Byu Honor Code Matches New Handbook

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, kllindley said:

As I said, I believe you don't mean to, and don't want to.  I know that you both have expressed respect for my life decisions in the past.  And I appreciate that.  I am sorry I did not adequately communicate that in my initial post.  

I also know that we've had this discussion before.  I've expressed that for me and many of my close friends in similar situations, members hoping for same-sex marriage to be accepted by the Church feels like a dismissal of our choices and experiences, because without the clear teaching and doctrine, we likely would not have had adequate information to make the same choices.   Although, I can now look at the consequences of my actions and believe that I would make the same choices again, at the time I made those choices, I was acting on faith.   Without those teachings, what reason would I have had for acting in faith?  I've heard some people propose generic "personal revelation."  That doesn't seem adequate for me.  With that perspective, why teach any standards or doctrine at all.  I can see any number of analogous situations: Why not quit teaching the Word of Wisdom?  Just let members decide for themselves what substances to use and not use.  I know plenty of moral coffee drinkers, smokers, chewers, and people who consume alcohol responsibly.  Why not quit teaching in the Divinity of Jesus Christ.  Let members decide for themselves whether they want to believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and Savior of the World, or if he was just a man, or even a non-historical fictional character.   

I understand that you don't see things the same way.  You genuinely want to be able to celebrate everyone and believe that it is possible.  I am not trying to change your minds or contend with your spiritual experiences.  I truly don't mean for my expression of the feelings your position/comments evoke in me to be used as a club to silence you or change your beliefs.  I just believe that is important for you and others to have an accurate view of the impact those positions and comments have on others.  

 

I'm glad that you can look back at your life and be confident in your choices.  Truly -- that's as it should be.  I would hate for anything I say to ever change that.  

The balancing of church teachings vs. personal revelation has been a challenge for me for the past decade.  I don't expect that will change.  But I can't ignore what the Spirit whispers to me.

 

What are your thoughts on this honor code change?

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

The professor used phrases like, "if you are an ally," and "my LGBT friends," and mentioned he's been praying for these changes.  This professor and his students' applause show the beginnings of the same feelings leading up to "the long promised day" scenario described by many Latter-day Saints who hoped, prayed, and looked forward to the time when members of African-American decent were finally afforded the full blessings of membership in the LDS Faith.

I don't remember the political overtones from the 70s that go along with terms like "ally" so there seems to me to be a significant difference, though many similarities.

[SteveO]

21 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I imagine Brigham Young and the church members he governed felt the same way as you do, above, about others who ultimately hoped for, predicted, and ultimately foresaw allowing black members to receive the priesthood, the endowments, and marriages between members of mixed races.  Perhaps even more strongly than you did, given many of Young's more fiery condemnations on the subject.   Clearly you could substitute "interracial" for "gay" in your words and it would likely have mirrored many of their own thoughts for those that previously believed that interracial marriage was tantamount to immediate spiritual death.

Can you guys stop equating the two issues?  They aren’t the same thing.  Mainly because this dispensation began with blacks holding the priesthood.  But of course you knew that.

I’m not interested in beating the dead horse again.  If you guys can’t see the difference, having another round of posts trying to explain it won’t make a difference. 

[Daniel2]

19 hours ago, Hoss said:

A quote from Elder Holland: "While same-gender attraction is real, there must be no physical expression of this attraction."

'No physical expression' would definitely include kissing and the like. BYU"s new honor code seems to be at odds with Elder Hollands remarks.

Another great example of how significant the changes continue to be.

[Daniel2]

19 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I agree. There is a very vocal minority on this board and in the church that are pushing for same-sex marriage marriage to be allowed in the church and in the temple (i.e., sealings). They seem to see this announcement as a step in this direction. I don't see it. 

I believe that the Eternal God is in charge of this church. He is unchangeable and doesn't care about what is popular. He is willing to lose 1/3 of his children at the get-go because these children believed that if they got enough numbers behind their alternative plan, then God would cave in and go along with what is not right. It didn't work out well for them because even though God loves his children, he won't change eternal principles. The same has happened over and over again throughout scripture.

I believe the Proclamation to the World was given by God via prophets. At the time it came out ZERO countries in the world allowed same-sex marriage, the majority of the US opposed same-sex marriage, and gender fluidity was not a well-known or accepted idea. Fast-forward 25 years and everything has changed. Based upon this, it's clear to me that the Proclamation on the Family to the World was prophetic and given by God, and just in the nick of time.

Listen up world, here is what God has revealed in a proclamation via his Prophets to his children and it ain't going to change because it is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

• Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God
• Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.
• God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife
• Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.
• Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony
• Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

Everyone should read and then re-read the above. It's very clear what God is saying via his prophets and apostles. If you believe that prophets receive revelation and that God is asking them to put out a proclamation to the world, then it's pretty clear what God's opinion is.

Just because BYU changes the honor code so that the responsibility for being the Judge in Israel rests with the Bishop and not the honor code office, this doesn't change anything. His proclamation still stands.

I am 100% certain that all these same people who are celebrating today will be angrily yelling at BYU and the church again in the next few months because we don't conform to the world's standards, but instead the Lord's. And I expect it's only getting louder and more abrasive in the future.

It's worth noting out that the bolded, emphasized parts are NOT bolded and emphasized in the proclamation.  Your added emphasis changes the potential and intended meaning of the actual document.  (Consider how the meaning of the following two sentences change along with their added emphasis: "Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God." vs "Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.")

Also, while a senior apostle once referred to the Proclamation as "a revelation" in General Conference, the printed edition subsequently changed his wording to "a guide."  So whether or not it was "a revelation" has long been a matter of debate, if The Church itself made the change.

[rockpond]

Just now, Daniel2 said:

It's worth noting out that the bolded, emphasized parts are NOT bolded and emphasized in the proclamation.  Your added emphasis changes the potential and intended meaning of the actual document.  (Consider how the meaning of the following two sentences change along with their added emphasis: "Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God." vs "Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.")

Also, while a senior apostle once referred to the Proclamation as "a revelation" in General Conference, the printed edition subsequently changed his wording to "a guide."  So whether or not it was "a revelation" has long been a matter of debate, if The Church itself made the change.

The Nov 2015 handbook policy additions were also deemed revelation.  They are now entirely gone.

[Daniel2]

9 hours ago, stemelbow said:

DOes anyone think the BYU football program has something to do with the change here?  Maybe the Church or BYU decided they needed to soften/change their stance officially on LGBTQ so BYU football has a better chance of playing with the big boys, as they say--or getting into a decent conference.  I recall when the talk was BYU having a chance to get into the Big 12 but ultimately BYU and the Church's stance on LGBTQ was lobbied against by students from the other schools.  If BYU allows gay couples to hold hands without retribution at the school, perhaps BYU won't come off as so problematic on this issue?  

I certainly think that the church is wisely taking steps to avoid the types of any challenges it faced in sports, accreditation, and qualification for federal funding with past social issues (i.e. racial discrimination) which it then-considered to be a matter of moral/religious issues.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Or reconsider and persevere.  Are you saying this isn't possible?

Then "Option 3" is on the table.  That's my point.

I suppose this can happen.

You just said that a person can reach "a conviction that it is not true" is "{not} the end of his/her journey," and that the person can "at somepoint feel conviction that the Church is true, again."

Now, however, you are saying that this is not a "viable option."

I don't understand your position.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes once you get a conviction it's not true or good or useful, its either stick around feeling like you're lying or pack it up and leave until further info possibly changes your perspective.    You would have done that and that resulted in it not being true to you.  

But no one's really any more convinced it's not true than those who claim it is true.  

[Daniel2]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

I find substantial evidence in favor of the Church being a conduit for continuing revelation.

I couldn't agree more, and the fact that The Church claims to be a conduit for continuing revelation gives it more credibility to change (i.e. receive new light and knowledge) on this issue than most other Biblical-based Faiths.

[Daniel2]

22 hours ago, ALarson said:

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.

I agree with all of the above, especially expecting another hard-line talk from one of the "hard-liners" in the upcoming General Conference insisting nothing will change, which will be heralded by the more traditional posters here as further evidence that change won't happen.  Ironically, the existence of those charges to the general membership only reinforce my belief that change IS happening, even as the more senior apostles insist it isn't and won't be.

Edited February 25, 2020 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

6 hours 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 think I remember someone once suggesting to "Ask, and ye shall receive... knock, and it shall be opened up to you..."  

You could call the Honor Code office and ask for yourself, if you have doubts.

[Daniel2]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

I submit it's not correct to say that "The Church continues to teach what it has always taught" sexual issues. 

Polygamy, birth control, and once-considered "unholy and impure practices" are all good examples of sexual issues that have radically changed/flip-flopped in Mormonism over the years and since the sexual revolution in the last century.

[Daniel2]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

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've repeatedly made the case that acceptance and ordaining marriage between same-sex couples does not have to involve setting aside the Proclamation, which is carefully worded to actually allow for the Lord to ordain marriage between two men and two women, just as He ordains marriage between a man and a woman.

After all, saying that "the fact that the Lord blesses and promotes marriage between a man and a woman doesn't negate or refute that He can/could/will ordain marriage between same-sex couples" is just as accurate in saying that "the fact that the Lord blesses and promotes marriage between a man and a woman doesn't negate or refute or that He can/could/will ordain marriage between a man and a plurality of women."

[Calm]

https://universe.byu.edu/2020/02/24/honor-code-updates-remain-ambiguous/

Maybe the thread can be put on hold till after the meeting.

Quote

In response to confusion regarding the changes, BYU Clubs sent an email later in the day on Monday, Feb. 24, announcing that Honor Code Office Director Kevin Utt would “be presenting on the recent changes and adjustments to the Honor Code” in a meeting open to the student body Tuesday, Feb. 25, at 4 p.m. in room 5519 of the Wilkinson Student Center. The Universe will post updates from that event at universe.byu.edu.

They shouldn't have used a year old picture as an 'illustration' as it implies that it is a current happening.

Edited February 25, 2020 by Calm

[Anonymous Mormon]

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

Can you guys stop equating the two issues?  They aren’t the same thing.  Mainly because this dispensation began with blacks holding the priesthood.  But of course you knew that.

I’m not interested in beating the dead horse again.  If you guys can’t see the difference, having another round of posts trying to explain it won’t make a difference. 

I totally agree!!! 

Things with blatant and specific precedence in scripture (i.e., polygamy) or that were done at the start of the restoration (blacks holding the priesthood) are not the same as things with zero precedence in history or scripture and lots of specific scripture and precedence against it.

It's not worth debating this point again in this thread, since we have hashed it before. I think most people can see the distinction between these things.

[Anonymous Mormon]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

https://universe.byu.edu/2020/02/24/honor-code-updates-remain-ambiguous/

Maybe the thread can be put on hold till after the meeting.

I predict there will be lots of people who were celebrating that will be angry at BYU after this meeting is held. I don't think quite as much has changed as some people are insinuating.

[Daniel2]

I just tried calling the Honor Code office and it went to voicemail.  I don’t know if it’s after hours, if they’re just swamped, or maybe they’re turning off the phones till after to the meeting tomorrow? Lol. 

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, SteveO said:

Can you guys stop equating the two issues?  They aren’t the same thing.  Mainly because this dispensation began with blacks holding the priesthood.  But of course you knew that.

I’m not interested in beating the dead horse again.  If you guys can’t see the difference, having another round of posts trying to explain it won’t make a difference. 

 

1 hour ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I totally agree!!! 

Things with blatant and specific precedence in scripture (i.e., polygamy) or that were done at the start of the restoration (blacks holding the priesthood) are not the same as things with zero precedence in history or scripture and lots of specific scripture and precedence against it.

It's not worth debating this point again in this thread, since we have hashed it before. I think most people can see the distinction between these things.

I’m not equating the two (or three) issues (how the church has approached polygamous and interracial marriage, and, in my view, same-sex marriage)... clearly there are differences between the three, just as every change in doctrine, policy, or practice has differed in some ways from others.  I acknowledge there have been differences and unique attributes of each, both historically, doctrinally, and in practice.

i also understand some (including the two of you) feel the differences are so profound it precludes the possibility the church could someday embrace same-sex marriage. I disagree, since after all, with God, ALL things are possible.  

Further, I AM saying that there ARE aspects of how the LDS Church has approached each of these three types of marital relationships that ARE analogous. I think you’re kidding yourself if you can’t/won’t admit that. 

Edited February 25, 2020 by Daniel2

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I just tried calling the Honor Code office and it went to voicemail.  I don’t know if it’s after hours, if they’re just swamped, or maybe they’re turning off the phones till after to the meeting tomorrow? Lol. 

They close at 5

[Nacho2dope]

I guess we will find out tomorrow at 4:00. Kevin Utt will be presenting on the changes.
 

 

https://universe.byu.edu/2020/02/24/honor-code-updates-remain-ambiguous/

[provoman]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

I just tried calling the Honor Code office and it went to voicemail.  I don’t know if it’s after hours, if they’re just swamped, or maybe they’re turning off the phones till after to the meeting tomorrow? Lol. 

Tomorrows meeting will be interesting. Some comments on another point out the BYU is not the Church but BYU does claim to follow the Church standards.  

I think the meeting will confirm what everyone has been saying ... on/off campus dating is not a per se violation of BYU rules. I think it may also cover that BYU does not speak for ones Ecclesiastical Leaders. 

General Conference will be interesting. 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I totally agree!!! 

Things with blatant and specific precedence in scripture (i.e., polygamy) or that were done at the start of the restoration (blacks holding the priesthood) are not the same as things with zero precedence in history or scripture and lots of specific scripture and precedence against it.

It's not worth debating this point again in this thread, since we have hashed it before. I think most people can see the distinction between these things.

Not sure what precedence for polygamy has to do with its reversal.  Nor am I sure what precedence has to do with blacks and the temple/priesthood ban since that was attributed to scripture going back to Adam and Eve’s dispensation.

What I see as the comparison is the documented history of continuing revelation changing previous revelation and teachings. 

[blueglass]

Kevin Utt will speak as a representative of BYU and the HCO, but who will provide training for bishops and other ecclesiastical leaders on these changes? 

 

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Kevin Utt will speak as a representative of BYU and the HCO, but who will provide training for bishops and other ecclesiastical leaders on these changes? 

 

Fair question.  Nothing in the handbook about gay dating. 

Edited February 25, 2020 by rockpond

[Nacho2dope]

30 minutes ago, provoman said:

Tomorrows meeting will be interesting. Some comments on another point out the BYU is not the Church but BYU does claim to follow the Church standards.  

I think the meeting will confirm what everyone has been saying ... on/off campus dating is not a per se violation of BYU rules. I think it may also cover that BYU does not speak for ones Ecclesiastical Leaders. 

General Conference will be interesting. 

I think the meeting has been canceled