they are corrected or instructed to do otherwise.

Edited February 26, 2020 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The thing is, because dating means so many different things to so many people, the "case by case" approach is probably the clearest and fairest clarification that can be given.

Nah. All that needs to be said is that the recent change to the wording should not be taken as being tantamount to tacit acceptance of romantic behavior between individuals of the same gender — if that is indeed the official position. Let there be clarity and transparency on this matter. 

[Analytics]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As I recall, the Church’s opponents contended that with the sale of the property to the Church, the law required that there be an easement on the property and street preachers and protesters were entitled to access it and exercise free-speech rights thereon.  The matter was resolved after the Church renegotiated the sale with the city. As part of the deal, the Church conveyed a piece of property on the west side to the city in exchange for the city relinquishing rights to the easement. Opponents made a last-ditch effort in court to block the deal, but the judgment went against them. Thus, the Church won the complete right to regulate speech and behavior on what has commonly been called the Main Street plaza. 

My memory is slightly different. When the city originally sold Main Street to the Church, they only sold the land--they did not sell the public's right to walk across it as part of the transportation grid. Thus, the explicit easement on the property. The arrangement was that people had the right to walk across the plaza, but the Church's private security force could impose its own behavioral standards on people who were using the easement. The ACLU successfully argued that this arrangement was inherently unconstitutional--if people had the legal right to walk across the plaza viz a viz the easement, they could take their free speech rights with them.

After it became clear the ACLU had the winning argument, the city traded the easement for some other property. Once there was no longer a legal right to walk across the property, the church could regulate its guests on the property.

[rockpond]

13 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I have an honest question for everyone who feels like this change is the church accepting, allowing, or endorsing same-sex dating and same-sex kissing.  

The previous honor code mentioned that pornography was not allowed with this statement: "involvement with pornographic, erotic, indecent, or offensive material."

The new honor code doesn't mention this, it only says, "Live a chaste and virtuous life, including abstaining from any sexual relations outside a marriage between a man and a woman."

If I call the honor code office and they say that they will no longer kick out students who are struggling with pornography, should I read this as an acceptance, allowance or endorsement of pornography usage by the church? 

Do you all see something different in the fact that they got rid of the line about pornography v. the line about forms of "physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings?" Does this streamlined change make one of these activities more accepted by the church than another? Do you believe that if BYU is no longer making it officially against the Honor Code to view pornography, that BYU students are now allowed or invited to go out and view lots of pornography?

Note: for those that haven't looked, here are links to old and new honor code rules:

New: https://policy.byu.edu/view/index.php?p=26
Old: https://web.archive.org/web/20200115092007/https://policy.byu.edu/view/index.php?p=26

 

13 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I note that 'participation in gambling activities' is no longer specifically mentioned either. Clearly the Church is signalling that gambling is now perfectly OK as well. There's a casino just three blocks from where I work. I'm off!

 

Yes... so true... because pornography, gambling, and dating are all equivalents.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Analytics said:

My memory is slightly different. When the city originally sold Main Street to the Church, they only sold the land--they did not sell the public's right to walk across it as part of the transportation grid. Thus, the explicit easement on the property. The arrangement was that people had the right to walk across the plaza, but the Church's private security force could impose its own behavioral standards on people who were using the easement. The ACLU successfully argued that this arrangement was inherently unconstitutional--if people had the legal right to walk across the plaza viz a viz the easement, they could take their free speech rights with them.

After it became clear the ACLU had the winning argument, the city traded the easement for some other property. Once there was no longer a legal right to walk across the property, the church could regulate its guests on the property.

Umm ... potato vs po-tah-to? 

[hope_for_things]

29 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And so far, the reports are that students (and at least one professor) have been told that it's now ok for gay students to openly date, publicly hold hands and hug & kiss.  Those are not in violation of the Honor Code.  This appears to be how the HCO is responding to questions as they are approached "case by case" or even with general questions.

That may change if they are corrected or instructed to do otherwise.

I can see a scenario where no additional public clarification is going to be made on this issue. This is the MO of the church on many controversial issues.  What it does unfortunately is it allows those who still hold bigoted views towards LGB individuals to maintain their operating paradigms, so they aren't alienated toward the church and its authoritative position, essentially so they keep committed to the institution. 

Practically speaking I expect to see the HCO enforce the policy as its written now which allows for public affection between members of the same sex.  While at the same time, you'll have the conservative types believing that this behavior is not implicitly endorsed by BYU, so they can still maintain their views that God looks down on people for what they believe is immoral behavior.  Its a weird kind of win/lose scenario for the church, in that the LGB population at BYU sees a win on the enforcement side of things, but culturally speaking the needle is moving extremely slowly towards more egalitarian ideals influencing the entire church culture.  

[Anonymous Mormon]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes... so true... because pornography, gambling, and dating are all equivalents.

Pornography, gambling, and same-sex dating are only equivalents in that all 3 were previously specifically forbidden in the honor code and are no longer mentioned. I am not making a case for them being equivalent in any other way (nor do I want to insinuate that I am or debate whether or not they are).

The question becomes though, that since these 3 were mentioned before and are no longer mentioned now, how much does that represent an endorsement or acceptance of any of these 3 behaviors by the church? 

 

 

Edited February 26, 2020 by Anonymous Mormon

[Anonymous Mormon]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes... so true... because pornography, gambling, and dating are all equivalents.

Pornography, gambling, and same-sex dating are only equivalents in that all 3 were previously specifically forbidden in the honor code and are no longer mentioned. I am not making a case for them being equivalent in any other way (nor do I want to insinuate that I am or debate whether or not they are).

The question becomes though, that since these 3 were mentioned before and are no longer mentioned now, how much does that represent an endorsement or acceptance of any of these 3 behaviors by the church?

 

Case in point the comment above, which seems to say that by removing something from the honor code it is now implicitly endorsed by BYU:

16 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

While at the same time, you'll have the conservative types believing that this behavior is not implicitly endorsed by BYU, so they can still maintain their views that God looks down on people for what they believe is immoral behavior.

 

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

As I recall, the Church’s opponents contended that with the sale of the property to the Church, the law required that there be an easement on the property and street preachers and protesters were entitled to access it and exercise free-speech rights thereon.  The matter was resolved after the Church renegotiated the sale with the city. As part of the deal, the Church conveyed a piece of property on the west side to the city in exchange for the city relinquishing rights to the easement. Opponents made a last-ditch effort in court to block the deal, but the judgment went against them. Thus, the Church won the complete right to regulate speech and behavior on what has commonly been called the Main Street plaza. 

My memory is slightly different. When the city originally sold Main Street to the Church, they only sold the land--they did not sell the public's right to walk across it as part of the transportation grid. Thus, the explicit easement on the property. The arrangement was that people had the right to walk across the plaza, but the Church's private security force could impose its own behavioral standards on people who were using the easement.  The ACLU successfully argued that this arrangement was inherently unconstitutional--if people had the legal right to walk across the plaza viz a viz the easement, they could take their free speech rights with them.

This is substantially correct.

As I recall, the original deal was to sell the land in fee simple, with no easement, to the Church.  Then, after some opposition to that deal (from, IIRC, residents who wanted to keep North-South pedestrial access open to the public) the parties (the City and the Church) changed the terms to allow the City to retain a public access easement, but also allowed the Church to control speech/conduct on that easement.  However, the purchase price was not reduced to account for the retained easement.

This compromise was a bad one, and a major error by the attorneys on both sides.  In the subsequent lawsuit challenging the compromise, the Tenth Circuit correctly ruled that it was an unconstitutional infringement on Free Speech.  The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals observed:

Quote

The City contends that acquiescing to the LDS Church's demand to control speech on the easement was necessary to obtain the Church's agreement to buy the property. That may be true, but the City may not exchange the public's constitutional rights even for other public benefits such as the revenue from the sale, and certainly may not provide a public space or passage conditioned on a private actor's desire that that space be expression-free. The City must "`bear the attendant costs.'" Hawkins, 170 F.3d at 1288 (quoting ISKCON, 505 U.S. at 700, 112 S.Ct. 2711 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment)). If it wants an easement, the City must permit speech on the easement. Otherwise, it must relinquish the easement so the parcel becomes entirely private.

So the Church, or rather the Church's attorneys (and the City's), appear to have made a pretty substantial error in judgment in negotiating the Church's purchase of the Main Street with terms that ended up being problematic from a real property / free speech point of view.  Correcting this error required the Church to purchase the easement again (yep, the Church paid for the easement twice, the first time by paying the full purchase price of the property (as if there were no easement), and the second time by paying cash and swapping land).

10 minutes ago, Analytics said:

After it became clear the ACLU had the winning argument, the city traded the easement for some other property.

And more cash, too.  

10 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Once there was no longer a legal right to walk across the property, the church could regulate its guests on the property.

Yep.

This summary of this issue by the ACLU, though somewhat slanted, is substantially correct.

Thanks,

-Smac