sunstoned Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 3 hours ago, Daniel2 said: 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. Elder Nelson did say ‘Eat your vitamin pills. Get your rest'. Maybe changes like this is what he is referring to.
katherine the great Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 5 hours ago, Daniel2 said: It requires a certain level of self-awareness to challenge the cultural conditioning one has adopted over one's entire childhood and youth; while some people are capable of doing so, not everyone has arisen to that level of insight and maturity by the time they reach college. With hind site, I would have to agree. I'm a completely different person now than I was when I was 18. I also seem to remember my parents telling me that BYU was the only school they would help me pay for. I had forgotten all about that!
rockpond Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Nacho2dope said: I think the meeting has been canceled Seriously? That didn’t last long. Church going into damage control mode now? Edited February 25, 2020 by rockpond 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 4 hours ago, 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. I don’t see that your emphasis alters the meaning of the statement in the slightest.
Calm Posted February 25, 2020 Author Posted February 25, 2020 18 minutes ago, rockpond said: Seriously? That didn’t last long. Church going into damage control mode now? A meeting would be damage control. As long as the speculation continues the conversation will. I don't see it fading. And the first discipline taken by any bishop of a student who resents that they were given the impression same sex dating and physical expression wouldn't cause them any problems enough that they publicize it is likely going to flame it back up or higher if ithas died down.
Calm Posted February 25, 2020 Author Posted February 25, 2020 46 minutes ago, Nacho2dope said: I think the meeting has been canceled Why do you think that? 1
Nacho2dope Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 29 minutes ago, rockpond said: Seriously? That didn’t last long. Church going into damage control mode now? Right! https://universe.byu.edu/2020/02/24/honor-code-updates-remain-ambiguous/
Nacho2dope Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 7 minutes ago, Calm said: Why do you think that? https://universe.byu.edu/2020/02/24/honor-code-updates-remain-ambiguous/ 1
MustardSeed Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 7 hours ago, Calm said: I am not sure we should be comfortable with easy choices in the Gospel. For me a lot depends on how one defines inclusiveness. It seems strange to me to promote inclusiveness as an important ideal and then talk about people one is not fond of as if that should matter in an inclusive environment. It seems contradictory. Why not be ok with certain aspects being easy for some? Lots of choices are easy for me as I live the Gospel. Should they all be difficult? This one happens to come easily “for me” And yes I do absolutely believe one can be inclusive and at the same time not be fond of this person or that person. I invite all the boors to my parties as long as they bring food with them and let me pick the music!
rockpond Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 50 minutes ago, Calm said: A meeting would be damage control. As long as the speculation continues the conversation will. I don't see it fading. And the first discipline taken by any bishop of a student who resents that they were given the impression same sex dating and physical expression wouldn't cause them any problems enough that they publicize it is likely going to flame it back up or higher if ithas died down. A meeting done correctly would be damage control. If the Board of Trustees saw the meeting as the HCO attempting to explain something that the Trustees didn't want explained, were concerned about what the explanation might be, or weren't in agreement on an explanation then it could just cause more damage. Or more mess to deal with later. At this point, I no longer believe that there is speculation on what the HCO intended with the changes. I believe someone above the HCO has started to question the decision. 2
Calm Posted February 25, 2020 Author Posted February 25, 2020 32 minutes ago, rockpond said: no longer believe that there is speculation on what the HCO intended with the changes. I don’t understand what you mean by this.
rockpond Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 5 minutes ago, Calm said: I don’t understand what you mean by this. Ugh. You are right... that sentence makes no sense. I shouldn't try to respond this late at night. What I meant is that I think we've heard enough statements from the HCO to believe that they intended for gay dating and shows of affection to be permitted when they removed that section from the Honor Code. For me, what remains to be seen is if the Board of Trustees either didn't know that this change was being implemented (which seems unlikely) or is having second thoughts. 1
Daniel2 Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 (edited) 10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don’t see that your emphasis alters the meaning of the statement in the slightest. And in saying so, your blind spot is revealed. A key (and entirely uncontested, by anyone I’ve ever seen) component of Effective Communication seminars I’ve both attended and taught for years centers around how inflection, tone, and emphasis on different words within the the same sentence entirely changes the meaning of the same sentence. There’s a slide that shows the same sentence with each word bolded differently, and we discuss how the altered emphasis changes the meaning each sentence and conveys something entirely different. Here’s literally the content of that slide, as portrayed in the effective communication PowerPoint: I never said Kevin stole the book. I never said Kevin stole the book. I never said Kevin stole the book. I never said Kevin stole the book. I never said Kevin stole the book. I never said Kevin stole the book. I never said Kevin stole the book. Funny how you fail to see how changing the emphasis changes the meaning, even “in the slightest.” Edited February 25, 2020 by Daniel2
hope_for_things Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 9 hours ago, Nacho2dope said: https://universe.byu.edu/2020/02/24/honor-code-updates-remain-ambiguous/ Thanks for posting, I had no idea there was such a push back from the ultra conservative types. Its interesting to see this happening in real time, the bigotry out in the wide open for all to see. I sure hope that BYU and the church don't cave on this change.
stemelbow Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 After sleeping on it, I'm tempering my expectations here. I think it obvious BYU figured they'd leave out the clause in an attempt to appear more credible to their education peers and sports peers. I'm sure they were thinking they'd have some problems to deal with but they'd be able to manage them and keep them under wraps. Also, they figured there's enough anti-LGBTQ sentiment amongst the student body they'd get plenty of help to maintain the status quo through peer pressure. But they may not have anticipated these young whippersnappers won't buy into the bigotry so easily. Given enough time to have this sink in for a year or two, I'd imagine the students would see the benefit of seeing Chad and Brian holding hands as they traipse off to the Library. Sure that anger is hard to erase from many of the kids, but I'd guess the pressure would backfire on BYU. The majority would be accepting and grow more accepting, while the less accepting will feel marginalized more and more. After years of such activity, of course, the Church would again be forced to change course or find itself on the road to dissolution. But, with that said, I'm sure the Church is going to start to see these things and demand a stop to them. I'm guessing the clause that was taken out, or something like it, will be back in, in short order. Chad and Brian will likely find themselves subjects of the HCO, if they insist on holding hands. But the Church will get a glimpse on what the younger generations sees and will likely in the coming decades feel themselves forced to change again.
smac97 Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 12 minutes ago, stemelbow said: After sleeping on it, I'm tempering my expectations here. I think it obvious BYU figured they'd leave out the clause in an attempt to appear more credible to their education peers and sports peers. I'm sure they were thinking they'd have some problems to deal with but they'd be able to manage them and keep them under wraps. Also, they figured there's enough anti-LGBTQ sentiment amongst the student body they'd get plenty of help to maintain the status quo through peer pressure. But they may not have anticipated these young whippersnappers won't buy into the bigotry so easily. Given enough time to have this sink in for a year or two, I'd imagine the students would see the benefit of seeing Chad and Brian holding hands as they traipse off to the Library. Sure that anger is hard to erase from many of the kids, but I'd guess the pressure would backfire on BYU. The majority would be accepting and grow more accepting, while the less accepting will feel marginalized more and more. After years of such activity, of course, the Church would again be forced to change course or find itself on the road to dissolution. But, with that said, I'm sure the Church is going to start to see these things and demand a stop to them. I'm guessing the clause that was taken out, or something like it, will be back in, in short order. Chad and Brian will likely find themselves subjects of the HCO, if they insist on holding hands. But the Church will get a glimpse on what the younger generations sees and will likely in the coming decades feel themselves forced to change again. "anti-LGBTQ sentiment" "buy into the bigotry" "Sure that anger is hard to erase" Provocateur. -Smac
stemelbow Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 3 minutes ago, smac97 said: "anti-LGBTQ sentiment" "buy into the bigotry" "Sure that anger is hard to erase" Provocateur. -Smac Oh, don't be so easily offended, smac. What is it to demonstrate against LGBTQ allowance on campus? Pro--LBGTQ sentiment?
hope_for_things Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 (edited) 48 minutes ago, stemelbow said: After sleeping on it, I'm tempering my expectations here. I think it obvious BYU figured they'd leave out the clause in an attempt to appear more credible to their education peers and sports peers. I'm sure they were thinking they'd have some problems to deal with but they'd be able to manage them and keep them under wraps. Also, they figured there's enough anti-LGBTQ sentiment amongst the student body they'd get plenty of help to maintain the status quo through peer pressure. But they may not have anticipated these young whippersnappers won't buy into the bigotry so easily. Given enough time to have this sink in for a year or two, I'd imagine the students would see the benefit of seeing Chad and Brian holding hands as they traipse off to the Library. Sure that anger is hard to erase from many of the kids, but I'd guess the pressure would backfire on BYU. The majority would be accepting and grow more accepting, while the less accepting will feel marginalized more and more. After years of such activity, of course, the Church would again be forced to change course or find itself on the road to dissolution. But, with that said, I'm sure the Church is going to start to see these things and demand a stop to them. I'm guessing the clause that was taken out, or something like it, will be back in, in short order. Chad and Brian will likely find themselves subjects of the HCO, if they insist on holding hands. But the Church will get a glimpse on what the younger generations sees and will likely in the coming decades feel themselves forced to change again. I have a much more optimistic take on this. The HCO has been on the defensive about a host of issues in recent years, namely LGBTQ issues, the whole title 9 sexual investigations, BYU sports issues, recruiting students to proactively report on other students, and the list probably goes on. This change is just one of many changes needed in the past few years to the entire structure of the honor code program. They can't roll back the clock on all these issues, and younger students are increasingly more tolerant, and society has changed. If I were a betting person, I'd put the chances of any significant roll back of this LGBTQ change at 5% or less. Edited February 25, 2020 by hope_for_things
provoman Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 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. Not understanding the chaos at a ward/stake level as a HCO "policy" does not create a standard for the Church.
ALarson Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 (edited) 15 minutes ago, provoman said: Not understanding the chaos at a ward/stake level as a HCO "policy" does not create a standard for the Church. I can only go on what my Bishop told me, but I understand that many of the parents contacting him and the Stake President had questions regarding their child or family member who is gay. I assume they (family member) are actively dating members of their own sex, but desire to attend BYU and be open about it and thought previously that they would not be able to get the recommendation to go (from their local leaders). I also think there just may be confusion at local levels regarding what this change actually means and where it's headed in the future (acceptance of SSM). There may be other questions too....I can ask him more about it when I speak to him again to see what feedback and questions they are getting (more specifically). Edited February 25, 2020 by ALarson 1
stemelbow Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 36 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I have a much more optimistic take on this. The HCO has been on the defensive about a host of issues in recent years, namely LGBTQ issues, the whole title 9 sexual investigations, BYU sports issues, recruiting students to proactively report on other students, and the list probably goes on. This change is just one of many changes needed in the past few years to the entire structure of the honor code program. They can't roll back the clock on all these issues, and younger students are increasingly more tolerant, and society has changed. If I were a betting person, I'd put the chances of any significant roll back of this LGBTQ change at 5% or less. Maybe. I'm squinting my best to imagine what you've described. Just not seeing it.
ALarson Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 (edited) 17 hours ago, kllindley said: 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. Thank you kllindley. As always, I love reading your perspective and feel your voice is important here. Many times when I read your posts, it causes me to see things a bit differently and I appreciate that. Edited February 25, 2020 by ALarson 3
Meadowchik Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: Thanks for posting, I had no idea there was such a push back from the ultra conservative types. Its interesting to see this happening in real time, the bigotry out in the wide open for all to see. I sure hope that BYU and the church don't cave on this change. Yes, there was even a website created to call the BYU admin to repentance: savebyu.com. Yet another was quickly created to counter it: savebyu.org 1
hope_for_things Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 22 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Maybe. I'm squinting my best to imagine what you've described. Just not seeing it. Don't look to closely at what the Daily Universe reports, think about a bigger picture view.
rockpond Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 1 hour ago, provoman said: Not understanding the chaos at a ward/stake level as a HCO "policy" does not create a standard for the Church. As goes BYU, so goes the Church... I think the presumption is that BYU wouldn't make such a significant change to the honor code without knowledge and approval from the Board of Trustees (a board which includes prophets, seers, and revelators). That presumption may or may not be true. But if it is, than the allowing gay dating and physical demonstrations of affection at BYU would seem to indicate that it it is okay for church members outside of BYU. I'm not stating the above as fact, just the logic that I think might lead a parent to talk to their Bp or SP about this change.
Recommended Posts