Byu Honor Code Matches New Handbook

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

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. 

You can think it self-evident that your changing the emphasis in the Church statement changes the meaning, but that doesn’t make it so. You haven’t even bothered to explain how it changes the meaning. 
 

A more precise term to denote the former practice in the Church is plurality of wives. We have understood it to mean the same thing as plural marriage, but the latter could be taken to mean something different. 
 

And same-sex marriage IS a fundamental redefinition of the term — just as if marriage were redefined as being between a human and a computer or a human and a microwave oven. 

Edited February 25, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Daniel2]

NVM. Not worth it and straying too far off topic.

 

 

Edited February 25, 2020 by Daniel2

[rockpond]

1 hour 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 understanding is that one reason that the Church bought the section of Main Street that bordered the east side of the SL Temple block was so that, by making it private property, they could restrict protests and set rules for behavior on that piece of property so uniquely situated between the temple and church office/historic buildings.  Not the only reason but one of the reasons.

I think that people (and organizations/businesses) should have that right to control what happens on their private property.  (I understand that there may have been some controversy with the acquisition of that land but I am not well acquainted with that.)

[Hamba Tuhan]

16 hours ago, rockpond said:

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.

Can you please provide direct quotes of official statements from the university that you have found sufficient to reach the conclusion you have?

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Can you please provide direct quotes of official statements from the university that you have found sufficient to reach the conclusion you have?

They've all been shared on this thread.

[CV75]

45 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

I took the consistent statements that have been reported from the HCO to be official and that these questions were answered. The same with regards to questions about ecclesiastical endorsement from local church leaders. Academic [/ecclesiastical] trustees are not supposed to manage the affairs of the student body [/members of the faith community organizational units] directly, so yes, that is as unlikely as the administration making major policy changes without board [/council] approval.

[rockpond]

42 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I took the consistent statements that have been reported from the HCO to be official and that these questions were answered. The same with regards to questions about ecclesiastical endorsement from local church leaders. Academic [/ecclesiastical] trustees are not supposed to manage the affairs of the student body [/members of the faith community organizational units] directly, so yes, that is as unlikely as the administration making major policy changes without board [/council] approval.

I disagree with the idea that we can put these things into separate silos:  BYU honor code here, Ecclesiastical Endorsements there, and general church policy somewhere else.  There is significant overlap.  If BYU honor code allows gay dating but bishops are terminating EE's for gay dating than you really haven't permitted gay dating at BYU, so why remove it from the HC?

Further, these are not separate and distinct organizations.  BYU's Board is chaired by President Nelson and has six other apostles with the remaining members all being general authorities/officers.  Given this, I think that the honor code, EE requirements, and church policies should all align.  Or, if they don't, some direction ought to be given for local leaders to reconcile the differences.

Edited February 25, 2020 by rockpond
Correction per Scott: some of the members of the Board of Trustees are general officers, not authorities.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

My understanding is that one reason that the Church bought the section of Main Street that bordered the east side of the SL Temple block was so that, by making it private property, they could restrict protests and set rules for behavior on that piece of property so uniquely situated between the temple and church office/historic buildings.  Not the only reason but one of the reasons.

I think that people (and organizations/businesses) should have that right to control what happens on their private property.  (I understand that there may have been some controversy with the acquisition of that land but I am not well acquainted with that.)

As I recall, the Church’s opponents contended that with the sale of the property to the Church, the law required that there be an easement on the property and street preachers and protesters were entitled to access it and exercise free-speech rights thereon.  The matter was resolved after the Church renegotiated the sale with the city. As part of the deal, the Church conveyed a piece of property on the west side to the city in exchange for the city relinquishing rights to the easement. Opponents made a last-ditch effort in court to block the deal, but the judgment went against them. Thus, the Church won the complete right to regulate speech and behavior on what has commonly been called the Main Street plaza. 

Edited February 25, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, rockpond said:

They've all been shared on this thread.

I thought they were hearsay. 

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I disagree with the idea that we can put these things into separate silos:  BYU honor code here, Ecclesiastical Endorsements there, and general church policy somewhere else.  There is significant overlap.  If BYU honor code allows gay dating but bishops are terminating EE's for gay dating than you really haven't permitted gay dating at BYU, so why remove it from the HC?

Further, these are not separate and distinct organizations.  BYU's Board is chaired by President Nelson and has six other apostles with the remaining members all being general authorities.  Given this, I think that the honor code, EE requirements, and church policies should all align.  Or, if they don't, some direction ought to be given for local leaders to reconcile the differences.

Believe it or not, I agree with every word of this. 
 

A can of worms has been opened, and for better or worse, there needs to be some clarification. 
 

Edited to add:  A correction to my post. Are you sure all the trustees are General Authorities? I thought at least one member was the Relief Society president or perhaps the Young Women President (they are general officers, not general authorities). 

Edited February 25, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I thought they were hearsay. 

Yes, I believe they fit that definition.

[rockpond]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Believe it or not, I agree with every word of this. 
 

A can of worms has been opened, and for better or worse, there needs to be some clarification. 

Always cause to celebrate when Scott and I land on common ground!

[Hamba Tuhan]

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

They've all been shared on this thread.

Really? I haven't seen a single one.

And the link that Nacho2dope provided to the university's newspaper includes the following:

Quote

Neither BYU Communications nor the Honor Code Office have made any official statements besides last week’s tweet to clarify the Honor Code wording changes.

This tweet, which the article claims has been the only official statement, is dated 20 February and reads:

Quote

In speaking with Honor Code Office Director Kevin Utt this afternoon, we've learned that there may have been some miscommunication as to what the Honor Code changes mean. Even though we have removed the more prescriptive language, the principles of the Honor Code remain the same.

So when you wrote that you have 'heard enough statements from the HCO to believe that they intended for gay dating and shows of affection to be permitted', which statements (plural) are you referring to besides 'the principles of the Honor Code remain the same'?

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Really? I haven't seen a single one.

And the link that Nacho2dope provided to the university's newspaper includes the following:

This tweet, which the article claims has been the only official statement, is dated 20 February and reads:

So when you wrote that you have 'heard enough statements from the HCO to believe that they intended for gay dating and shows of affection to be permitted', which statements (plural) are you referring to besides 'the principles of the Honor Code remain the same'?

It's my assessment, as I noted.  You are free to make your own assessment.  I'm not stating it as fact and don't feel the desire to document all the reasons I arrived at that opinion.  I'm confident that further clarifications will be forthcoming when the HCO, University Administration, and Board all figure out how and when they want to respond.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Always cause to celebrate when Scott and I land on common ground!

Alas, I spoke too soon. I had one minor quibble that I added as an addendum to my post. 

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Alas, I spoke too soon. I had one minor quibble that I added as an addendum to my post. 

Haha.  You are correct and I edited the post for you and the other 4 people in the world (outside of the GAs/GOs themselves) who know the difference.  

[Scott Lloyd]

25 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Really? I haven't seen a single one.

And the link that Nacho2dope provided to the university's newspaper includes the following:

This tweet, which the article claims has been the only official statement, is dated 20 February and reads:

So when you wrote that you have 'heard enough statements from the HCO to believe that they intended for gay dating and shows of affection to be permitted', which statements (plural) are you referring to besides 'the principles of the Honor Code remain the same'?

I take the tweet to mean the intent is the same as before, even though the verbiage has changed. 
 

But I don’t claim to be certain. It appears that even the people in the Honor Code office aren’t certain. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I take the tweet to mean the intent is the same as before, even though the verbiage has changed. 
But I don’t claim to be certain. It appears that even the people in the Honor Code office aren’t certain. 

I don't get Twitter. At all. But when I clicked on the tweet, I saw a follow-up(?) one:

Quote

The Honor Code Office will handle questions that arise on a case by case basis. For example, since dating means different things to different people, the Honor Code Office will work with students individually.

I should also point here that I also don't get BYU. At all.

When I was in my master's program at a large public university in the American Midwest, we had a large-ish contingent of BYU graduates arrive one semester to pursue postgraduate study. After only a few weeks, one of our recent converts whom I picked up for church each Sunday asked me why they all seemed so bitter and edgy, like they didn't actually enjoy being Church members the same way she was enjoying it. I told her I honestly didn't know, but it was unmistakable.

Edited February 26, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I take the tweet to mean the intent is the same as before, even though the verbiage has changed. 
 

But I don’t claim to be certain. It appears that even the people in the Honor Code office aren’t certain. 

A fair point we may not be considering.   Unofficial statements by HCO personnel may not at all reflect the ultimate opinion of the people who make decisions for the HCO.  The HCO can only report ad written,  unless given special clarification.   And we don't know that's the case.  In this I agree with Scott and Hamba in suggesting we haven't really heard anything official besides the tweet in terms of clarification.   And it certainly doesn't appear the tweet is very definitive nor particularly helpful for the LGBTQ ally perspective.  

[ALarson]

36 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

A fair point we may not be considering.   Unofficial statements by HCO personnel may not at all reflect the ultimate opinion of the people who make decisions for the HCO.  The HCO can only report ad written,  unless given special clarification.   And we don't know that's the case.  In this I agree with Scott and Hamba in suggesting we haven't really heard anything official besides the tweet in terms of clarification.   And it certainly doesn't appear the tweet is very definitive nor particularly helpful for the LGBTQ ally perspective.  

That tweet was from almost a week ago.  All of the articles regarding this in the national news have been after that....so where did they get their information from?  I would think they had to have a source.  I know that the one from CNN spoke to someone who got a statement from the Honor Code Office (that those who are gay will not be in violation of the honor code if they date, hold hands, hug or kiss in public).  It would be nice to have some clarification at this point and it's too bad the meeting this morning was cancelled.  Maybe there will be another one announced.

Here's this from about a half hour ago:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2020/02/26/popular-video-this-byu/

Quote

 

After Brigham Young University surprisingly removed its ban on “homosexual behavior,” finance professor Jim Brau walked into class last week knowing his students would be thinking about that major change to the Honor Code.

He knew some were excited, though it was still a little confusing what exactly it meant for gay couples. But he knew others at the religious school weren’t happy at all with the update.

So before jumping into his lecture on venture capital funds, Brau decided to explain how he felt: It’s “a blessing” — even more so for those who don’t agree with it.

“BYU just did you a massive favor,” he said.

He offered a practical perspective, noting that students who later get jobs will work with LGBTQ individuals and need to be welcoming. He pointed out that a former student of his was recently fired from “our No. 1 recruiting company” for making homophobic comments to a gay coworker. “I’m just saying, we need to be more Christ-like,” Brau suggested.

The 10-minute discussion from his Thursday class has been shared widely across social media, where many have celebrated the professor’s take and said it finally offers some clarification on the policy change. The clip is cut from video of Brau’s longer lecture, which he posts online each day.

It now has more than 20,000 views.

“I do realize for some of us, including me, who have been praying for this moment for years, today is a massive watershed,” Brau said to his students. “For others of you, this is a huge struggle and I understand that. … But if you see same-gender couples walking around campus, being respectful, acting like straight couples, that’s really going to get you ready for the real world.”

His comments came the day after BYU, which is owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, first publicly acknowledged it had changed its LGBTQ policy. The Honor Code — which includes a strict set of rules for dating, a dress code and a ban on drugs, alcohol, coffee and tea — previously prohibited “all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings." Those who acted on such feelings could be punished or suspended.

In the update, that section was deleted. And students said that staff in the Honor Code Office told them it meant they would no longer be disciplined for dating, holding hands with or kissing people of the same sex.

........

The professor then told his class that he personally called the Honor Code Office for clarification and talked to a full-time counselor there. He said he asked, “Can you date and be gay at BYU?”

The staffer responded, he said, noting, “The Honor Code no longer prohibits that.”

 

 

Edited February 26, 2020 by ALarson

[hope_for_things]

24 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

A fair point we may not be considering.   Unofficial statements by HCO personnel may not at all reflect the ultimate opinion of the people who make decisions for the HCO.  The HCO can only report ad written,  unless given special clarification.   And we don't know that's the case.  In this I agree with Scott and Hamba in suggesting we haven't really heard anything official besides the tweet in terms of clarification.   And it certainly doesn't appear the tweet is very definitive nor particularly helpful for the LGBTQ ally perspective.  

The prohibition has been removed from the policy, so I don’t think this significant change should be understated.  If the HCO is enforcing rules the same way they did in the past they are now enforcing a rule that isn’t written down explicitly anywhere in the revised policy.  

There is a reason the language was removed from the policy.  I think it’s safe to assume that they removed the language because they expect to change the way the policy is being enforced.  Otherwise what is the point of a revision in the first place.  

[Anonymous Mormon]

I have an honest question for everyone who feels like this change is the church accepting, allowing, or endorsing same-sex dating and same-sex kissing.  

The previous honor code mentioned that pornography was not allowed with this statement: "involvement with pornographic, erotic, indecent, or offensive material."

The new honor code doesn't mention this, it only says, "Live a chaste and virtuous life, including abstaining from any sexual relations outside a marriage between a man and a woman."

If I call the honor code office and they say that they will no longer kick out students who are struggling with pornography, should I read this as an acceptance, allowance or endorsement of pornography usage by the church? 

Do you all see something different in the fact that they got rid of the line about pornography v. the line about forms of "physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings?" Does this streamlined change make one of these activities more accepted by the church than another? Do you believe that if BYU is no longer making it officially against the Honor Code to view pornography, that BYU students are now allowed or invited to go out and view lots of pornography?

Note: for those that haven't looked, here are links to old and new honor code rules:

New: https://policy.byu.edu/view/index.php?p=26
Old: https://web.archive.org/web/20200115092007/https://policy.byu.edu/view/index.php?p=26

[Hamba Tuhan]

25 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

The previous honor code mentioned that pornography was not allowed with this statement: "involvement with pornographic, erotic, indecent, or offensive material."

I note that 'participation in gambling activities' is no longer specifically mentioned either. Clearly the Church is signalling that gambling is now perfectly OK as well. There's a casino just three blocks from where I work. I'm off!

[JulieM]

14 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I note that 'participation in gambling activities' is no longer specifically mentioned either. Clearly the Church is signalling that gambling is now perfectly OK as well. There's a casino just three blocks from where I work. I'm off!

When did they remove the section about gambling (if there was one) like they removed the two paragraphs about homosexual behavior and how it is no longer a violation of the code?  Do you have quotes from anyone who spoke to an officer at the Honor Code office about this?  Any media coverage?  Was gambling removed from the handbook (if it was in there)?

If that hasn’t taken place, your comparison is not really valid.

Edited February 26, 2020 by JulieM

[MustardSeed]

Anonymous has a good point.  Something removed may not mean the brethren approve, but rather that they no longer choose to babysit us with rules. Maybe we get to grow up and live with our own choices.