Byu Honor Code Matches New Handbook

[provoman]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

As goes BYU, so goes the Church...

I do not agree, I do not even think the BYUs can agree (there is a picture of BYU I v BYU P cheerleaders online, and BYU I are almost fully clothed except for a little bit of ankle and BYU P cheerleaders have traditional outfits.

There is also this recording of a alleged BYU I Administrator who states along the lines of "Well BYU Provo made that change for them it does not apply to BYU Idaho"

@rockpond   also this from BYU I

The Board of Trustees of BYU-Idaho requires every student attending the university to have an annual ecclesiastical endorsement. This will be completed by the bishop of the ward in which the student and/or membership record reside. The continuing endorsement must be completed prior to registering for classes.

The bishop verifies the following:

• If LDS, the student is in full fellowship in the Church
• The student lives a chaste and virtuous life, including avoidance of pornography, abstinence from sexual relations outside of marriage, and abstinence from homosexual conduct
• The student lives the Word of Wisdom by abstaining from alcoholic beverages, tobacco, coffee, tea, and other harmful substances
• The student demonstrates appropriate and consistent church activity
• The student is honest

The student verifies they are striving to live the Honor Code. Students will renew their endorsement during the first semester of their assigned track. Online students without an assigned track will review their endorsement annually during the semester of their initial enrollment.

 

Quote

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.

I understand the logic behind that.

Edited February 25, 2020 by provoman

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

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.”

I know that sometimes changing the emphasis can alter the meaning (my degree is in communications, and I spent my career in an associated field; I don’t need a lecture on it). I just don’t see it in this instance, no matter how desperately you want it to be the case. 
 

Furthermore, the tenor, tone and context of the entire document is to reaffirm long held doctrine and teachings pertaining to traditional marriage. The notion that the meaning could be distorted at this late stage to support a late and fundamental redefinition of marriage as it has long been understood in the Church of Jesus Christ is more than a little outlandish. 

Edited February 25, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Durangout]

On 2/20/2020 at 10:31 AM, smac97 said:

 

 

Edited February 25, 2020 by Durangout
Issues

[california boy]

I don't see what all the fuss is about.  It has never been immoral to hold hands, hug or kiss someone, even if they are the same gender.  None of those things are considered sexual relations outside of marriage.  Just because the Church made it immoral, doesn't mean it ever was.  In a year from now, most people will probably not even remember the former line in the sand against gay couples because it has always been an impossible position to defend.  Members of the Church like to quickly forget past indefensible positions that at one time or another the Church fought tooth and nail to impose on its membersl.  

How many members want to forget Prop 8?

How many members want to forget discrimination against Blacks?

How many members want to forget the discrimination against gay couples and their children?

How many members want to forget the incredible pressure Church leaders put on members to have multiple wives that were not even legal marriages?

How many members want to forget that inter racial marriage was so adamantly preached against?

How many members want to forget that birth control was also against the handbook of rules?

And this is not even a complete list.  I don't get too worked up about what the Church thinks is right or wrong.  I think if most people went to God and asked Him if gay couples holding hands was immoral, or prayed about all of these past issues, they would have gotten the same answer that Church leaders eventually get. 

 

Edited February 25, 2020 by california boy

[rockpond]

50 minutes ago, provoman said:

I do not agree, I do not even think the BYUs can agree (there is a picture of BYU I v BYU P cheerleaders online, and BYU I are almost fully clothed except for a little bit of ankle and BYU P cheerleaders have traditional outfits.

There is also this recording of a alleged BYU I Administrator who states along the lines of "Well BYU Provo made that change for them it does not apply to BYU Idaho"

@rockpond   also this from BYU I

The Board of Trustees of BYU-Idaho requires every student attending the university to have an annual ecclesiastical endorsement. This will be completed by the bishop of the ward in which the student and/or membership record reside. The continuing endorsement must be completed prior to registering for classes.

The bishop verifies the following:

• If LDS, the student is in full fellowship in the Church
• The student lives a chaste and virtuous life, including avoidance of pornography, abstinence from sexual relations outside of marriage, and abstinence from homosexual conduct
• The student lives the Word of Wisdom by abstaining from alcoholic beverages, tobacco, coffee, tea, and other harmful substances
• The student demonstrates appropriate and consistent church activity
• The student is honest

The student verifies they are striving to live the Honor Code. Students will renew their endorsement during the first semester of their assigned track. Online students without an assigned track will review their endorsement annually during the semester of their initial enrollment.

 

I understand the logic behind that.

When I stated "as goes BYU, so goes the church" I didn't mean to imply an immediate effect.

I don't think most bishops and stake presidents are paying attention to what happens at BYU or even to this current issue.  But, the handbook doesn't comment on dating and physical shows of affection between same sex couples.  The term "homosexual conduct" above is also nebulous.  I think there is a trickle effect as bishops and stake presidents encounter issues in their wards and stakes that they might think:  well, I heard that BYU does it *this way* and the Brethren are closely involved in what happens at BYU.  So...

[Daniel2]

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I know that sometimes changing the emphasis can alter the meaning ( was a communications major in college and spent my career in an associated field; I don’t need a lecture on it). I just don’t see it in this instance, no matter how desperately you want it to be the case. 
 

Furthermore, the tenor, tone and context of the entire document is to reaffirm long held doctrine and teachings pertaining to traditional marriage. The notion that the meaning could be distorted at this late stage to support a late and fundamental redefinition of marriage as it has long been understood in the Church of Jesus Christ is more than a little outlandish. 

Except.... you obviously DID need a nudge to admit that emphasis DOES change meaning, which you previously failed to see even “in the slightest.”

And while I entirely agree that point of the Proclamation is to reaffirm what you call “traditional” marriage, it’s exactly my point that the document is NOT comprehensive of forms of marriage that God has, does, and/or ever could affirm and ordain. 

An ommission of other forms of marriage that may be God-ordained isn’t a auto-condemnation thereof. After all, according to LDS doctrine, God also ordains marriage between a man and a plurality of women, but the fact that the document doesn’t mention plural marriage doesn’t mean God can’t, won’t, and doesn’t affirm such marriages.

In a similar vein, it once was asserted that “Marriage between members of the same race is ordained by God.”  While that is still true according to Mormonism, its also true today that Mormonism ordains marriage between mixed-race couples; something that was previously, explicitly condemned.

 

Edited February 25, 2020 by Daniel2

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't think most bishops and stake presidents are paying attention to what happens at BYU or even to this current issue. 

The bishops and stake presidents whohave BYU students in their congregations are certainly paying attention to this issue.

I should know.  I live in Provo, and a large number of our ward members are BYU students.

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But, the handbook doesn't comment on dating and physical shows of affection between same sex couples.  The term "homosexual conduct" above is also nebulous. 

So is "pornography."  Just because a term cannot be defined with exacting precision does not mean it cannot be defined at all.

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think there is a trickle effect as bishops and stake presidents encounter issues in their wards and stakes that they might think:  well, I heard that BYU does it *this way* and the Brethren are closely involved in what happens at BYU.  So...

I think we'll be getting clarification from BYU and/or the Brethren.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Except.... you obviously DID need a nudge to admit that emphasis DOES change meaning, which you previously failed to see even “in the slightest.”

And while I entirely agree that point of the Proclamation is to reaffirm what you call “traditional” marriage, it’s exactly my point that the document is NOT comprehensive of forms of marriage that God has, does, and/or ever could affirm and ordain. 

After all, according to LDS doctrine, God also ordains marriage between a man and a plurality of women, but the fact that the document doesn’t mention plural marriage doesn’t mean God can’t, won’t, and doesn’t affirm such marriages. 

I didn’t need a nudge to “admit” a thing I had never denied. The fact that it happens sometimes does not mean it happens always or that it happens in this instance. Which is my point. My “in the slightest” phrase refers to this instance, not to a generality. 
 

And even when God-ordained plural marriage happens, that doesn’t change the definition under the law of God of marriage being between a man and a woman. Plurality of wives amounts to separate instances of marriage, not one single instance. Each instance is between a man and a woman. The wives are not married to each other. 

Edited February 25, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The bishops and stake presidents whohave BYU students in their congregations are certainly paying attention to this issue.

I should know.  I live in Provo, and a large number of our ward members are BYU students.

Yes, in the Provo/Orem area I would expect that.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So is "pornography."  Just because a term cannot be defined with exacting precision does not mean it cannot be defined at all.

Understood.  But I think this change to the honor code at BYU (assuming it stays) will help define the term "homosexual conduct" for bishops/stake presidents doing ecclesiastical endorsements.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think we'll be getting clarification from BYU and/or the Brethren.

Time will tell.  Yesterday's attempt and reversal are interesting developments.

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But I think this change to the honor code at BYU (assuming it stays) will help define the term "homosexual conduct" for bishops/stake presidents doing ecclesiastical endorsements.

And also define the term:  "homosexual behavior".

Here is a copy of what was removed from the Honor Code:

https://www.diffchecker.com/QqrwFHRz

[provoman]

26 minutes ago, rockpond said:

When I stated "as goes BYU, so goes the church" I didn't mean to imply an immediate effect.

I don't think most bishops and stake presidents are paying attention to what happens at BYU or even to this current issue.  But, the handbook doesn't comment on dating and physical shows of affection between same sex couples.  The term "homosexual conduct" above is also nebulous.  I think there is a trickle effect as bishops and stake presidents encounter issues in their wards and stakes that they might think:  well, I heard that BYU does it *this way* and the Brethren are closely involved in what happens at BYU.  So...

 

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The bishops and stake presidents whohave BYU students in their congregations are certainly paying attention to this issue.

I should know.  I live in Provo, and a large number of our ward members are BYU students.

So is "pornography."  Just because a term cannot be defined with exacting precision does not mean it cannot be defined at all.

I think we'll be getting clarification from BYU and/or the Brethren.

Thanks,

-Smac

I also do not think leadership out side of BYU associated wards or wards with no BYU student have paid much attention to the issue.  

As best I can tell, the current General Handbook does not address "homosexual behavior" as did CHI 2 21.4.6. I tend to agree with the many statements that a clarification will come from Church Leadership.

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And even when God-ordained plural marriage happens, that doesn’t change the definition under the law of God of marriage being between a man and a woman. Plurality of wives amounts to separate instances of marriage, not one single instance. Each instance is between a man and a woman. The wives are not married to each other. 

Yeah, @Daniel2, you should try to keep it straight (no pun intended) ---

Gay men get 0 eternal husbands.
Lesbian women get 0 eternal wives.
Straight women get 1 eternal husband.
Straight men have no limit on the number of eternal wives they may have but each one is its own marriage with one man and one woman, it's not plural marriage.

 

[Daniel2]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I didn’t need a nudge to “admit” a thing I had never denied. The fact that it happens sometimes does not mean it happens always or that it happens in this instance. Which is my point. My “in the slightest” phrase refers to this instance, not to a generality. 
 

And even when God-ordained plural marriage happens, that doesn’t change the definition under the law of God of marriage being between a man and a woman. Plurality of wives amounts to separate instances of marriage, not one single instance. Each instance is between a man and a woman. The wives are not married to each other. 

Yeah. I guess we simply see things differently.  I am astonished that you can't admit that there isn't "even the slightest" difference, which I view as an unreasonable refusal to acknowledge at least a slight difference that strikes me as so entirely self-evident I'm astonished to see you're reasserting there is none.  With such diametric differences, there isn't really much left to say on that point.

I also disagree that allowing individuals to marry regardless of gender fundamentally "changes the definition" of marriage in any meaningful way any more than allowing individuals to marry regardless of whether or not they share the same race, religion, national origin, or the quantities of individuals within the marriage.  (The fact that "the wives aren't married to each other" has nothing to do with anything I've said... in fact, that's WHY I referred to marriage between "a man and a plurality of women"--which I deliberately employed as openly acknowledging "a man" is married to "multiple women"--in LDS belief, the women aren't married to one another.  Though alternate forms of marriage, outside of Mormondom, certainly could allow for group marriage, still without fundamentally altering the definition of marriage, in any meaningful way. 

[stemelbow]

Once the heavens open to whichever Mormon Prophet is at the helm at the time, they'll see clearly that the government of heaven includes all varieties including same sex couples.  That prophet might be reminded of how past Prophets also used to think if someone was black the best they'd get in heaven is to be a servant to the really heavenly white folks.  "oh yea", he'll say, "we keep trying to pretend we know the answer to issues that arise on earth based on the traditions that were beat into us by former generations and by the larger worldly culture that often was our driver.  Then we pretend that the old worldly culture which gets drowned out by the new worldly culture and which causes us to change, was pristine and godly.  We feel forced to think the past presidents and prophets who relied on the ways of the world to come up with their divisive and hurtful doctrines are beleaguered humble people who learned straight from God (well because they said so), but really they just were directed by their own built up prejudices, based on traditions of an older culture that instructed them.  Oh man, it wasn't the evil plot of the devil urging us to be more appreciative, loving and accepting.  It was GOd himself, patiently dealing with us fools.   I feel like we should have learned that a long time ago.  Oops."

[Daniel2]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yeah, @Daniel2, you should try to keep it straight (no pun intended) ---

Gay men get 0 eternal husbands.
Lesbian women get 0 eternal wives.
Straight women get 1 eternal husband.
Straight men have no limit on the number of eternal wives they may have but each one is its own marriage with one man and one woman, it's not plural marriage.

 

I do find it unusual how many Latter-day Saints find it REALLY important to emphasize that their view of plural marriage encompasses only marriage between “a man and a woman,” each as it’s own thing, so it somehow isn’t really plural marriage, or something...? I never saw this line of thinking/delineation as I was growing up in the church or during my mission or time at BYU during the 1990’s, and it seems to have emerged during the mid-2000’s political “defense of [so-called] traditional marriage” as Latter-day Saints were trying to appear as if they weren’t that different from their Catholic/Christian/Evangelical political allies during the Prop 22/Prop 8 years. 

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I do find it unusual how many Latter-day Saints find it REALLY important to emphasize that their view of plural marriage encompasses only marriage between “a man and a woman,” each as it’s own thing, so it somehow isn’t really plural marriage, or something...? I never saw this line of thinking/delineation as I was growing up in the church or during my mission or time at BYU during the 1990’s, and it seems to have emerged during the mid-2000’s political “defense of [so-called] traditional marriage” as Latter-day Saints were trying to appear as if they weren’t that different from their Catholic/Christian/Evangelical political allies during the Prop 22/Prop 8 years. 

I think the issue was that to have any credibility in the fight against gay marriage, the Church and its members had to be seen as denying polygamy.  Even though we still believe in eternal plural marriage.

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

There is also this recording of a alleged BYU I Administrator who states along the lines of "Well BYU Provo made that change for them it does not apply to BYU Idaho"

I think this guy (from the BYU-I Honor Code Office) handled this phone call extremely well....impressive.  He basically just kept saying that they don't know yet how this will affect them.  But it was interesting he talked about having a sister who is gay and how he is understanding of this issue.  Thank you for sharing the link!

Edited February 25, 2020 by ALarson

[CV75]

At this point, exactly what kind of clarification is being sought regarding the Honor Code that hasn't been answered in the reported responses from the HCO staff?

[Peppermint Patty]

Could somebody with legal training or experience weigh in on this?

I'm seeing claims that the Church has been advised by their legal team that to prevent people from showing affection in a public venue among outdoor and indoor settings could be a violation of free speech. Especially, if BYU is allowing this expression for heterosexuals but not allowing the same expression for gays. Is freedom of expression a constitutional right to that includes hand holding and kissing? To restrict gay people from expression that is allowed for heterosexuals in a public setting a potential violation of the Constitution?

[Amulek]

10 minutes ago, Peppermint Patty said:

To restrict gay people from expression that is allowed for heterosexuals in a public setting a potential violation of the Constitution?

BYU isn't a government run, public institution. As a private school it can enforce pretty much any rule it wants on it's own private property. 

 

[provoman]

29 minutes ago, Peppermint Patty said:

Could somebody with legal training or experience weigh in on this?

I'm seeing claims that the Church has been advised by their legal team that to prevent people from showing affection in a public venue among outdoor and indoor settings could be a violation of free speech. Especially, if BYU is allowing this expression for heterosexuals but not allowing the same expression for gays. Is freedom of expression a constitutional right to that includes hand holding and kissing? To restrict gay people from expression that is allowed for heterosexuals in a public setting a potential violation of the Constitution?

My not so learned opinion, the Constitution applies to Government actors, the 1st Amendment Freedom of speech/expression does not apply to actions taken by private entity, nor does it apply to private property owners restricting conduct on their private property.

[Scott Lloyd]

50 minutes ago, Peppermint Patty said:

Could somebody with legal training or experience weigh in on this?

I'm seeing claims that the Church has been advised by their legal team that to prevent people from showing affection in a public venue among outdoor and indoor settings could be a violation of free speech. Especially, if BYU is allowing this expression for heterosexuals but not allowing the same expression for gays. Is freedom of expression a constitutional right to that includes hand holding and kissing? To restrict gay people from expression that is allowed for heterosexuals in a public setting a potential violation of the Constitution?

 

36 minutes ago, Amulek said:

BYU isn't a government run, public institution. As a private school it can enforce pretty much any rule it wants on it's own private property. 

 

To take an obvious example, BYU would be well within its rights to prohibit the on-campus distribution of literature antagonistic to the Church of Jesus Christ or defamatory to its leaders. 

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I think the issue was that to have any credibility in the fight against gay marriage, the Church and its members had to be seen as denying polygamy.  Even though we still believe in eternal plural marriage.

I agree.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

At this point, exactly what kind of clarification is being sought regarding the Honor Code that hasn't been answered in the reported responses from the HCO staff?

Maybe they just want an official statement rather than what we have heard second/third-hand.

Or, I think some are hoping that gay dating/affection is still prohibited despite the change.

And then there is the "SaveBYU" group that seems to want the language put back into the HC.

 

I think it would be awesome if one of the apostles on the Board of Trustees would make a public statement saying:  "Yes, we knew that that paragraph was being removed from the HC.  Yes, gay dating is permitted for BYU students.  No, they won't be denied an EE if they continue to live the law of chastity.  And here's why..."

But I know I'm being overly optimistic.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

And also define the term:  "homosexual behavior".

Here is a copy of what was removed from the Honor Code:

https://www.diffchecker.com/QqrwFHRz

I’m heterosexual and I’m going to workout at the gym in a few minutes.  Would love to know exactly how anyone is supposed know what exactly they mean by homosexual or heterosexual behavior.