Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Byu Honor Code Matches New Handbook


Calm

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And if they continue to abide by the conditions of the Honor Code, they will be retained in good faith. 

Well, yes, as long as they are able to delay serious courtship and marriage with someone of the same sex, they need not worry. They'll have to constantly readjust their normal and healthy progression in order to stay in school or remain employed at BYU. Hopefully that won't cause long-lasting harm.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Well, yes, as long as they are able to delay serious courtship and marriage with someone of the same sex, they need not worry. They'll have to constantly readjust their normal and healthy progression in order to stay in school or remain employed at BYU. Hopefully that won't cause long-lasting harm.

College students sometimes experience circumstances of one nature or another that require them to cease enrollment and transfer to a different school — failure to maintain an adequate GPA, for example, or inability to afford tuition and fees. Conditions for continued enrollment at BYU are what they are and and a contract is what it is. 
 

This reminds me of the proverbial case in which a couple marry who are both active in the Church, then the man abandons his faith, objects to his wife’s continued membership and activity in the Church and blames the Church for causing discord in his marriage. It was he that changed, not she, and not the Church. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

College students sometimes experience circumstances of one nature or another that require them to cease enrollment and transfer to a different school. Conditions for enrollment at BYU are what they are and and a contract is what it is. 
 

This reminds me of the proverbial case in which a couple marry who are both active in the Church, then the man abandons his faith, objects to his wife’s continued membership and activity in the Church and blames the Church for causing discord in his marriage. It was he that changed, not she. 

College students also fall in love, marry, and start families while studying at BYU, as do employees. The fact that the Honor Code does not (presumably) allow for that for same-sex couples is a symptom of its problem. One could also say that your "proverbial" example is also symptomatic of the church's weaknesses. People make mistakes, too, but so do institutions, including the church.

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

College students also fall in love, marry, and start families while studying at BYU, as do employees. The fact that the Honor Code does not (presumably) allow for that for same-sex couples is a symptom of its problem. One could also say that your "proverbial" example is also symptomatic of the church's weaknesses. People make mistakes, too, but so do institutions, including the church.

Neither the university nor the Church allows homosexual behavior. Students presumably understand that when they enroll. The university’s and the Church’s adherence to their own standards — and to the terms of the contract made with the student — cannot justifiably be viewed as a weakness or a mistake. 
 

Students who can no longer abide by the terms are free to go elsewhere, thus freeing up an enrollment slot for someone else who would happily agree to the terms for the privilege of enrolling at the university. Nothing the university or its sponsoring institution does precludes them from doing that. 
 

If I make a contract and subsequently  find I no longer can or am no longer willing to live up to the terms of the contract, I don’t accuse the other party of weakness or error in not granting me the benefits of the contract regardless of my breaching it. That’s elementary ethics.  

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Neither the university nor the Church allows homosexual behavior. Students presumably understand that when they enroll. The university’s and the Church’s adherence to their own standards — and to the terms of the contract made with the student — cannot justifiably be viewed as a weakness or a mistake. 
 

Students who can no longer abide by the terms are free to go elsewhere, thus freeing up an enrollment slot for someone else who would happily agree to the terms for the privilege of enrolling at the university. Nothing the university or its sponsoring institution does precludes them from doing that. 
 

If I make a contract and subsequently  find I no longer can or am no longer willing to live up to the terms of the contract, I don’t accuse the other party of weakness or error in not granting me the benefits of the contract regardless of my breaching it. That’s elementary ethics.  

Part of elementary ethics is that unjust contracts can exist. It would seem to me that a very powerful and influential entity that regularly enters into thousands of contracts has the moral obligation to ensure the propriety of that contract.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Part of elementary ethics is that unjust contracts can exist. It would seem to me that a very powerful and influential entity that regularly enters into thousands of contracts has the moral obligation to ensure the propriety of that contract.

Well then, I find that we are at loggerheads on the matter of whether the university imposes an “unjust contract” on its enrollees or one that lacks propriety. 
 

Nobody is forced into accepting it. 
 

If I felt a contract was unjust, I would never come anywhere near to entering into it, even if I thought I was capable at the moment of meeting the terms of the contract. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Part of elementary ethics is that unjust contracts can exist.

 That is not the case here, though. The contract is fully and fairly understood between the parties. There is no coercion, no duress. Both sides have substantial bargaining power. The student has many many other options should they find the terms of and rolling at BYU to be problematic or unacceptable.

Quote

It would seem to me that a very powerful and influential entity that regularly enters into thousands of contracts has the moral obligation to ensure the propriety of that contract.

 In the United States, there is very much a laissez faire attitude towards entering into contracts. There are some constraints, but the latitude given to private parties to negotiate and enter into contracts is very broad.   There is no fraud, no coercion, no duress, no hidden or difficult to understand terms Kama and so on. To the contrary, BYU is quite well known and very upfront about the honor code.

Edited by smac97
Link to comment

Here's a couple of articles (and a video) regarding what is taking place on the BYU campus.  Both sides are asking for clarity regarding the removal of the section titled "Homosexual Behavior" from the honor code (and clarity regarding statements quoted and from officers working there).  It also appears many feel comfortable now openly showing affection for a member of their same sex: 

Quote

 

https://universe.byu.edu/2020/02/27/byu-students-clash-over-honor-code-changes-demand-clarification/

BYU students clash over honor code changes, seek clarification

The one thing that both sides of the argument agreed on is that there has been a lack of clarity from the university on what the changes to the honor code mean and what that means for those of the LGBT community. BYU officials announced changes to the honor code last week for all Church-owned campuses, but did not specify what they were. The campus community quickly learned that a section of the honor code on homosexual behavior had been removed. Despite speculation on campus and in the media, officials have not clarified questions about whether gay dating is now allowed but have said the Honor Code Office will deal with students on a “case by case” basis.

Freshman Allison Baker — who said she was happy when the change was announced because she felt it was more in line with the Church policy’s on heterosexual and homosexual immorality — said she’s disappointed in the university for its lack of communication.

 

And:

Quote

 

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Ocz4T9A5bO0J:https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2020/02/27/hundreds-brigham-young/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Rainbow Day at BYU draws hundreds of students

 

It was the third Rainbow Day celebration at Brigham Young University to support the LGBTQ community — and this time, unlike the few before, hundreds of students showed up.

They filled the campus quad with rainbow flags and signs. They shouted, “Love is love,” at anyone who walked up to their table. And they hugged and kissed and high-fived in excitement.

It’s the first time many have felt like they could.

“All of us who are out can now be free to be ourselves,” said student Erin Berglund, who identifies as lesbian. “It’s a relief.”

 

 

 

 

 
Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
19 hours ago, Calm said:

When significantly subsidizing someone’s schooling who can easily choose to go elsewhere, it is not “imposing beliefs” imo. BYU is not the only school out there. 

Yet still these beliefs are based on supernatural assumptions with no evidence.  And the only reason for restricting private behavior. 

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

If one feels that way, why not find a place where one would be happier?

The main reason I no longer attend church.  Every time I think about going back I come here and read threads like this and it convinces me I have made the right decision.

Link to comment
19 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well this sort of makes the point I made in a post on the thread where I said it was great to be free of such nonsense.. This is a fine illustration of how people with superstitious beliefs that are based on so called scripture that is ancient, and in the case of LDS, from so called prophets, seers and revelators (whose track record is dismal) want to impose their beliefs that have no concrete evidence to convince others they are right, on the private behavior of others. It is time for humans to move beyond such things.

While I agree that blind allegiance to authority figures is potentially very dangerous and morally problematic (see the Nuremberg defense as exhibit A) I don’t think its unique to religious traditions.  Cultural norms are influenced by religion and vice versa and it’s hard to know which side is informing the other as they are so intertwined.   

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I have many gay friends including one to whom I introduced the gospel, but none have ever made moves on me like my roommate did.

I’ve had women put “the moves” on me and been uncomfortable before.  This really has nothing to do with LGBTQ issues  in my eyes.  It’s more of a comment about consent and respectful interactions on a human level.  

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The main reason I no longer attend church.  Every time I think about going back I come here and read threads like this and it convinces me I have made the right decision.

So comments on a *mostly* anonymous message board are influencing decisions regarding your spirituality and relationship with God?  

You’re dumb.

Apologies if this comment only reinforces your decision.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, california boy said:

Permit me to share a little personal experience that might bring some insight into this policy change.

When I came out to my bishop, I had quite a lengthy conversation with him on how I could navigate being in the church and being gay.  I asked him if I could date men.  He said it was not appropriate.  I asked him if I could have a male room mate.  Not appropriate.  I asked him if I could have a female room mate.  He said that would also not be appropriate.  Could I ever be with someone of the same sex.  His response was to only do so in group situations. This was not just a discussion of celibacy.  This was a discussion of completely removing me from any kind of human connection on an emotional level above acquaintance or friendship.  Most humans need a little more than casual acquaintances.

This was a major factor in my decision to leave the Church.  (this and the chance of being with someone I loved even after I die) To not have any kind of emotional connection with someone I was drawn to or wanted to spend time with made me realize that I couldn't nor did I want to live that kind of life.  There is a huge difference between celibacy and not having any emotional connections with people we connect with.  There is a huge difference between a friend and someone we want to share our life with, even if it means no sex in that relationship.

A young person right out of high school having to face these same issues often leads them to the same conclusion.  Most leave the church and never attend BYU.  They find a happy and fulfilling life outside of the gospel.  Is that what the Church wants?  Maybe there are those who could choose to find a companion to share this life with even if that means never having any sex between them if they thought they could still participate in the Church.  Maybe just the fact that a gay person can feel like they are allowed to be just a little human after all is enough reason to get rid of the no date policy.  Maybe this is what is meant by handling things on a case by case basis.

Sure there will be those that fall in love and want more than just a celibate relationship.  The odds are, that is going to happen anyway.  The question is, does the Church want the person to make those life changing decisions in the environment of a BYU, or does the Church want the person to make those kinds of decisions at another university that has no support for the alternative.  Or, is that option even available in the Church?

If my bishop or stake president had given me the option of being in a human relationship even with no sex, then maybe I would have made different choices.  Maybe it all would have worked out the same.  I don't really know.  But for all of those who won't give an inch on the possibility of that happening, there are consequences in real peoples lives that you are standing in the way of letting happen.

Thanks for the vulnerability and sharing part of your story.  Much respect !  Change can’t happen fast enough in my eyes.  I am hopeful that we’re moving in the right direction and that love is winning this battle in the long game.  

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I’ve had women put “the moves” on me and been uncomfortable before.  This really has nothing to do with LGBTQ issues  in my eyes.  It’s more of a comment about consent and respectful interactions on a human level.  

You must be better looking or more manly than me. Not many ladies have put the moves on, but nothing like what he was doing. So I'm to blame for adverse feelings about what he was doing? Nice.

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
31 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The main reason I no longer attend church.  Every time I think about going back I come here and read threads like this and it convinces me I have made the right decision.

I'm glad you have found a better place. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, SteveO said:

So comments on a *mostly* anonymous message board are influencing decisions regarding your spirituality and relationship with God?  

You’re dumb.

Apologies if this comment only reinforces your decision.

No you are dumb.  You live your life on a superstition with no evidence. And like most believing Mormons you want to impose these no evidence beliefs on the general population.  Yep.  You are dumb.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Some might take up a spot in good faith and then afterwards understand they are not straight. 

This is not meant to discount that experience as I see college years as a prime time where people realize their identities aren't always the same as they assumed they were when they were at home functioning in the roles that their families to  great extent created for them and this can be very emotional in positive and negative ways.

However, I do think (not targeting a particular post, but speaking about comments I have seen in many places) presenting such realizations and a possible additional one that BYU does not fit into one's life plans any more because of changes in perceptions of gender identity/sexual orientation as something traumatic in itself that BYU should go out of its way to help students avoid experiencing ignores to a great extent how many different students have dramatic changes in their lives and therefore find a need to move out and on from BYU before graduation.  Reasons for changes I have seen are financial (losing scholarships may mean kids end up moving home to live and attending a state college), sports (more play elsewhere or injury means can't play), medical (getting pregnant and having kids can delay graduation), marriage (spouse graduating and needing to move for job means finishing elsewhere), change of career direction (better schooling elsewhere), cultural (they just don't enjoy the vibes), climate (one student couldn't handle the grays of winter), religious (either nonLatter-day Saint to begin with and realizing the religious context is too much for them or a change in their faith leads them to not be interested in going to a school that emphasizes one faith so much)...pretty sure there are other reasons for transferring schools I haven't put up.  BYU should not be in the business of protecting students from consequences of life, imo.

While there may be other issues going on for a student that are traumatic, transferring schools is so very common I see demands that BYU alter its way of doing things (dropping ongoing endorsements for example) because it is too much or even wrong to ask kids to transfer when students do not wish to live the standards of the organization paying for the most part of their education as an irrational demand in most cases.  Students transfer out of other schools all the time without angst being attached to the move and out of BYU as well.  I do think BYU should work to make transfers to other schools relatively easy (biggest problem I have heard about is shortage of credits at times due to losing religion credits and anger at having to pay for now useless credits, I can think of a few changes but that is a derail...).

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
37 minutes ago, Teancum said:

No you are dumb.  You live your life on a superstition with no evidence. And like most believing Mormons you want to impose these no evidence beliefs on the general population.  Yep.  You are dumb.

Edited:  Beneath me
 

Edited by SteveO
Link to comment
5 hours ago, ALarson said:

Here's a couple of articles (and a video) regarding what is taking place on the BYU campus.  Both sides are asking for clarity regarding the removal of the section titled "Homosexual Behavior" from the honor code (and clarity regarding statements quoted and from officers working there).  It also appears many feel comfortable now openly showing affection for a member of their same sex: 

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.  I’d wondered how things were going on campus since the announced change, the video of the professor and the numerous news articles.

If there was open showing of affection (hugs and kisses, etc.) between same sex students, and no one was called into the honor code office or told to stop that behavior on campus, students are going to believe that this is now acceptable or not prohibited now.  
 

At least until they hear otherwise.  That may still be coming from the leaders though.  But if nothing is clarified, students will be left feeling this is now ok.

Edited by JulieM
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...