Byu Honor Code Matches New Handbook

[ALarson]

42 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The students who applauded Dr. Brau's announcement are the future bishops and relief society presidents of the church.  I think this honor code change could really be pivotal.

I talked to my Bishop yesterday and he said that they are being flooded with questions from parents and other members regarding this change.  He said that the Stake President reported the same (almost all were very happy about it and supportive...many of those reaching out with questions, have gay children or family members).  He feels the leaders are not really unified on this and that things are in chaos right now (his opinion).  He also said that he wouldn't be surprised if some of the more hard liners (such as Pres. Oaks) will make sure there is a talk in the upcoming General Conference, digging their heels in even firmer regarding SSM.

I will not be surprised to see this either (and actually kind of expect it).  

But you are right about the future.  The youth in our ward embrace and support their friends who are gay and they are celebrating this change.  These are the leaders of the future.

Edited February 24, 2020 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Which is a choice.  That's my point.

Isn't that self-evident?

No.  I am saying disbelief is a choice.  

I think the sentiment that folks like Tom are expressing is a false dilemma.  To lie or to leave.  Those are, for Tom, the only two options available.  This dilemma is predicated on the notion that the falsity of the Church's truth claims is a foregone conclusion.  That there is no room for principled, reasoned disagreement about this.  That you either agree with Tom and leave, or else you stay in the Church and lie.

I submit that there is a third option available.  I submit that the Church's truth claims are eminently defensible and plausible.  That there is considerable room for principled, reasoned disagreement about this.

Thanks,

-Smac

Let's draw up a scenario.  If you think its possible that the BOM is a history of ancient peoples in Americas and say it's possible in spite of any known evidence, scientifically, to verify such a claim, then great.  You believe in spite of the evidence.  if you say it's defensible and plausible and there is scientific evidence supporting the claim that's a different story.  Tom may look at that which you call evidence and say, "well that's not really evidence, smac.  That's just assumptions based on assumptions."  (think of the Jensen/Hamblin debate, wherein Jensen asked for one piece of evidence and, in his mind, Hamblin did not provide it and did not even try to provide it.  He seemed more to argue that evidence of the type Jensen wanted was not even possible.)

As it is what is evidence to you is not evidence to Tom.  To you, perhaps, there is defensible and plausible reasons to believe the BoM is history, perhaps, but to Tom the reasons you give aren't really defensible nor plausible.  They are more along the lines of wishful thinking.  Nahom, to you perhaps, is strong evidence.  To Tom it is likely nothing near evidence for an ancient origin for the BoM.  You can't really suggest since you think you are right and Tom is wrong that means Tom can just believe even if he doesn't really believe.  In this way, there really is not the choice you imagine.  

[Amulek]

43 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You'd certainly hope so, I mean in a way.  But, I"m feeling more skeptical.  

Well, I'm considerably more skeptical that the liberal universities who had problems with the way gays were treated at BYU are going to be placated by having the so-called gay police shifted away from the Honor Code office and placed wholly within the purview of LDS Bishops. 

Do you honestly think their beef was that gay students were being kicked out of school for violating the honor code rather than for failing to maintain an ecclesiastical endorsement?

 

[stemelbow]

24 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The students who applauded Dr. Brau's announcement are the future bishops and relief society presidents of the church.  I think this honor code change could really be pivotal.

I agree.  It most certainly could be. 

[provoman]

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I certainly understand how that would be the norm.  But, I don't think it works for those who, like Professor Brau, are praying for things to change.  A well meaning Bishop, I think, could see things differently, and argue, the handbook doesn't say anything against having same sex couples participating fully in the ward.  

32.6.2.2 and 38.6.5 would and those sections use "may be required" concerning a "membership" council. But you might be right some Bishop could argue that the General Handbook does not preclude full participation by a same-sex couple married or not.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Dating for gay couples (including the usual hand holding, hugging, kissing) is no longer prohibited by the honor code or the general handbook.

You'll now have active, recommend holding gay couples on campus and in the church.  That will further change hearts and minds.

However, those couples will eventually be forced with the decision of ending their relationship or leaving the church (or participating at a level other than "full fellowship").

As members observe this happening, where do you think it might lead?  I think more and more faithful members will be praying for further revelation on this matter.

 

Did you note that Dr. Brau (in the BYU video) said that he had been praying for years for this?  Did you hear the applause of the students when he announced that gay dating was no longer prohibited by the honor code?

 

I'm not sure how anyone doesn't see this as a step in *that* direction.

If he has wanted it so badly he has “been praying for years” for it, I wonder to what extent wishful thinking and confirmation bias have affected his perception of recent events and what he has been told by others. Unless I’m missing something, it seems we lack anything authoritative and definitive so far. 

[ALarson]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If he has wanted it so badly he has “been praying for years” for it, I wonder to what extent wishful thinking and confirmation bias have affected his perception of recent events and what he has been told by others. Unless I’m missing something, it seems we lack anything authoritative and definitive so far. 

IIRC, this professor is not the only one who has received these instructions or information from the Honor Code Office. 

Do you think it's possible they (HCO) are not responding correctly?  

Edited February 24, 2020 by ALarson

[Meadowchik]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So have I.  And yet my values are congruent with my continued belief in the Restored Gospel.

Thanks,

-Smac

I believe that that is your experience, but it is not mine. Mormonism, to my understanding, is not congruent with my values.

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The students who applauded Dr. Brau's announcement are the future bishops and relief society presidents of the church. 

Not necessarily. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

IIRC, this professor is not the only one who has received these instructions or information from the Honor Code Office. 

Do you think it's possible they (HCO) are not responding correctly?  

Without knowing whom they spoke with, what was said, how accurately it was perceived or how thorough and reliable the information was that was imparted, I think that question can’t be answered definitively at the moment. 

Edited February 24, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Let's draw up a scenario. 

Hoo, boy.  Phrases like "stacked deck" and "loaded question" come to mind.  But okay...

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If you think its possible that the BOM is a history of ancient peoples in Americas

Yes.

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

and say it's possible in spite of any known evidence, scientifically, to verify such a claim, then great. 

Ha!  Totally saw the stacked deck / loaded question coming.  From a mile away.

No.  I don't believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon "in spite" of the evidence.  I believe in its historicity because of the evidence.

I don't think "science" has proved or disproved historicity.  I reject the premise of your scenario.

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You believe in spite of the evidence. 

No I believe because of the evidence.

I reject the loaded question / stacked deck.  I reject your premise.

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If you say it's defensible and plausible

Yes.  Quite vigorously so.

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

and there is scientific evidence supporting the claim that's a different story.

I'm not sure how much empirically testable "science" enters into the picture.  DNA "evidence" is interesting, but just not very probative.  It doesn't prove or disprove very much.

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Tom may look at that which you call evidence and say, "well that's not really evidence, smac.  That's just assumptions based on assumptions."

Right.  Tom's subjective opinion is all well and good, but Tom doesn't get to unilaterally re-define terms to suit his assumptions and conclusions.

Neither do you.

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

(think of the Jensen/Hamblin debate, wherein Jensen asked for one piece of evidence and, in his mind, Hamblin did not provide it and did not even try to provide it.  He seemed more to argue that evidence of the type Jensen wanted was not even possible.)

Meh.  Jensen refused to define what he meant by "one piece of evidence."

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

As it is what is evidence to you is not evidence to Tom. 

Which speaks to weight and probative value and, for lack of a better term, "admissiblity."

And FWIW, "Tom" was really not well-informed about the "evidence."  During our discussion, he asked me how I could possibly continue to believe in the Church's doctrines.  I asked him if he had ready anything by Brian and Laura Hales, and he said know.  I asked him if he knew who they were, and he said no.  I asked him if he had read any of Royal Skousen's work, and he said he didn't know who that was, either.  I asked him if he had ever ready anything written by John Gee or Kerry Muhlestein.  Again, he said no (and had never heard of them).  I asked if he had read anything by Dan Peterson, or Jack Welch, or Lou Midgley, or Brant Gardner, or Jacob Hamblin, or Jeff Lindsay, or if he had even heard of any of these people.  He said no.  I asked him if he had read the CES Letter, and he said yes.  I asked him if he had read any of the responses to it, and he said no.

I didn't press the point, but at the end of all this it didn't need to be pressed.  I suggested to him that he his near-total lack of familiarity with these folks, and with the scholarship and reasoning and evidence found in the writings and presentations of their writings, was evidence that he hadn't really considered . . . the evidence.  That he had not given the Church a fair shake or a fair hearing.  He disagreed, but there you are.

I also noted that, in the end, an enduring testimony of the Restored Gospel can't be about historical issues and controversies.  Instead, a testimony needs to be founded on a witness of the Spirit that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, and that the Restoration happened.  Everything else is secondary and/or peripheral.

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

To you, perhaps, there is defensible and plausible reasons to believe the BoM is history, perhaps,

Yes.

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

but to Tom the reasons you give aren't really defensible nor plausible. 

I'm okay with that.  That's just more evidence substantiating my point, which is that belief or disbelief is a choice.  That disbelief is not the inevitable conclusion an honest person must reach.  That just doesn't fly with me.

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

They are more along the lines of wishful thinking. 

He can certainly think that.  That's his . . . choice.

Funny how that word keeps popping up.

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Nahom, to you perhaps, is strong evidence. 

As far as it goes, yes.

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

To Tom it is likely nothing near evidence for an ancient origin for the BoM. 

Sorry, but Tom doesn't get to make that call.  He may say it is insufficient evidence, or unpersuasive evidence.  But I don't think he can just summarily say it is not evidence at all.

Nor can you.

I mean, I guess you can.  You can choose to re-define the word "evidence" so as to withhold application of it when doing so is inconvenient to your preferred position.  But I don't think that works well.

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You can't really suggest since you think you are right and Tom is wrong that means Tom can just believe even if he doesn't really believe. 

You continue to misrepresent my position.  Please stop doing that.  I have said nothing like "Tom can just believe even if he doesn't really believe."  Again, I reject that characterization.  Could you please stop attributing it to me?

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

In this way, there really is not the choice you imagine.  

Yes, there is a choice.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Anonymous Mormon]

9 hours ago, SteveO said:

Modern day revelation 

 

9 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Thanks for clarifying. I wouldn't "take that away," I simply cannot escape the honest position that the church is not a conduit for it. Real revelation would be great, but thinking it has it when it doesn't can be very dangerous.

 

49 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

 My point is that mine is not a choice to throw out modern revelation, only an honest evaluation that it isn't there. I can believe that you arrive at your perspective honestly as well.

This!

This is why many of us are talking past each other. If someone doesn't believe that the church is a conduit for Modern Day Revelation, then there really is no common ground to discuss this topic. Without modern day revelation, then Joseph Smith didn't see God the Father, the Book of Mormon is just another book, and the current prophet is just another old, out of touch white dude.

If the basis for belief in the church is there is no modern day revelation, then it's all just a club of men doing their best, and the church is just another church like any other. And anything it does that is out of touch with the current social justice causes is obviously wrong and needs to change.

I personally believe that God has a plan for all of his children, straight or LGBT. I believe that this plan is for them to live after the manner of happiness which includes following his gospel and commandments. God is giving direction via his prophets and apostles to us today.

This does not mean that life is easy. Life isn't easy. It's not easy for those who are in the church or those who are not. It's not easy for those who are straight or those who are LGBT. It's not easy for those in the US or  those who are struggling with poverty and oppressive governments outside the US. Life just isn't easy. But thankfully we have a Savior who died and is the great equalizer to make it all worth it in the end. 

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Without knowing whom they spoke with, what was said, how accurately it was perceived or how thorough and reliable the information was that was imparted, I think that question can’t be answered definitively at the moment. 

I agree there is some confusion right now (my Stake President called it "chaos").  Hopefully more clarification is coming regarding this change.

 

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

So have I.  And yet my values are congruent with my continued belief in the Restored Gospel.

I believe that that is your experience, but it is not mine.

The validity of our choices is not ultimately determinative on "experience."

8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Mormonism, to my understanding, is not congruent with my values.

That's your choice, and I respect it.  

My point, though, is that this conclusion is . . . a choice.  Not an inevitability.  Not a foregone conclusion.  Not a concession to a self-evident fact.  It's a choice.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Quote

The students who applauded Dr. Brau's announcement are the future bishops and relief society presidents of the church. 

Not necessarily. 

And bishops and relief society presidents do not establish doctrines or policies in the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And bishops and relief society presidents do not establish doctrines or policies in the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

True.

But they are the front line leadership of the church.

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

True.

But they are the front line leadership of the church.

Who also become our general authorities (much of the time).  How many of our general leaders have served as Bishops or Relief Society presidents in their past?

I know that Smac is saying it all comes from the Lord (Doctrines and Policies), but I believe the Lord also listens to the leader's pleas and the member's prayers.

Edited February 24, 2020 by ALarson

[rockpond]

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If he has wanted it so badly he has “been praying for years” for it, I wonder to what extent wishful thinking and confirmation bias have affected his perception of recent events and what he has been told by others. Unless I’m missing something, it seems we lack anything authoritative and definitive so far. 

The only authoritative and definitive statements we have regarding the change are the Honor Code itself (which no longer prohibits gay dating and displays of affection) and the general handbook (which states that any sexual relations outside of man/woman marriage are a violation of the law of chastity).

An official statement from the honor code office would be authoritative but we only have a claimed second-hand account.  But, that hearsay seems to be the only clarifying comment we've got.

[rockpond]

49 minutes ago, ALarson said:

He also said that he wouldn't be surprised if some of the more hard liners (such as Pres. Oaks) will make sure there is a talk in the upcoming General Conference, digging their heels in even firmer regarding SSM.

I won't be surprised.  I think we should always expect some ebb and flow as we work through this challenging issue.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

True.

But they are the front line leadership of the church.

Doctrines and policies are not determined by "the front line leadership of the Church."

Moreover, young twentysomethings seldom maintain a static worldview for the rest of their lives.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Who also become our general authorities (much of the time).  How many of our general leaders have served as Bishops or Relief Society presidents in their past?

I know that Smac is saying it all comes from the Lord (Doctrines and Policies), but I believe the Lord also listens to the leader's pleas and the member's prayers.

Oh, I believe that strongly.  But I don't think listening always equates to acquiescence.  Sometimes, often even, He says "No."

In an almost purely theoretical, de minimis sense, I am open to the possibility that the Lord will radically re-define same-sex relations to conform to modern notions of sexuality.  I just think it's exceedingly unlikely.  It's never happened.  Ever.  And it would falsify a significant portions of the Proclamation.

I wonder if we're headed for a showdown.  Folks like you think we're headed for ratification/acceptance/endorsement of same-sex relations and same-sex marriage.  In contrast, I think we're likely headed for further revelation confirming the prohibition against such things, and perhaps the canonization of the Proclamation (which, I think, is also something that is the sbuejct of "the leader's please and the member's prayers").

I just don't think same-sex relationships make any sort of sense in the Grand Scheme of Things.

Time will tell.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 24, 2020 by smac97

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hoo, boy.  Phrases like "stacked deck" and "loaded question" come to mind.  But okay...

hoo, boy is right.  

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.

Ha!  Totally saw the stacked deck / loaded question coming.  From a mile away.

No.  I don't believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon "in spite" of the evidence.  I believe in its historicity because of the evidence.

I don't think "science" has proved or disproved historicity.  I reject the premise of your scenario.

No I believe because of the evidence.

I reject the loaded question / stacked deck.  I reject your premise.

Yes.  Quite vigorously so.

I'm not sure how much empirically testable "science" enters into the picture.  DNA "evidence" is interesting, but just not very probative.  It doesn't prove or disprove very much.

Right.  Tom's subjective opinion is all well and good, but Tom doesn't get to unilaterally re-define terms to suit his assumptions and conclusions.

Neither do you.

Meh.  Jensen refused to define what he meant by "one piece of evidence."

Which speaks to weight and probative value and, for lack of a better term, "admissiblity."

And FWIW, "Tom" was really not well-informed about the "evidence."  During our discussion, he asked me how I could possibly continue to believe in the Church's doctrines.  I asked him if he had ready anything by Brian and Laura Hales, and he said know.  I asked him if he knew who they were, and he said no.  I asked him if he had read any of Royal Skousen's work, and he said he didn't know who that was, either.  I asked him if he had ever ready anything written by John Gee or Kerry Muhlestein.  Again, he said no (and had never heard of them).  I asked if he had read anything by Dan Peterson, or Jack Welch, or Lou Midgley, or Brant Gardner, or Jacob Hamblin, or Jeff Lindsay, or if he had even heard of any of these people.  He said no.  I asked him if he had read the CES Letter, and he said yes.  I asked him if he had read any of the responses to it, and he said no.

I didn't press the point, but at the end of all this it didn't need to be pressed.  I suggested to him that he his near-total lack of familiarity with these folks, and with the scholarship and reasoning and evidence found in the writings and presentations of their writings, was evidence that he hadn't really considered . . . the evidence.  That he had not given the Church a fair shake or a fair hearing.  He disagreed, but there you are.

I also noted that, in the end, an enduring testimony of the Restored Gospel can't be about historical issues and controversies.  Instead, a testimony needs to be founded on a witness of the Spirit that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, and that the Restoration happened.  Everything else is secondary and/or peripheral.

And if a testimony has no Spirit of God witness, then what makes you think someone can just believe?  You seem to be telling two different stories here.  Can a person who does not have a testimony, has not had God tell them it's true, but instead has had God tell them it is is not true, believe?  

I think I'd leave the Jensen/Hamblin debate to speak for itself.  Why does it hinge on what is evidence if, as you suggest the definition can't just be changed?  He asked for one piece of evidence for an ancient American peoples as described in the BoM.  And as I recall nothing came.  I think it basically ended on the Nahom issue, and I'd agree with Jensen, it's not evidence at all, let alone for anything in America.  Is there any evidence?  If there is, then what is it?  I think it quite reasonable to argue about whether an item under consideration is evidence or not.  Tom likely has his reasons for not believing, whether they deal with history or not.  

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.

I'm okay with that.  That's just more evidence substantiating my point, which is that belief or disbelief is a choice.  That disbelief is not the inevitable conclusion an honest person must reach.  That just doesn't fly with me.

He can certainly think that.  That's his . . . choice.

Funny how that word keeps popping up.

As far as it goes, yes.

Sorry, but Tom doesn't get to make that call.  He may say it is insufficient evidence, or unpersuasive evidence.  But I don't think he can just summarily say it is not evidence at all.

He most certainly can.  Something is not just evidence of a certain proposition because someone says it is.  Nahom is not evidence because someone says it is.  it has to be evaluated, and in so doing it then can be rejected or accepted as evidence.  At this point, it's obvious some accept it as evidence while others do not.

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nor can you.

I mean, I guess you can.  You can choose to re-define the word "evidence" so as to withhold application of it when doing so is inconvenient to your preferred position.  But I don't think that works well.

You continue to misrepresent my position.  Please stop doing that.  I have said nothing like "Tom can just believe even if he doesn't really believe."  Again, I reject that characterization.  Could you please stop attributing it to me?

Yes, there is a choice.

Thanks,

-Smac

My argument is suggesting your third option is really just the second option.  There is no actual third option.  He can continue to study it out, and in time determine it's truer than he thought.  He can eventually get back to believing.  But, again, I don't think he has a choice to believe.  

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Oh, I believe that strongly.  But I don't think listening always equates to acquiescence.  Sometimes, often even, He says "No."

Of course.  And....Sometimes, often even, He says "Yes".

That's what many parents, family members and friends are feeling the answer was to their prayers regarding this most recent change.  

Edited February 24, 2020 by ALarson

[hope_for_things]

On 2/22/2020 at 11:59 AM, blueglass said:

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

I completely agree that the new church position is still fatally flawed in that it creates a class system.  However, I view it as a step towards eventual equality.  As people begin to see and interact with LGB individuals and they overcome their prejudices towards them, they will begin to recognize this unfair position and then greater change can happen.  I'm told that Taylor Petrey's new book discusses this very strategy on this topic (release date is in June 2020).  

https://www.amazon.com/Tabernacles-Clay-Sexuality-Gender-Mormonism/dp/1469656213

Edited February 24, 2020 by hope_for_things

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I wonder if we're headed for a showdown.  Folks like you think we're headed for ratification/acceptance/endorsement of same-sex relations and same-sex marriage. 

I think we are moving towards this rather than away from it.  Just contrast the history of BYU (from the 1970's to today) regarding the treatment of students there who are gay.

I do hope we will one day have members who can enter into a committed same sex relationship or marriage and remain active and be a full participating member in good standing.   Some of my family members and friends who are in these types of relationships are some of the most moral people I know.

Edited February 24, 2020 by ALarson