Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Byu Honor Code Matches New Handbook


Calm

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

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.

My hope is that President Nelson will wear a rainbow tie this conference and clarify an expansive view of the James 2, "royal law"

Edited by blueglass
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, blueglass said:

My hope is that President Nelson will wear a rainbow tie this conference and clarify an expansive view of the James 2, "royal law"

I will be surprised if an announcement doesn't come out beforehand....if there is an announcement.  I think this as an issue is a little too distracting to the usual purpose of Conference, relevant to a more localized membership.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

No, you’re not to blame for someone coming on to you in a way that made you uncomfortable, not at all.  I’m merely pointing out that this has nothing to do with our LGBTQ sisters and brothers.  It’s a human thing and as I mentioned belongs in the category of talking about proper consent and respectful interactions.  

Unfortunately when some statements are made without larger context it can perpetuate false stereotypes against groups that are hurtful.  It would be akin to someone once having a hurtful experience with a Mormon and then in an online discussion about whether Mormons deserve the same rights as others the person brings up their negative experience they once had with a Mormon as part of the online discussion. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, JulieM said:

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.

It is ok, for now at least.  Let’s hope that continues.  😆

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, blueglass said:

My hope is that President Nelson will wear a rainbow tie this conference and clarify an expansive view of the James 2, "royal law"

I’d pay good money to see any of the top 15 wear a rainbow tie in general conference.  Might be worth starting a gofundme with all the proceeds going to Encircle or some other worthy LGBTQ charity.  

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Join me!

What's in it for me?

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

As a fan of the NBA I would probably expect the refs to call a double technical foul as they both called each other dumb, but I’d tend to give more lenience to Teancum because in this case SteveO was the first to use that language.  

I like double technicals about as much as does Jeff Van Gundy, but in this case h_f_t I think you’re right.🤐

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

As a fan of the NBA I would probably expect the refs to call a double technical foul as they both called each other dumb, but I’d tend to give more lenience to Teancum because in this case SteveO was the first to use that language.  

I agree double foul.

I was thinking for some reason Steve had also removed his first post.  So consider it a half thank you for at least stepping away from ramping it up.  I would much prefer all evidence of that interchange gone.

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

As a fan of the NBA I would probably expect the refs to call a double technical foul as they both called each other dumb, but I’d tend to give more lenience to Teancum because in this case SteveO was the first to use that language.  

 

5 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

I like double technicals about as much as does Jeff Van Gundy, but in this case h_f_t I think you’re right.🤐

 

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I agree double foul.

I was thinking for some reason Steve had also removed his first post.  So consider it a half thank you for at least stepping away from ramping it up.  I would much prefer all evidence of that interchange gone.

Isn’t there a rule here about board nannying? 

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

Not to worry, if there is such a rule, I won’t call you on it.  Smile.

I assure you the irony wasn’t lost on me, the reason I hesitated to bring it up. 
 

Not unlike the amusing spectacle of one person getting after another here for allegedly being judgmental (and we’ve seen a fair amount of that on this thread). 
 

Incidentally, the proscription against “net nannying” is spelled out under a list of “banned behaviors” in the “Board Guidelines Update” thread. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Calm said:

I will be surprised if an announcement doesn't come out beforehand....if there is an announcement.  I think this as an issue is a little too distracting to the usual purpose of Conference, relevant to a more localized membership.

Do you think some changes to the handbook might be clarified during conference?

 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Do you think some changes to the handbook might be clarified during conference?

 

Possibly.  It is BYU changes that I would find as odd.

Weren't the changes to the bishops' interviews announced shortly before conference?

edited to add:  https://www.deseret.com/2018/3/27/20642326/updated-lds-policy-allows-another-adult-to-sit-in-on-leaders-interviews-with-children-and-women

update to children of LGBT parents came right before conference as well.

another:  https://www.deseret.com/2019/4/4/20670097/church-to-allow-baptisms-blessings-for-children-of-lgbt-parents-updates-handbook-regarding-apostasy#file-the-church-office-building-in-salt-lake-city

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
On 2/29/2020 at 8:52 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

Neither the university nor the Church allows homosexual behavior.

That's not true.  

The Church HB and the BYU HC have both removed provisions against “homosexual behaviors”.  Without clarification from The Church, one can only conclude that no provision against a certain behavior is the same as approval of that behavior (bc it had once been prohibited in the HB / HC).

Beards, beer and shorts are prohibited but gay dating, kissing , hand holding certainly are not.

Does that make any sense to anybody?  

No.

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, Durangout said:

That's not true.  

The Church HB and the BYU HC have both removed provisions against “homosexual behaviors”.  Without clarification from The Church, one can only conclude that no provision against a certain behavior is the same as approval of that behavior (bc it had once been prohibited in the HB / HC).

Beards, beer and shorts are prohibited but gay dating, kissing , hand holding certainly are not.

Does that make any sense to anybody?  

No.

Interesting you would bring this up.  I had a discussion with a friend of mine about 2 hours ago about the way religion has evolved away from the central message of Jesus Christ to turn into organizations that try to completely control their followers.  As you point out, the Church has gotten to the point that they want to control facial hair, fashion choices, who they kiss, who they date and who they hold hands with, what they drink, how many ear rings a person should wear, whether their shoulders are showing, etc.  

Why does any of this need to be a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ?  Why is any of this a part of the "Honor Code"?  Can you not have honor and wear a beard?  

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Durangout said:

That's not true.  

The Church HB and the BYU HC have both removed provisions against “homosexual behaviors”.  Without clarification from The Church, one can only conclude that no provision against a certain behavior is the same as approval of that behavior (bc it had once been prohibited in the HB / HC).

Beards, beer and shorts are prohibited but gay dating, kissing , hand holding certainly are not.

Does that make any sense to anybody?  

No.

The statement from the university said the principles had not changed even though the paragraph in question has been removed. 
 

Tolerating romantic public expression between persons of the same sex when such expression was not tolerated previously would amount to a change in principles, as I see it. To deny that is, on the part of some, to engage in wishful thinking. 
 

Apparently, though, non-romantic (platonic) expressions between persons of the same sex are tolerable. It can be difficult to objectively and immediately determine whether a specific expression is romantic or platonic in nature and intent; perhaps that is why (speculating here) the university has chosen to move to a procedure of case-by-case evaluation. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
On 2/29/2020 at 9:09 PM, Calm said:

Possibly.  It is BYU changes that I would find as odd.

Weren't the changes to the bishops' interviews announced shortly before conference?

edited to add:  https://www.deseret.com/2018/3/27/20642326/updated-lds-policy-allows-another-adult-to-sit-in-on-leaders-interviews-with-children-and-women

update to children of LGBT parents came right before conference as well.

another:  https://www.deseret.com/2019/4/4/20670097/church-to-allow-baptisms-blessings-for-children-of-lgbt-parents-updates-handbook-regarding-apostasy#file-the-church-office-building-in-salt-lake-city

I agree... If the Brethren are going to make any announcements about handbook changes, it would likely be done in the days leading up to conference.  Or it will be done directly to local leadership.

As for the changes to the BYU Honor Code.  They've had time to announce or publish clarifications if they wanted to.  They haven't.  I don't think any are forthcoming.

Perhaps they'll let this one fence-sit in nebulous territory like the Race and the Priesthood Essay.

Or maybe they intend to handle it like the reversal of the Nov 2015 LGBT policy changes where they trickle out bits and pieces over many months.

They are, after all, in a perilous position from a public relations standpoint:  If they announce that the deletion from the BYU HC does in fact mean that they are not going to punish those who engage in same gender dating, they'll have upset members and BYU students (some of whom have already started protesting).  If they come out with an announcement that states gay dating is prohibited, they'll face another round of negative headlines.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, rockpond said:

I agree... If the Brethren are going to make any announcements about handbook changes, it would likely be done in the days leading up to conference.  Or it will be done directly to local leadership.

As for the changes to the BYU Honor Code.  They've had time to announce or publish clarifications if they wanted to.  They haven't.  I don't think any are forthcoming.

Perhaps they'll let this one fence-sit in nebulous territory like the Race and the Priesthood Essay.

Or maybe they intend to handle it like the reversal of the Nov 2015 LGBT policy changes where they trickle out bits and pieces over many months.

They are, after all, in a perilous position from a public relations standpoint:  If they announce that the deletion from the BYU HC does in fact mean that they are not going to punish those who engage in same gender dating, they'll have upset members and BYU students (some of whom have already started protesting).  If they come out with an announcement that states gay dating is prohibited, they'll face another round of negative headlines.

It’s bound to happen sooner or later. Assuming this isn’t some subtle form of don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy, the first time some angry student goes public because he was sanctioned for making out with his boyfriend on campus, the headlines are going to appear. 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, rockpond said:

As for the changes to the BYU Honor Code.  They've had time to announce or publish clarifications if they wanted to.  They haven't.  I don't think any are forthcoming.

I think you may be right and I think that's interesting to see (if one does not happen).

I spoke with a Mother in our ward yesterday who has a daughter attending BYU.  She saw the Rainbow Day celebration and said there was a huge crowd of students out supporting their gay fellow students.  There was a lot of same-sex couples openly hugging and kissing.  

Her daughter also said she has definitely seen more public affection between same-sex couples on campus since the announcement (and since hearing what was reported that the honor code officers stated about what is now allowed).....mostly hand holding or arms around each other and hugs, but some kisses too.  All done out in the open.  As far as she know, no one has been called into the honor code office regarding these public shows of affection and she does believe if that had happened students would know (As Scott stated above).

So if nothing is done here, most students will believe there is a change and what was once prohibited behavior, is now acceptable behavior.

ETA:

Here's from the newspaper write up regarding the Rainbow Day celebration:

Quote

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.”

The Wednesday event had been planned for months. But, by coincidence, it came shortly after the religious Provo school first publicly acknowledged that it had removed the longstanding ban on “homosexual behavior” from its Honor Code. The strict set of rules at BYU, which is owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, had previously prohibited “all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings." Those who acted on such feelings before could be punished or suspended.

Anna Stevenson said she used to worry about wearing or saying anything in her classes that might out her as gay. On Wednesday, though, with the policy change, she no longer felt like she had to hide. She pulled on a pair of rainbow socks and a pride T-shirt and carried colorful flags in each hand. And she stood out and proud in front of the campus library.

“I could have been kicked out of school for this before,” she said. “But now I don’t have to worry about that.”

 

 

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The statement from the university said the principles had not changed even though the paragraph in question has been removed. 

But so far, behavior that was prohibited on campus is now being allowed.  That is a change.  So, have the "principles" not changed, but has the prohibited Homosexual "Behavior" changed regarding openly dating, hand holding, hugging and kissing between same-sex couples?  They did remove the entire section titled "Homosexual Behavior" from the honor code (another change).

It appears that is the case at least for now.  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Not if you have given your word of honor that you will remain clean shaven. 

 

I think you probably know my question was why would the request even be made?

Do you have an answer for that ?

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think you may be right and I think that's interesting to see (if one does not happen).

I spoke with a Mother in our ward yesterday who has a daughter attending BYU.  She saw the Rainbow Day celebration and said there were actually hundreds of students out supporting their gay fellow students.  There was a lot of same-sex couples openly hugging and kissing.  

Her daughter also said she has definitely seen more public affection between same-sex couples on campus since the announcement (and since hearing what was reported that the honor code officers stated about what is now allowed).....mostly hand holding or arms around each other and hugs, but some kisses too.  All done out in the open.  As far as she know, no one has been called into the honor code office regarding these public shows of affection and she does believe if that had happened students would know (As Scott stated above).

So if nothing is done here, most students will believe there is a change and what was once prohibited behavior, is now acceptable behavior.

Its very encouraging.  

I was thinking about the BYU tweet shortly after the initial news about the change in policy and wondering how that compares to our history on the polygamy issue.  If we take a look back at polygamy, the first manifesto was crafted to appease the government.  It was very carefully worded so as to send the message that the church would comply with the technicality of the law, but at the same time many of the leaders still believed in and continued to practice polygamy, even taking on additional wives after the first manifesto.  Hence the need for a second manifesto and a show of additional enforcement from the institution during the Reed Smoot trials.  

In summary, something that started out as just appeasing government and society on an issue, without church leaders theologically abandoning the practice of polygamy, later evolved into the idea that this abandonment of polygamy was inspired revelation and then an even more emphatic turn away from polygamy developed to the tune of where we are today with the dominant narrative being that polygamy isn't necessary for the highest exaltation and there is a strong desire to not be associated with the past practice or rhetoric on this topic.  

I wonder if we might see the same thing playing out with respect to LGB individuals.  BYU changes the policy, but then makes a vague statement asserting that in practical application terms, nothing has changed.  But it clearly has changed and the HC office isn't enforcing things the same way, and if this continues forward there could be a day where people looking backwards on this time period see the change as inspired from God and where the church culture has evolved to a point that it wants to distance itself from its homophobic past practices.  Well, thats one man's speculation about what might play out going forward.  I just was thinking it interesting to compare to our past with polygamy.  

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s bound to happen sooner or later. Assuming this isn’t some subtle form of don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy,

DADT, with respect to gay dating, was what BYU had prior to this change.

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

the first time some angry student goes public because he was sanctioned for making out with his boyfriend on campus, the headlines are going to appear. 

Assuming such a sanctioning were to happen but it isn't looking like that's where this is headed.

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

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