Byu Honor Code Matches New Handbook

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

Pornography, gambling, and same-sex dating are only equivalents in that all 3 were previously specifically forbidden in the honor code and are no longer mentioned. I am not making a case for them being equivalent in any other way (nor do I want to insinuate that I am or debate whether or not they are).

In this article, it states pornography and gambling are still specifically mentioned and are "not permitted":

Quote

 

The wording of the updated Honor Code also includes the following:

“Sexual misconduct; obscene or indecent conduct or expressions; disorderly or disruptive conduct; participation in gambling activities; involvement with pornographic, erotic, indecent, or offensive material; and any other conduct or action inconsistent with the principles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Honor Code is not permitted.”

 

https://universe.byu.edu/2020/02/19/honor-code-changes-remove-explicit-ban-on-homosexual-behavior/

 

Do you have a reference to a more recent Honor Code where these two (pornography & gambling) have been removed?

Edited February 26, 2020 by ALarson

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

Case in point the comment above, which seems to say that by removing something from the honor code it is now implicitly endorsed by BYU:

22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

While at the same time, you'll have the conservative types believing that this behavior is not implicitly endorsed by BYU, so they can still maintain their views that God looks down on people for what they believe is immoral behavior.

 

I'm not sure what the updated church handbook says about pornography or gambling, but with respect to holding hands and kissing between members of the same sex, I'm not aware of any other places in church literature (other than the old BYU honor code) that explicitly prohibited those behaviors by name.  By removing explicit prohibitions, we see that those specific behaviors are no longer prohibited, or conversely, they are endorsed implicitly.  In the same sense that heterosexual kissing and hand holding is endorsed implicitly by BYU, even though you'll likely never find any explicit sentences in the code that list these or other endorsed behaviors.  The honor code seems to focus on prohibitions, not endorsements.  So by that standard most things that aren't prohibited by the HC or the church's handbook are implicitly endorsed.  

[provoman]

12 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm back. I just couldn't do it. Apparently my sense of right and wrong doesn't depend on BYU's honour code ...

One night 1978 the world went to sleep under the belief and teachings that the Priesthood was restricted, the next morning people woke up Deseret News Headline (Friday, June 9, 1978) "LDS Church extends priesthood to all worthy male members"  Things happen overnight without the knowledge or input from those who are not the leadership.

Given that common claims of first hand account of people speaking directly to the HCO and given the lack of repudiation of said claims by HCO. And "dating means different things" and "case by case basis review" are very suggestive that BYU Provo will not take Honor violation action for some forms of conduct that were previously prohibited. 

[Analytics]

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Umm ... potato vs po-tah-to? 

Not really. You said, "the Church’s opponents contended that with the sale of the property to the Church, the law required that there be an easement." I don't think that is true. The law didn't require there to be an easement. The easement is what the city and church freely negotiated.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, provoman said:

One night 1978 the world went to sleep under the belief and teachings that the Priesthood was restricted, the next morning people woke up Deseret News Headline (Friday, June 9, 1978) "LDS Church extends priesthood to all worthy male members"  Things happen overnight without the knowledge or input from those who are not the leadership.

Given that common claims of first hand account of people speaking directly to the HCO and given the lack of repudiation of said claims by HCO. And "dating means different things" and "case by case basis review" are very suggestive that BYU Provo will not take Honor violation action for some forms of conduct that were previously prohibited. 

Or it could be suggestive that "penumbra" behaviors (same-sex dating, kissing, etc.) will be treated more like viewing pornography.  The behavior is still prohibited, but the individual's ability to stay at BYU is not automatically and per se imperiled.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

In this case, university trustees, church authorities, university administration, and local ecclesiastical leaders are all a part of the same organization.  They all ought to be united.

Yes... that gay dating and same sex shows of affection are no longer prohibited.

I don't see that this has been answered.  If I were a bishop right now, with a gay BYU student in my ward, I would not know if gay dating should prevent him from getting his EE, though from a policy standpoint, I would have to say that it wouldn't.

The student body and the faith community are the same group of people, in this case.  And academic and ecclesiastical trustees are the same people.

I’d say it’s not a matter of being united (they are!), it’s a matter roles and responsibilities, etc. Administration typically clarifies policy, not Trustees. Some members are anxious to more directly engage Trustees (as they do the General Authorities) despite their established roles and responsibilities.

Bishops differ in capacity and have venues and people they can go to for counsel and guidance.

Being the same people doesn’t change their roles and responsibilities (e.g. a bishop has a different role in his bishopric than he does in his stake’s bishopric council than he does at home than he does at work at DI/COB/EP etc.…).

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

And so far, the reports are that students (and at least one professor) have been told that it's now ok for gay students to openly date, publicly hold hands and hug & kiss.  Those are not in violation of the Honor Code.  This appears to be how the HCO is responding to questions as they are approached "case by case" or even with general questions.

That may change if they are corrected or instructed to do otherwise.

I think “case by case” applies in many ways. A standardized phone reply (which is valuable) is different than a face-to-face discussion of particulars with the right people (which is also valuable).

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Nah. All that needs to be said is that the recent change to the wording should not be taken as being tantamount to tacit acceptance of romantic behavior between individuals of the same gender — if that is indeed the official position. Let there be clarity and transparency on this matter. 

I understand that is what is being sought (by some; the opposite by others) in the name of clarity and transparency. But when the hope and expectation is that the answer assuage a certain bias at a certain level of granularity, the answer can actually settle out once the bias is removed*. This is what can be accomplished with one-on-one counseling for those who struggle with understanding application of policy, and this can be gotten with a constructive conversation with the right people operating within their proper role (both academically and ecclesiastically).

* I see a lot of bias both ways being expressed on what the answer should be, which is perfectly fine for the owner of that bias and is part of how they decide to manage themselves. But removing it helps them find the right answer for them from the right source a lot sooner, "right" referring to organizational structure, role and responsibility as well as the most expedient skill and knowledge level.

Edited February 26, 2020 by CV75

[provoman]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Or it could be suggestive that "penumbra" behaviors (same-sex dating, kissing, etc.) will be treated more like viewing pornography.  The behavior is still prohibited, but the individual's ability to stay at BYU is not automatically and per se imperiled.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree. 

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I think that the honor code has been trying to say this. For example:

“Just know that the Honor Code remains the same and as we have [done] so often in the past, we handle the questions that arise on an individual case by case basis,” a representative from BYU’s communications office told The Christian Post Thursday. 
https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2020/02/25/despite-removing-homosexual-behavior-ban-from-honor-code-byu-remains-anti-gay/

Or this:

"The Honor Code Office will handle questions that arise on a case by case basis," the university tweeted. "For example, since dating means different things to different people, the Honor Code Office will work with students individually."
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/21/us/brigham-young-homosexual-behavior-honor-code-trnd/index.html

I personally see these two answers as a dodge and not an answer.  Obviously the media does not see it as an answer.  What do they mean by "For example, since dating means different things to different people,"  What people do on a date may vary, and how serious a date is may vary, but I think there is a pretty general consensus of what most people think is a date.  Have gay couples always been able to "go out" at BYU as long as they didn't call it a date?  If so, then who cares what it is called.

Everyone knows what holding hands mean.  Everyone knows what a kiss is. Either it is allowed or it is not allowed. 

 

Quote

I agree. I think what happened is BYU was trying to make the honor code less punitive and less about kicking students who are trying their best out of BYU. If a student struggles with pornography, I don't want to see them kicked out of BYU. If a LGB student is working to live a chaste life but kisses someone of the same sex while at BYU as they are trying to figure out how to navigate being a member of the church and also having those feelings, I don't want to see them kicked out of BYU. And I think that was the point of the change.

That is the problem with a double standard on allowing or not allowing kissing, hugging or dating on campus.

Quote

What I don't believe is that BYU expected people to assume that BYU and the church are now actively accepting or inviting these behaviors. BYU is not trying to promote these behaviors, but many people are reading into this that it is the case.

I definitely don't think that the honor code office expected BYU students to Instagram pictures of themselves sitting at the feet of the Brigham Young statue with a giant stack of Playboys celebrating that the church now accepted pornography and inviting passer-bys to come and read with them. I am guessing they didn't expect the same thing from the LGBT community either (but hind-site being 20-20, they probably should have since it is a very vocal and active community). 

What I am sure of is that rules of no gambling or ponography applied to everyone on campus.  I have not seen a single newspaper article saying that now it is ok for BYU students to start looking at porn.   Have you?  There doesn't seem to be any confusion on the porn issue.

Quote

Now to your point, how do they put the genie back in the bottle in clarifying beyond the statements above (that no one seems to be paying attention to) and similar that the church and BYU are not encouraging same-sex relationships (dating, kissing, etc.) while not having a huge media backlash? I don't know. But I bet the delay in response is because they know that they have to get the announcement exactly perfect since no matter what they say there will be angry people on both sides.

Yeah this is going to be interesting.  How do you say BYU allows kissing, hugging and holding hands for straight students but not for LGBT students without looking anti-gay.  Because that policy is anti-gay.  No amount of "we do it for the kids" type statement didn't work last time, and it is not going to work this time.  It just makes people more angry because it feels insincere and false.

Edited February 26, 2020 by california boy

[california boy]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I’d say it’s not a matter of being united (they are!), it’s a matter roles and responsibilities, etc. Administration typically clarifies policy, not Trustees. Some members are anxious to more directly engage Trustees (as they do the General Authorities) despite their established roles and responsibilities.

Bishops differ in capacity and have venues and people they can go to for counsel and guidance.

Being the same people doesn’t change their roles and responsibilities (e.g. a bishop has a different role in his bishopric than he does in his stake’s bishopric council than he does at home than he does at work at DI/COB/EP etc.…).

I think “case by case” applies in many ways. A standardized phone reply (which is valuable) is different than a face-to-face discussion of particulars with the right people (which is also valuable).

I understand that is what is being sought (by some; the opposite by others) in the name of clarity and transparency. But when the hope and expectation is that the answer assuage a certain bias at a certain level of granularity, the answer can actually settle out once the bias is removed*. This is what can be accomplished with one-on-one counseling for those who struggle with understanding application of policy, and this can be gotten with a constructive conversation with the right people operating within their proper role (both academically and ecclesiastically).

* I see a lot of bias both ways being expressed on what the answer should be, which is perfectly fine for the owner of that bias and is part of how they decide to manage themselves. But removing it helps them find the right answer for them from the right source a lot sooner, "right" referring to organizational structure, role and responsibility as well as the most expedient skill and knowledge level.

So if BYU administrators decided to allow same sex marriages or housing for those marriages on campus, the Church leaders wouldn't say anything?

Edited February 26, 2020 by california boy

[CV75]

36 minutes ago, california boy said:

So if BYU administrators decided to allow same sex marriages or housing for those marriages on campus, the Church leaders wouldn't say anything?

I don't think such a policy would require clarification to be provided by the Trustees.

[california boy]

17 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I don't think such a policy would require clarification to be provided by the Trustees.

Interesting response.  Do you want to explain why no clarification would be required if BYU started offering housing to married gay couples?

Edited February 26, 2020 by california boy

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I’d say it’s not a matter of being united (they are!)

So, the Prophet and Apostles are united in feeling that dating and physical demonstrations of affection are okay* for church members?

*"Okay" meaning that they can continue to attend BYU, hold temple recommends, and receive ecclesiastical endorsements?

 

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

By removing explicit prohibitions, we see that those specific behaviors are no longer prohibited, or conversely, they are endorsed implicitly. 

I think that reasoning takes things too far. Endorsement is an affirmative declaration of support. Removing explicit prohibitions implies that such behaviors might be tolerated, but not necessarily endorsed (even implicitly). 

Say, for example, BYU's dress and grooming policy prohibited the wearing top hats on campus. Removing that specific prohibition doesn't mean that the school now wants everyone to run around wearing top hats - it just means that the school will no longer haul you in front of the Honor Code office for showing up to the testing center with a top hat on your noggin.

An acceptance of something isn't the same as an endorsement of said something.

 

[Daniel2]

I don't think I saw this earlier in the thread (?), if so, I missed it... but this was how The Salt Lake Trib reported on the issue three days ago:

BYU’s LGBTQ students feel relief, backlash and confusion over Honor Code change 

 

(Rick Egan | Tribune file photo) Sidney Draughon holds a sign as she takes part in a protest in Provo, Utah, in April 2019 against how the Brigham Young University Honor Code Office investigates and disciplines students. BYU this month announced it revised its strict code of conduct to strip a rule that banned any behavior that reflected "homosexual feelings," which LGBTQ students and their allies felt created an unfair double standard not imposed on heterosexual couples. Students, however, are still unclear on the details of how the new Honor Code rules will work.

 

 
By Erin Alberty

By Sean P. Means

Published: 3 days ago
Updated: 3 days ago

Calvin Burke says he has never been disciplined by Brigham Young University.

But he says his Honor Code file, more than 70 pages long, is brimming with accusations: that he had a boyfriend, that he had a Tinder account, that in advocating for LGBTQ students he was in apostasy against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which owns the school.

But since BYU eliminated a ban on "homosexual behavior" from its Honor Code, Burke says he feels "freaking immense, immense relief."

“I feel like I am safe at my university that I’ve loved for the longest time,” the BYU senior said, choking back tears. “Finally I’m able to go to my school in peace, finally I’m able to study. It just feels surreal. I never would have thought I’d have been able to feel safe at BYU.”

The Honor Code — which includes a dress code, rules for dating, and bans on drugs, alcohol, coffee and tea — previously prohibited “all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings." The university quietly removed that section this month.

But it’s not clear how far-reaching the changes will be in practice. After students posted on social media that staff in the Honor Code Office told them they would not be disciplined for dating, holding hands with or kissing people of the same sex, BYU officials said 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,” BYU’s official Twitter account posted.

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.

— BYU (@BYU) February 19, 2020

BYU officials did not respond to questions from The Salt Lake Tribune as to what the miscommunication was, saying only that the Honor Code Office would address students’ questions as they arise.

“We’re glad students are meeting with the Honor Code Office administrators to get answers to individual questions on a case-by-case basis,” said Todd Hollingshead, a spokesman for BYU.

Sam Cosgrove, a 20-year-old student who calls himself “an ally that just wants the university to be a safe and welcoming place to all people,” said he and three friends met Thursday with Kevin Utt, director of the Honor Code Office, to ask for specifics.

What the students learned, Cosgrove said, is that “if a straight person would get in trouble for it in a straight relationship, a gay person would get in trouble for it in a gay relationship.”

Another point they discussed, Cosgrove said, is whether a couple intends to marry. A same-sex couple who declares they plan to marry would violate the Honor Code, because church doctrine only recognizes marriage between one man and one woman.

However, Cosgrove said, “we asked how they prove someone’s intent, and they said they can’t, really, unless there’s physical, tangible proof stating intent.”

“We couldn’t get them to say, yes, gay students can date without the intent to marry,” Cosgrove said. “But they said there is no way to punish it, there is no way to enforce anything.”

That was the takeaway of another student, Lilly Bitter, a junior who said she has had a girlfriend for about six months.

“They were very wishy-washy. If we said, ‘Can gays date?’ they wouldn’t answer. But when the question was, ‘Will I be punished for dating?’ they said, ‘No,'" Bitter recounted. “I think they don’t want to condone gay dating in any way, but they don’t want to punish it any more.”

Some students reacted angrily to the perception that BYU may condone any romantic expression between same-sex couples. A group called SaveBYU formed last year after protests against the severity of student discipline in some cases, and revived their activity in the past week.

“Sorry, we just can’t stand for this,” the group tweeted with photos of students smiling and one image of two women kissing in front of the Brigham Young statue on campus.

In a phone call, members of the group refused to identify themselves to The Tribune, but said there are between “three and 10” students in the organization. The group took credit for posting more than 100 copies of the “The Family: A Proclamation to the World" around campus between Wednesday night and Thursday morning.

“They highlighted everything in it about marriage being between a man and a woman," Bitter said. “It was very directed at LGBT students.”

The group also said they removed a rainbow party hat from the head of the Brigham Young statue and taped copies of the Proclamation to the statue.

Before & After!!!
We took off the hat & replaced it with The Family: A Proclamation to the World #savebyu pic.twitter.com/ws4cfClFE7

— SaveBYU (@savebyu_) February 20, 2020

“Just make sure to have cameras rolling when the [progressives] come and rip them up. Then post that footage here,” one of the group’s supporters replied on Twitter, prompting another to suggest sending footage to students’ bishops.

Bishops issue — and may revoke — students’ ecclesiastical endorsements, which are required to attend BYU. Some students said they worried that dating and light physical affection with someone of their same sex or gender may not bring about discipline from the school, but that their bishops may still take action.

“I think part of what they’re doing is, they’re putting a lot more power into local bishops, which is great if you have a bishop who’s supportive and sympathetic to the plight of LGBT students,” said Zachary Ibarra, a senior who is gay. “But you could have bishops say, ‘Just because this is not against the Honor Code, this is against the church teachings,’ and [deny an endorsement]. I think that’s a real fear that a lot of people have.”

But several LGBTQ students said they still are relieved that their detractors have one less avenue to attack their enrollment. Ibarra noted that he previously was afraid to confess even an idle crush on another man for fear of triggering an Honor Code investigation into whether he was “acting on it.”

Cosgrove, in a widely read Twitter thread compiling the answers he received from the Honor Code Office, put the issue of bishops’ discretion in language usually not used by church leaders: “If your bishop is chill, you’re chillin’.”

.@_tiaunamarie_, @fremlo_, and @ben_asplund and I just met with Kevin Utt and Ben Schilaty from the HCO. Here's the mother fricking tea.

In a wholistic picture, gay students can date at BYU! However, there are some caveats that we need to know and understand, so here we go!

— sam (@_scosgrove) February 20, 2020

Junior Caroline McKenzie said family members reported her to the Honor Code Office this year after she came out to them.

“Just coming out was enough to cause a report and an investigation,” she said. “People felt like that was enough to get you kicked out of the university. ... It’s wonderful that there’s this change where I don’t even have to worry about dating anymore.”

Burke says the change also limits the potential for retaliatory campaigns against LGBTQ students. In addition to Honor Code reports, he says his LGBTQ advocacy has been targeted in multiple complaints to his employers, university administrators and even his clergy. At one point, he says, someone was offering a cash reward for information to get him expelled from BYU. Another posted his stake president’s name to solicit reports against him, he says.

“He said he got to the point where he didn’t even open emails about me from people he didn’t know,” Burke says. “These people who tried for so long to hurt me won’t be able to hurt me anymore.”

Beyond protection, Burke says, the change has freed up faculty and staff to be open in their support for vulnerable LGBTQ students. One professor sent an email to Bitter, offering her an excused absence from class for a celebratory date. Another professor told students that anyone who harasses LGBTQ students should expect a report to the Honor Code Office.

“Professors over the years have always been kind and loving and supportive, and have wanted to help. Administration has been harder, but seeing this happen — it’s been huge. It’s like a total about-face,” Burke says. "This is the thing about Latter-day Saints: We make mistakes, but when we do something right, we go all out. It’s cool to see BYU go all out on this.”

[hope_for_things]

36 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I think that reasoning takes things too far. Endorsement is an affirmative declaration of support. Removing explicit prohibitions implies that such behaviors might be tolerated, but not necessarily endorsed (even implicitly). 

Say, for example, BYU's dress and grooming policy prohibited the wearing top hats on campus. Removing that specific prohibition doesn't mean that the school now wants everyone to run around wearing top hats - it just means that the school will no longer haul you in front of the Honor Code office for showing up to the testing center with a top hat on your noggin.

An acceptance of something isn't the same as an endorsement of said something.

 

Its the contrast between the old and new policy that makes it looks funny. 

Answer this question for me.  Would you be willing to say that BYU endorses the kissing and hand holding of heterosexual non-married individuals?  

[Amulek]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Answer this question for me.  Would you be willing to say that BYU endorses the kissing and hand holding of heterosexual non-married individuals? 

Endorses? No, I think that goes too far. Tolerates or accepts though? Certainly.

 

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Endorses? No, I think that goes too far. Tolerates or accepts though? Certainly.

 

Ok, so I'm find with saying the same for LGB relationships, BYU is implicitly tolerating and accepting of this behavior which was previously prohibited.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 hours ago, ALarson said:

Where in his post does he discuss gambling?

He doesn't. That's specifically why I said to see the links in his post. One is to an archived version of the code, and one is to the current version.

Quote

Can you quote where gambling was specifically referenced in the BYU Honor Code like "Homosexual Behavior" was and where it is now removed?  

Yes: 'Sexual misconduct; obscene or indecent conduct or expressions; disorderly or disruptive conduct; participation in gambling activities; involvement with pornographic, erotic, indecent, or offensive material; and any other conduct or action inconsistent with the principles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Honor Code is not permitted'. From what I can see, none of this language has been preserved. But please do check out the links for yourself.

If it makes it easier, I can repeat them here: Old vs New.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Interesting response.  Do you want to explain why no clarification would be required if BYU started offering housing to married gay couples?

I've been explaining why and how clarification is not necessary to be provided by the Trustees in terms of the Honor Code change, and the same principles apply to your hypothetical.

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

So, the Prophet and Apostles are united in feeling that dating and physical demonstrations of affection are okay* for church members?

*"Okay" meaning that they can continue to attend BYU, hold temple recommends, and receive ecclesiastical endorsements?

I think they (Administration and the Trustees) are united in: how the Honor Code has been changed, the established roles and administrative channels for how explanations of it are given, that the case-by-case approach and content of explanations offered by the HCO as reported have been appropriate, and the principle that individual semantics, syntax, interpretations and actions of those receiving the explanations are to be respected in light of our beliefs regarding the freedom and free exercise of conscience. There is no one answer for all students other than the code as written and what has been explained already.

While the Prophet and Apostles are united on the Handbook, not all of these individuals serve as BYU Trustees. But I believe the Trustees are united on the Honor Code. I don't see the Honor Code as a matter to be considered by the First Presidency or Quorum of Twelve.

[ALarson]

57 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

He doesn't. That's specifically why I said to see the links in his post. One is to an archived version of the code, and one is to the current version.

Yes: 'Sexual misconduct; obscene or indecent conduct or expressions; disorderly or disruptive conduct; participation in gambling activities; involvement with pornographic, erotic, indecent, or offensive material; and any other conduct or action inconsistent with the principles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Honor Code is not permitted'. From what I can see, none of this language has been preserved. But please do check out the links for yourself.

If it makes it easier, I can repeat them here: Old vs New.

When I searched, it's still on their website:

https://policy.byu.edu/view/index.php?p=229

Here is the section naming gambling and pornography:

Quote

 

Conduct

All students are required to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the Honor Code. In addition, students may not influence or seek to influence others to engage in behavior inconsistent with the Honor Code.

Students must abstain from the use of alcohol, tobacco, and illegal substances and from the intentional misuse or abuse of any substance. Sexual misconduct; obscene or indecent conduct or expressions; disorderly or disruptive conduct; participation in gambling activities; involvement with pornographic, erotic, indecent, or offensive material; and any other conduct or action inconsistent with the principles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Honor Code is not permitted.

 

 

But the section regarding "Homosexual Behavior" has been removed (the two paragraphs).  It was between the two sections "Conduct" and "Dress and Grooming Standards" and it's not there now..

As far as I can see, that's the only change....but I'd have to do a side by side to be sure.

Edited February 26, 2020 by ALarson

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think they (Administration and the Trustees) are united in: how the Honor Code has been changed, the established roles and administrative channels for how explanations of it are given, that the case-by-case approach and content of explanations offered by the HCO as reported have been appropriate, and the principle that individual semantics, syntax, interpretations and actions of those receiving the explanations are to be respected in light of our beliefs regarding the freedom and free exercise of conscience. There is no one answer for all students other than the code as written and what has been explained already.

While the Prophet and Apostles are united on the Handbook, not all of these individuals serve as BYU Trustees. But I believe the Trustees are united on the Honor Code. I don't see the Honor Code as a matter to be considered by the First Presidency or Quorum of Twelve.

So was that long response a "no" to my question?...

Quote

So, the Prophet and Apostles are united in feeling that dating and physical demonstrations of affection are okay* for church members?

*"Okay" meaning that they can continue to attend BYU, hold temple recommends, and receive ecclesiastical endorsements?

It's not a trick question.

[ALarson]

22 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

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."

No, it's still there (see my post above to Hamba)....in the "Conduct" section, same place as before:

https://policy.byu.edu/view/index.php?p=229

Here's the old Honor Code with the section titled "Homosexual Behavior" still there (that is removed now in the link above):

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

Edited February 27, 2020 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, Analytics said:

Not really. You said, "the Church’s opponents contended that with the sale of the property to the Church, the law required that there be an easement." I don't think that is true. The law didn't require there to be an easement. The easement is what the city and church freely negotiated.

My recollection is that it took both the city and the Church by surprise when the plaintiffs contested the constitutionality of the original agreement, that the matter of the easement had never occurred to either the city or the Church until then. Indeed, it is self-evident that the Church would not have agreed to the purchase originally had they understood that their right to restrict conduct of individuals coming onto the plaza, their private property, would come into question. 
 

The final resolution of the matter was a compromise between the city and the Church to alleviate a problem that neither had anticipated and that never would have arisen had the plaintiffs (ACLU and the Unitarian church, as I recall) not brought the lawsuit. 

Edited February 27, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Analytics]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My recollection is that it took both the city and the Church by surprise when the plaintiffs contested the constitutionality of the original agreement, that the matter of the easement had never occurred to either the city or the Church until then. Indeed, it is self-evident that the Church would not have agreed to the purchase originally had they understood that their right to restrict conduct of individuals coming onto the plaza, their private property, would come into question. 
 

The final resolution of the matter was a compromise between the city and the Church to alleviate a problem that neither had anticipated and that never would have arisen had the plaintiffs (ACLU and the Unitarian church, as I recall) not brought the lawsuit. 

The city and church were aware of the easement--it is something they explicitly included in the agreement. What took them by surprise is the legal fact that if people have the legal right to use an easement, they have the legal right to take their free speech with them as they use it.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

The city and church were aware of the easement--it is something they explicitly included in the agreement. What took them by surprise is the legal fact that if people have the legal right to use an easement, they have the legal right to take their free speech with them as they use it.

Got it. 
 

But I’m not really wrong, then, because there was a legal requirement related to the easement that neither was aware of. 

Edited February 27, 2020 by Scott Lloyd