Byu Honor Code Matches New Handbook

[ALarson]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

I think we actually agree.  Not ALL youth become future leaders.....but ALL leaders were once a youth

We also need to take into consideration converts (which I have....).

I understand there is no guarantee that those with one opinion/belief or another will become general authorities.  

Edited February 24, 2020 by ALarson

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Not ALL youth become future leaders.....but ALL leaders were once a youth

Sounds like a new twist on the Snow couplet. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think we actually agree.  Not ALL youth become future leaders.....but ALL leaders were once a youth

We also need to take into consideration converts (which I have....).

So are you agreeing with me, then, that it cannot be stated with certainty that the students applauding in that classroom will be local leaders in the Church in the future, or that if they are, they will advance to general leadership positions? That’s the point I’ve been endeavoring to make. 

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

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. 

You could alter your values without believing you had betrayed yourself or compromised your integrity. People do that all the time. Who is to say that they have betrayed themselves or that they lack integrity? 

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So are you agreeing with me, then, that it cannot be stated with certainty that the students applauding in that classroom will be local leaders in the Church in the future, or that if they are, they will advance to general leadership positions? 

I added more to my response.  But yes, there is no guarantee that those students with either opinion or belief (pro or con) will be our future general authorities.  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I added more to my response.  But yes, there is no guarantee that those students with either opinion or belief (pro or con) will be our future general authorities.  

So the assertion that the students applauding in the classroom are the Church leaders of tomorrow is really just that much rhetoric. Hence my rejoinder, “Not necessarily.” 

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So are you agreeing with me, then, that it cannot be stated with certainty that the students applauding in that classroom will be local leaders in the Church in the future, or that if they are, they will advance to general leadership positions? That’s the point I’ve been endeavoring to make. 

Surely you didn't think my comment was speaking literally to the exact students applauding (off camera).

[smac97]

59 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

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

I don't.

I respect that choice.  I wish you well.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yet again, you are misrepresenting my position.  

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

Again, I have said nothing like this.

The debate was not particularly significant.

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.

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

Yes.  Quite a lot of evidence, actually.

Yawn.  This is an unserious question.

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.

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.

No, he can't. 

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.

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.

I don't think unilateral declarations like this work.  

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."  

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.

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.  

Sure he does.  We all have that choice.

Thanks,

-Smac

No.  You misunderstand, there is no choice.  For instance, you can't just choose to stop believing.  Can you say right now, I choose to disbelieve Jesus is the Christ?  If you can say so and mean it, then perhaps you have a point.  If not, then perhaps you'll understand what I"m saying.  

If you are want to say that with enough studying and praying and stuff one can change from non belief to belief, great.  But as it were no amount of studying and praying will change you from a believer to a non believer, right?  It's possible, for instance, that I change into a believer if I study and pray more.  But it's really quite unlikely.  I can't just choose it.  It has to work for what I see and understand.  Same with you.  

This is interesting though, as it gets into the free will debate.  I'd say free will is an illusion.  We don't just think something in our head at some point and then voila decide to be that.  We have a ton of experiences in our lives that make us who we are, that drive the thoughts that appear in our psyche.  We dont' choose those thoughts any more than we had them plugged in there, often involuntarily by others over time.  Ah...it gets way more complicated than that, but you know.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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

I have heard there are students organizing in opposition to the publicized alleged new approach of the HCO. It is just as likely church leaders will come from this group or a moderate group that sees some lessening of discipline appropriate but do not believe same sex romantic relationships should be allowed based on the concept you tend to end up with those you hang out with (whatever that group or companion might be) as a group of pro-LGBT activists or quiet supporters. 
 

Current leaders choose those who replace them. Most likely they will choose those whose beliefs are similar to their own, especially if they understand those beliefs to be based on revealed doctrine.  Leadership is not simply who is available in most places (Duncan’s description leads me to allow it may be that in a few places  ).

Edited February 24, 2020 by Calm

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

No.  You misunderstand, there is no choice. 

Yes, there is a choice.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

For instance, you can't just choose to stop believing. 

Actually yes, you can.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Can you say right now, I choose to disbelieve Jesus is the Christ? 

It's certainly possible.  

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If you can say so and mean it, then perhaps you have a point.  If not, then perhaps you'll understand what I"m saying.  

I think that you're saying is based on a material misrepresentation of what I have said.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If you are want to say that with enough studying and praying and stuff one can change from non belief to belief, great. 

Yes, that is essentially what I am saying.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

But as it were no amount of studying and praying will change you from a believer to a non believer, right? 

I don't know what this means.  If a person has a choice to go from non-belief to belief, then surely the reverse is also possible.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's possible, for instance, that I change into a believer if I study and pray more.  But it's really quite unlikely.  I can't just choose it. 

Yes, you can "choose it."

That the choice may be difficult for some (particularly those who are substantially invested in their disbelief) doesn't negate the existence of the choice.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It has to work for what I see and understand.  Same with you.

What you "see and understand" is also largely a matter of choice.  The weight you attach, or don't attach, to the Spirit, to reasoning and argument, to evidences, etc., is a series of choices.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

This is interesting though, as it gets into the free will debate.  I'd say free will is an illusion.

I wouldn't.  

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

We don't just think something in our head at some point and then voila decide to be that. 

I think belief needs to be more meaningful than that.  Faith.  Humility.  Prayer.  Effort.  Application.  Study.

Nobody is advancing a "think something ... and then voila" approach.  That's a fabrication of your own making.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

We have a ton of experiences in our lives that make us who we are, that drive the thoughts that appear in our psyche.  We dont' choose those thoughts any more than we had them plugged in there, often involuntarily by others over time. 

We are not pavlovian creatures, slaves to stimuli beyond our control.  I believe we have the ability to reason, to study, to think, to pray, to seek guidance from God, and to obtain it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[kllindley]

@rockpond and @ALarson  Just a reminder that in your zeal to be inclusive to same-sex couples, you also alienate and marginalize those LGBT members who are responding to their experience with faith and conviction in the Restored Gospel.  Of course, that is your right. Based on past interactions, I'm sure you will insist that you don't mean to do so. I mostly believe you are sincere.  Unfortunately, that does nothing to mitigate the judgement and rejection I feel from you. 

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

@rockpond and @ALarson  Just a reminder that in your zeal to be inclusive to same-sex couples, you also alienate and marginalize those LGBT members who are responding to their experience with faith and conviction in the Restored Gospel.  Of course, that is your right. Based on past interactions, I'm sure you will insist that you don't mean to do so. I mostly believe you are sincere.  Unfortunately, that does nothing to mitigate the judgement and rejection I feel from you. 

How does my zeal for those who want to act on their same gender attraction (while remaining members in good standing, or BYU students) marginalize, judge, or reject you?

Sincere question.

I have great respect for the decisions you’ve made for your life and that you live in a way wholly consisten with your faith and testimony.

Can I not also be happy for those who feel spiritually guided to take a different path?

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, there is a choice.

Actually yes, you can.

It's certainly possible.  

I think that you're saying is based on a material misrepresentation of what I have said.

Yes, that is essentially what I am saying.

I don't know what this means.  If a person has a choice to go from non-belief to belief, then surely the reverse is also possible.

Yes, you can "choose it."

That the choice may be difficult for some (particularly those who are substantially invested in their disbelief) doesn't negate the existence of the choice.

What you "see and understand" is also largely a matter of choice.  The weight you attach, or don't attach, to the Spirit, to reasoning and argument, to evidences, etc., is a series of choices.

I wouldn't.  

I think belief needs to be more meaningful than that.  Faith.  Humility.  Prayer.  Effort.  Application.  Study.

Nobody is advancing a "think something ... and then voila" approach.  That's a fabrication of your own making.

We are not pavlovian creatures, slaves to stimuli beyond our control.  I believe we have the ability to reason, to study, to think, to pray, to seek guidance from God, and to obtain it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Ok.  It looks like there is some misunderstanding.  You say a nonbeliever, one who simply does not believe has three choices:

Quote

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.

I say  non-believer doesn't just believe because he/she wants to.  

I asked you pointedly if you could say right now that Jesus is not the Christ and really believe that.  And you say it's possible.  What am asking is can you do that right now?  I'm not asking if a believer can, in life's experiences, change into an unbeliever.  Of course that can happen.  So putting you in the three options you have, you can:

1.  Lie (say you don't really believe the Church, even though you do)

2.  Stay in the Church

3.  Not believe Jesus is the Christ and continue to study and pray until you finally internally don't believe.  

Seems like an odd mindset, in my view.  But if you think 3 is somehow different then 1, be my guest.  To me its simply the same thing, worded differently.  

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

How does my zeal for those who want to act on their same gender attraction (while remaining members in good standing, or BYU students) marginalize, judge, or reject you?

Sincere question.

I have great respect for the decisions you’ve made for your life and that you live in a way wholly consisten with your faith and testimony.

Can I not also be happy for those who feel spiritually guided to take a different path?

Exactly.  I'm a bit puzzled by kllindley's post, but definitely want to hear how he feels regarding your questions.

I have expressed numerous times how much I respect kllindley and I always love to hear his input and perspective on this topic.  

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Ok.  It looks like there is some misunderstanding.  You say a nonbeliever, one who simply does not believe has three choices:

I say  non-believer doesn't just believe because he/she wants to.  

And I've never said that belief is just a matter of "want{ing} to."

I have, instead, acknowledged that belief generally takes some effort.  Study.  Application.  Faith.  Prayer.  Humility.  And so on.

Quote

I asked you pointedly if you could say right now that Jesus is not the Christ and really believe that.  And you say it's possible. 

I'm saying that "There but for the Grace of God go I."

I've read all sorts of exit narratives from people who were, at one point, "true believers" and ended up abandoning their belief.  I think it would be presumptuous for me to claim that I am immune from that.  It could happen to me.  I could make choices that would make it more likely to happen.  I work hard to avoid those choices.

Quote

What am asking is can you do that right now? 

The transition from belief to non-belief, or vice-versa, is more likely to be a process, right?  So what I can or can't do "right now" isn't really significant.

Quote

I'm not asking if a believer can, in life's experiences, change into an unbeliever.  Of course that can happen.  So putting you in the three options you have, you can:

1.  Lie (say you don't really believe the Church, even though you do)

2.  Stay in the Church

3.  Not believe Jesus is the Christ and continue to study and pray until you finally internally don't believe.  

Seems like an odd mindset, in my view. 

Odder still that you would substantially mischaracterize and mis-state my position, then proceed to call that mischaracterization "odd."

One more time, with a bit more clarification:

For a person who has studied, to some extent, the history and doctrines of the Church, my friend Tom posited two options:

Option 1: Conclude that the Church's claims are false, but lie about that.

Option 2: Conclude that the Church's claims are false, and leave the Church.

I submit that there is another third option.

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

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 24, 2020 by smac97

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And I've never said that belief is just a matter of "want{ing} to."

I have, instead, acknowledged that belief generally takes some effort.  Study.  Application.  Faith.  Prayer.  Humility.  And so on.

I'm saying that "There but for the Grace of God go I."

I've read all sorts of exit narratives from people who were, at one point, "true believers" and ended up abandoning their belief.  I think it would be presumptuous for me to claim that I am immune from that.  It could happen to me.  I could make choices that would make it more likely to happen.  I work hard to avoid those choices.

The transition from belief to non-belief, or vice-versa, is more likely to be a process, right?  So what I can or can't do "right now" isn't really significant.

Odder still that you would substantially mischaracterize and mis-state my position, then proceed to call that mischaracterization "odd."

Thanks,

-Smac

I've asked you to clarify many times, and it all comes out the same.  You say an unbeliever has three choices.  I'll quote you again:

Quote

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.

Concerning option 3: HOw does someone who does not believe, just believe?  If you say his/her option is to keep working at it until he believes...well that's one thing.  But that's an option whether one of the two options were already picked.  He/she can lie and still work on it by praying and studying, or he/she can leave and still work on it.  But all things as they are, any unbeliever, when faced with the decision, there is really no option to believe.  non belief already is.  

If however you are saying as you worded it above in your option 3, that a nonbeliever has the option to just believe, then you are really just repeating option 1.  

[rockpond]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have heard there are students organizing in opposition to the publicized alleged new approach of the HCO.

I definitely believe that there are some who oppose the change.  I tend to think they are in the minority but that's just my opinion.

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is just as likely church leaders will come from this group or a moderate group that sees some lessening appropriate but do not believe same sex romantic relationships should be allowed based on the concept you tend to end up with those you hang out with (whatever that group or companion might be) as a group of pro-LGBT activists or quiet supporters.

My comment was only meant to highlight that I see a trend towards greater acceptance, not that the classroom was full of LGBT-activist BYU students.

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

Current leaders choose those who replace them. Most likely they will choose those whose beliefs are similar to their own, especially if they understand those beliefs to be based on revealed doctrine.  Leadership is not simply who is available in most places (Duncan’s description leads me to allow it may be that in a few places  ).

Definitely true.  But for the sake of discussion (noting that I have zero data to support this), let's say that in twenty years, 80% of the active 30-somethings in the church are of the mindset that they would want gay married couples to participate in full fellowship in the church.  It's gonna get tough for a stake president to fill all the leadership positions in his stake with only those in the other 20%.

[CV75]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I definitely believe that there are some who oppose the change.  I tend to think they are in the minority but that's just my opinion.

My comment was only meant to highlight that I see a trend towards greater acceptance, not that the classroom was full of LGBT-activist BYU students.

Definitely true.  But for the sake of discussion (noting that I have zero data to support this), let's say that in twenty years, 80% of the active 30-somethings in the church are of the mindset that they would want gay married couples to participate in full fellowship in the church.  It's gonna get tough for a stake president to fill all the leadership positions in his stake with only those in the other 20%.

Time to use "Adaptation and Optional Resources" (or a revised handbook, which is bound to happen once or twice over the next 20 years!)...

Edited February 24, 2020 by CV75

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I've asked you to clarify many times, and it all comes out the same.  You say an unbeliever has three choices.  I'll quote you again:

Concerning option 3: HOw does someone who does not believe, just believe? 

It's not "just believe."  Read Alma 32.  Study.  Exercise faith.  Ponder.  Pray.  Ask questions.  Seek answers.  Be humble.  

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If you say his/her option is to keep working at it until he believes...well that's one thing. 

Belief is a process.  It's not an all-or-nothing, either-you-have-it-or-you-don't kind of thing.

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

But that's an option whether one of the two options were already picked. 

No.  Option 1 and Option 2 are both predicated on a conclusion of disbelief.  That the Church's claims are not true.

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

He/she can lie and still work on it by praying and studying, or he/she can leave and still work on it. 

I haven't said this.  I cannot imagine why you see the need to misrepresent what I am saying.  Over and over and over.

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

But all things as they are, any unbeliever, when faced with the decision, there is really no option to believe.  non belief already is.  

Yes.  The conclusion of disbelief has already been reached in Options 1 and 2.  The choice has been made.

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If however you are saying as you worded it above in your option 3, that a nonbeliever has the option to just believe, then you are really just repeating option 1.  

No, I'm not.  Option 1 is based on a choice of disbelief.  Option 3 is a choice to believe (or, if you are going to be persnickety, to attempt to believe).

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I definitely believe that there are some who oppose the change. 

I oppose agitation and demands for change.  It just doesn't work in the Church of Jesus Christ.

Kate Kelly and Sam Young each used pressure tactics in attempts to coerce the Church, to bend it to their will.  I don't think that's appropriate.

30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

My comment was only meant to highlight that I see a trend towards greater acceptance, not that the classroom was full of LGBT-activist BYU students.

I think "greater acceptance" is a far cry from expecting/demanding that the Church endorse/embrace/legitimize/solemnize same-sex relations/marriage.

I think I'm probably more "accepting" of fornication as a "fact of life" than my parents were in their day.  But that doesn't mean I expect the Church to change its doctrines about it.

30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Definitely true.  But for the sake of discussion (noting that I have zero data to support this), let's say that in twenty years, 80% of the active 30-somethings in the church are of the mindset that they would want gay married couples to participate in full fellowship in the church.  It's gonna get tough for a stake president to fill all the leadership positions in his stake with only those in the other 20%.

I dunno.  I don't see faithful members conditioning their participation in the Church on the Church hopping to and recognizing same-sex marriage.

To be sure, there is a "sifting" effect that will take place in the twenty years you mention above.  Those members with a my-way-or-the-highway mentality about the Church will not have the longevity.  They will either repent of any sinful desire to replace the Lord's will with their own, or else they will exit the Church.  Indeed, aren't we already seeing this?  Look at Kate Kelly and Sam Young.  Look at the people who are leaving the Church over this.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Surely you didn't think my comment was speaking literally to the exact students applauding (off camera).

That seemed to be the rhetorical point you were making, or that other young people with identical views to theirs would be the ones leading the Church. 
 

If all you meant to imply is that those who will lead the Church in the future are young today, then I feel to say, “Thank you, Captain Obvious.” 

[Scott Lloyd]

50 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I definitely believe that there are some who oppose the change.  I tend to think they are in the minority but that's just my opinion.

My comment was only meant to highlight that I see a trend towards greater acceptance, not that the classroom was full of LGBT-activist BYU students.

Definitely true.  But for the sake of discussion (noting that I have zero data to support this), let's say that in twenty years, 80% of the active 30-somethings in the church are of the mindset that they would want gay married couples to participate in full fellowship in the church.  It's gonna get tough for a stake president to fill all the leadership positions in his stake with only those in the other 20%.

To this, I would repeat the point I made earlier: that the Savior doesn’t govern His Church by popular referendum. I believe that to be one of the implications of the “strait is the gate and narrow is the way” doctrine. 
 

It’s possible, I suppose, that 80 percent of the membership of the Church would embrace any manner of false doctrine. I don’t see such a thing, no matter the scope or magnitude, ever pressuring the great God to alter the doctrines of the Kingdom. 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To this, I would repeat the point I made earlier: that the Savior doesn’t govern His Church by popular referendum. I believe that to be one of the implications of the “strait is the gate and narrow is the way” doctrine. 

It’s possible, I suppose, that 80 percent of the membership of the Church would embrace any manner of false doctrine. I don’t see such a thing, no matter the scope or magnitude, ever pressuring the great God to alter the doctrines of the Kingdom. 

Per chapter 6 of John, the Lord's "Bread of Life" sermon was socially/politically/religiously unpalatable to many of his followers, such that many of them, having heard the words of Jesus Christ Himself, "went back, and walked no more with him."  

I wonder if we are seeing a similar phenomenon in today's Church.  But instead of the "Bread of Life" sermon, we have the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity as being socially/politically/religiously unpalatable to some.  I am saddened by that, and I hope at least some of them will return.  I think that will happen to some extent.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

To be sure, there is a "sifting" effect that will take place in the twenty years you mention above.  Those members with a my-way-or-the-highway mentality about the Church will not have the longevity.  They will either repent of any sinful desire to replace the Lord's will with their own, or else they will exit the Church.

I think we may see that on both sides.  If you read on some of the other Mormon forums, many are doubting the inspiration of our leaders regarding this most recent change and even wondering if we are being led by false Prophets.  Some are wondering if they can remain active and supportive if these displays of affection between gay students are going to be allowed.

That may very well be the "sifting" effect that will take place.

 

Edited February 24, 2020 by ALarson