Byu Honor Code Matches New Handbook

[Meadowchik]

40 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

 

 

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. 

There's more common ground to be found than belief in modern revelation. The immediate health and safety of our queer loved ones can be a uniting concern, imo.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Thanks,

-Smac

Blessedly so. 
 

Edited to add: Not that I have anything against our bishops and Relief Society presidents en masse. I’m only saying that to embrace the divinity of the Church of Jesus Christ is to believe that its doctrines and policies are established neither by popular referendum nor by despotic fiat. 

Edited February 24, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Blessedly so. 

But they are the future general authorities and general leaders (many of them have served as past Bishops and Relief Society Presidents in their wards and stakes....).

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But they are the future general authorities and general leaders  

I repeat: Not necessarily. It cannot be definitively stated that any of those in that classroom will become local Church leaders or, if they do, that they will advance to general leadership positions. 
 

It is at least as likely that they will get tired of waiting for the Church to come around to their mindset and will fall away. Or that they will dramatically alter their views at some future date to conform more perfectly with the teachings of the Church. No one can say with certainty at this point in time what will become of them. 

Edited February 24, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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

Given the substantial precedent available to us, I think the answer in this case is much more likely to be something along the lines of "No, recent social trends and pressures do not alter eternal principles.  The Law of Chastity has always prohibited same-sex relations, and will always do so."

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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

Well, we'll see what happens.  If their prayers aren't answered in they way they want (which, it seems, would involve radically re-defining the Law of Chastity, setting aside substantial and uniform statements by past and present prophets and apostles, including the Proclamation, etc.), I hope they can cope.  I hope they don't turn in this issue into a litmus test or ultimatum.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 24, 2020 by smac97

[Meadowchik]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

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

I choose my values, but I cannot choose whether Mormonism is consistent with them.

If you want to explore your hypothesis, then you could choose to believe in Islam, Catholicism, Scientology, or some other system that's not Mormonism. You could concede that your judgements, assumptions, and biases that prevent you from believing any of them are obstacles you can overcome if only you choose to give belief a chance. Give it forty years and then get back to me!

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I choose my values, but I cannot choose whether Mormonism is consistent with them  

You could choose to align your values with the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ. 

Edited February 24, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

And if a testimony has no Spirit of God witness, then what makes you think someone can just believe? 

Yet again, you are misrepresenting my position.  

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You seem to be telling two different stories here. 

There are two stories.  One is my perspective, and the other is your substantially distorted mischaracterization of my perspective.

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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?  

Again, I have said nothing like this.

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think I'd leave the Jensen/Hamblin debate to speak for itself. 

The debate was not particularly significant.

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Why does it hinge on what is evidence if, as you suggest the definition can't just be changed? 

Because Jensen apparently had an ideosyncratic definition of it.  Jensen apparently thought he is the sole arbiter of what constitutes "evidence."  Jensen apparently reserved to himself the right - as you apparently do - to re-define evidence when it suits him.

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

He asked for one piece of evidence for an ancient American peoples as described in the BoM.  And as I recall nothing came. 

So much for letting the debate "speak for itself."

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Is there any evidence? 

Yes.  Quite a lot of evidence, actually.

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If there is, then what is it? 

Yawn.  This is an unserious question.

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think it quite reasonable to argue about whether an item under consideration is evidence or not. 

I think it is more reasonable and useful to argue about whether a piece of evidence is competent, probative, relevant, etc.

See, folks like you and Jensen really, really want to unilaterally re-define "evidence" to exclude from its definition anything that doesn't conform to your expectations and assumptions.  I just don't think that works.

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Tom likely has his reasons for not believing, whether they deal with history or not.  

I agree.  But my sense is that Tom's reasons have less to do with "evidence" and more to do with emotion, biases, assumptions, etc.

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

Quote

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.

He most certainly can. 

No, he can't. 

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Something is not just evidence of a certain proposition because someone says it is. 

Correct.  "Evidence" has a definition.  Folks like you and Jensen want to set aside that definition when it suits you.  I don't think that works.

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Nahom is not evidence because someone says it is. 

According to Black’s law dictionary, evidence is “any species of proof, or probative matter, legally presented at the trial of an issue, by the act of the parties and through the medium of witnesses, records, documents, exhibits, concrete objects, etc. for the purpose of inducing belief in the minds of the court or jury as to their contention.”

That's the legal definition.  The more prosaic definition is "that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof."

Now, I think folks like you can make an argument that "Nahom is not persuasive evidence," or "Nahom is not sufficient evidence," or "Nahom is not probative evidence."  But I don't think you can blandly assert that it is not evidence at all.  That just doesn't work.

The same goes for Chiasmus, the statements of the Three Witnesses and the Eight Witnesses, and so on.

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

it has to be evaluated, and in so doing it then can be rejected or accepted as evidence. 

I don't think unilateral declarations like this work.  

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

At this point, it's obvious some accept it as evidence while others do not.

I disagree.  I think it's obvious that some accept it as probative / persuasive / relevant evidence, while others refuse to acknowledge that it is evidence at all.

And I think such folks want to relegate such re-definition authority to themselves so they can continue to justify overwrought claims that there is "no evidence for the Book of Mormon."  

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

My argument is suggesting your third option is really just the second option. 

Option One: Lie (conclude that the claims of the Church are false, but lie about that conclusion).

Option Two: Leave (conclude that the claims of the Church are false, and leave).

Option Three: Believe.  Exercise faith.  Study.  Pray.  Read.  Apply.  Seek guidance from God in ways large and small.

Nope.  Option Three is materially distinguishable from Options One and Two.

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

There is no actual third option. 

There is.  There really is.

I think it's weird that folks like you really can't see it.  You cannot fathom the the third option.  

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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.  

Sure he does.  We all have that choice.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I repeat: Not necessarily. 

How many of our general authorities served as Bishops in the past?  That's the point I'm making....

The youth will most definitely be among our future leaders.

Our current leaders were once the youth.

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

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 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.

Also contrast the history of the Church's treatment of fornication and adultery.  We have a half century of experience in the Sexual Revolution telling us that the morality of sex is determined by consent alone.  And yet the Church continues to teach . . . what it has always taught about these things.

19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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.   

I know.  I think you are engaged in wishful thinking, and that you are setting yourself up for a major disappointment.

I hope that you don't set this issue up as a litmus test or an ultimatum.  I'm afraid you have.

19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Some of my family members and friends who are in these types of relationships are some of the most moral people I know.

I've known plenty of otherwise "moral" people who have engaged in sinful sexual behaviors.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

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

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.

I choose my values, but I cannot choose whether Mormonism is consistent with them.

In terms of the truth claims of the Church, my friend Tom posited two options:

Option 1: Lie (conclude that the claims of the Church are false, but lie about that conclusion).

Option 2: Leave (conclude that the claims of the Church are false, and leave).

Option 3: Believe.  Exercise faith.  Study.  Pray.  Read.  Apply.  Seek guidance from God in ways large and small.

I think Option 3 is there.  I think there is substantial room for it.  I find it to be the most compelling option, by a fair margin.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I hope that you don't set this issue up as a litmus test or an ultimatum.  I'm afraid you have.

No, you're wrong on that.  I have my hopes and feelings regarding this issue, but it's not a "litmus test or an ultimatum" issue for me personally.  

I agree that it is and has been for some members.

[Meadowchik]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You could choose to align your values with the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ. 

I don't.

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I've known plenty of otherwise "moral" people who have engaged in sinful sexual behaviors.  

I guess (but I didn't qualify it with "otherwise").  I believe they are completely worthy and moral regarding their sexual behaviors (as long as they stay honest and committed to their relationships just as heterosexual couple do in their relationships).

I know you disagree....and I can accept and respect that.

Edited February 24, 2020 by ALarson

[smac97]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

No, you're wrong on that.  I have my hopes and feelings regarding this issue, but it's not a "litmus test or an ultimatum" issue for me personally.  

I stand corrected, and gladly.

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I agree that it is and has been for some members.

Yep.

I think it would be great to be able to ease the pressures on the Church and its members brought on by adherence to the Law of Chastity.  I have no animus toward gay folks.  I wish them every happiness.  I just don't think they'll find it through disobedience to the laws of God (for that matter, neither will anyone else).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In terms of the truth claims of the Church, my friend Tom posited two options:

Option 1: Lie (conclude that the claims of the Church are false, but lie about that conclusion).

Option 2: Leave (conclude that the claims of the Church are false, and leave).

Option 3: Believe.  Exercise faith.  Study.  Pray.  Read.  Apply.  Seek guidance from God in ways large and small.

I think Option 3 is there.  I think there is substantial room for it.  I find it to be the most compelling option, by a fair margin.

Thanks,

-Smac

It sounds like that works for you, and for a long time that's pretty much how it worked for me, but I discovered that it only worked up to a point, then not anymore.

For example, I eventually learned that spiritual authority invested in people is not consistent with loving truth.

[ALarson]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I repeat: Not necessarily. It cannot be definitively stated that any of those in that classroom will become local Church leaders or, if they do, that they will advance to general leadership positions. 

So, you don't believe that some of the local leaders are those who are called to be general authorities?

Maybe there are exceptions (trying to think....), but can you name one who was not serving locally prior to becoming a general leader?

(I do think there may have been one or a few in the early days of the church.  Of course I agree that not ALL local leaders end up serving in general leadership positions.)

Edited February 24, 2020 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

How many of our general authorities served as Bishops in the past?  That's the point I'm making....

The youth will most definitely be among our future leaders.

Our current leaders were once the youth.

Youth in general. Not necessarily these particular youth. 
 

I added to my post please go back and see my addition. 

[rockpond]

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

How many of our general authorities served as Bishops in the past?  That's the point I'm making....

The youth will most definitely be among our future leaders.

Our current leaders were once the youth.

Maybe Scott sees the future church being led entirely by adult converts.

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

So, you don't believe that some of the local leaders are those who are called to be general authorities?

Maybe there are exceptions (trying to think....), but can you name one who was not serving locally prior to becoming a general leader?

(I do think there may have been one or a few in the early days of the church.)

You are not grasping my point. Please go back and see what I added to my post. 

Edited to add: For your convenience, I am pasting in here my prior post with the additions I made:

“It cannot be definitively stated that any of those in that classroom will become local Church leaders or, if they do, that they will advance to general leadership positions. 
 

”It is at least as likely that they will get tired of waiting for the Church to come around to their mindset and will fall away. Or that they will dramatically alter their views at some future date to conform more perfectly with the teachings of the Church, in which case, their present views will have no bearing. No one can say with certainty at this point in time what will become of them.”

Edited February 24, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

On 2/23/2020 at 9:23 AM, ALarson said:

Here is a video of a BYU professor explaining the change to his class after speaking to the Honor Code Office.  The class applauds at one point and he also goes on to explain that now anyone who is not respectful (when they see gays dating, holding hands or kissing on campus), can be reported to the BYU Honor Code Office for not being respectful .  It's interesting to listen to.

I saw this circling around on social media over the weekend.  Great video.  It was especially refreshing to hear his very practical approach to why people need to get in line with the new policy.  The example of a top recruit recently being fired from his job because of homophobic behavior, is especially sobering and important to consider.  I mentioned on Sunday in our EQ discussion about the recent issues with racism at BYU, and the fact that we need to do more to teach our kids to not perpetuate ignorant and racially insensitive views.  This is the same with LGBTQ issues as well.  For those in the culture dragging their collective feet on these issues, they are not only harming others, but they are harming their families and themselves. 

I know for some people, the pragmatic consequences associated around not getting with the societal program may change behaviors more than any theological reasoning or spiritual witness. 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

I've known plenty of otherwise "moral" people who have engaged in sinful sexual behaviors.  

I guess (but I didn't qualify it with "otherwise").  I believe they are completely worthy and moral regarding their sexual behaviors (as long as they stay honest and committed to their relationships just as heterosexual couple do in their relationships).

So consensual participation in swinging and orgies are okay?  Consensual infidelity is okay?  Consensual fornication is okay?

I just can't go along with that, regardless of sexual orientation. 

Exodus 20:14 states "Thou shalt not commit adultery," not "Thou shalt not commit adultery, unless both of you are okay with it, in which case feel free."

1 Thessalonias states "For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication," not "Abstain from fornication, unless you have the consent of the other party, in which case go ahead."

In Jacob 3:12, Jacob didn't warn the Nephites "against fornication (except for consensual fornication, which is just fine) and lasciviousness, and every kind of sin..."

Sexual desire, in and of itself, is not determinative of morality.  Neither is consent (though it is a necessary secondary ingredient).  Sexual morality is established by God.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I don't.

But you could. 
 

The question is whether you have the choice, not whether you will take it. 
 

So long as the verity of the Church of Jesus Christ remains an open question, the choice to believe in it is present. 

Edited February 24, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Maybe Scott sees the future church being led entirely by adult converts.

Possibly.....

I do know some incredible converts!

I'm just observing the youth in our ward and I see the majority of them supporting their gay friends in relationships and they are very pro SSM.  I'm hearing the same from other wards and from family members in their areas (regarding the youth).  Any who try to speak out against someone who is openly gay are not thought highly of and have honestly learned to just stay silent about it.   They are in the minority though from what I've observed. 

Edited February 24, 2020 by ALarson

[Meadowchik]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But you could. 
 

The question is whether you have the choice, not whether you will take it. 

I would have to betray my values to do that. So, for me, there is no choice to believe that does not compromise my integrity.