Byu Honor Code Matches New Handbook

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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

It's not a trick question.

I’m not taking or answering it as a trick question. It not structurally possible for the Prophet and Apostles (two quorums, 15 members comprising the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) to be “united in feeling” with the decisions of an institution having a separate a board serving a different purpose and having only six of the 15 quorum members as trustees.

[Tacenda]

This is an excellent reason among others that BYU is doing this. It prepares students for the outside world in the workforce. The teacher gives an example. 

 

[provoman]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This is an excellent reason among others that BYU is doing this. It prepares students for the outside world in the workforce. The teacher gives an example. 

 

I think he had a good point with that part of his presentation.

 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I’m not taking or answering it as a trick question. It not structurally possible for the Prophet and Apostles (two quorums, 15 members comprising the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) to be “united in feeling” with the decisions of an institution having a separate a board serving a different purpose and having only six of the 15 quorum members as trustees.

It wasn’t a trick question.  It was me attempting to understand your position that clarification on the honor code change isn’t needed. 

You’ve gone on and on but only seem to be complicating the matter.

I don’t give much credit to the positions of people who decline to answer a simple question regarding their position. 

[Anonymous Mormon]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

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:

 

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.

I looks like I stand corrected. Pornography is still against the honor code. I didn't see this other page of info.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

It wasn’t a trick question.  It was me attempting to understand your position that clarification on the honor code change isn’t needed. 

You’ve gone on and on but only seem to be complicating the matter.

I don’t give much credit to the positions of people who decline to answer a simple question regarding their position. 

Yes, I understood it not to be a trick question. Your question is framed as simple yes/no request, but that is not how I can answer a question that is best handled on a case-by-case basis, not because clarification isn’t needed for those who have questions, but precisely because it is.

Some want a set answer to come from the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Some conflate the roles of this Council, the BYU/CES Trustees and university administrators, and also the distinction between ecclesiastical, administrative and academic matters. Some assume that the same individuals function the same way in their varied ecclesiastical and administrative roles. Some want an answer not for themselves, but for a group or even for everyone generally.

These expectations confuse (rather, cloud) the simple solution that your question is best handled on a case-by-case basis.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Yes, I understood it not to be a trick question. Your question is framed as simple yes/no request, but that is not how I can answer a question that is best handled on a case-by-case basis, not because clarification isn’t needed for those who have questions, but precisely because it is.

Some want a set answer to come from the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Some conflate the roles of this Council, the BYU/CES Trustees and university administrators, and also the distinction between ecclesiastical, administrative and academic matters. Some assume that the same individuals function the same way in their varied ecclesiastical and administrative roles. Some want an answer not for themselves, but for a group or even for everyone generally.

These expectations confuse (rather, cloud) the simple solution that your question is best handled on a case-by-case basis.

So your answer is that the prophet and apostles approve of gay dating by church members in some cases?

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

These expectations confuse (rather, cloud) the simple solution that your question is best handled on a case-by-case basis.

Then you believe they will be handled just the same as when heterosexual couples have morality issues and go to their Bishop with questions or to repent?  

Do you believe those who are gay (students or not) can now openly date, hold hands, show affection in public just as heterosexual couples who are dating and remain in good standing/morally clean?  

If not, then what do you believe "handled on a case-by-case basis" means exactly?

Edited February 27, 2020 by ALarson

[kllindley]

Here is a very well written and thoughtful article on the situation:  https://latterdaysaintmag.com/letter-to-an-activist-byu-professor-and-those-youre-confusing/

A few relevant quotes:

Quote

First of all, there’s more than meets the eye here – as usual.  For instance, my own sources confirm that the timetable of the update roll-out didn’t go according to plan, due apparently to threats of internal leaks of the handbook updates ahead of time.     

Secondly, dropping a prohibition isn’t exactly endorsing or encouraging something either – and it seemed more reasonable to many observers all along that this was simply BYU trying to align its practices with a principle-based, not-commanded-in-all-things approach more ideal for cultivating spiritual growth. 

BYU’s online statement read: “With the recently released general handbook of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Church Educational System has updated the CES Honor Code to be in alignment with the doctrine and policies of the Church.”

I very much agree with the perspective that it is more reasonable to believe that rather than encouraging or endorsing, this represents a more personalized approach to discipleship. 

Quote

The missionary standards have similarly been updated, by the way, with no reference anymore to prescriptive behaviors such as “shaving” for male missionaries. So, maybe it’s somewhat predictable that my father presiding over New Jersey Morristown was asked by an Elder this week whether that means “it’s okay to not shave anymore.”  

Seeking to follow principles, rather than prescriptions, can be understandably disorienting at first – with more space (yes) for people seeking confirmation in their own lives for what is truly right…however challenging that may be initially.

I'm surprised that the changes to the missionary standards haven't been similarly heralded as a sign of greater enlightenment.  But as Jacob explains, this has a lot more to do with the assumptions we bring to the situation than the actual facts behind the situation.  

Quote

This same kind of confusion seems to be at the heart of BYU’s honor code debacle (not too strong of a label, it seems). But rather than clarify and draw out more inspired purposes behind these changes, some professors and students seem all too eager to join national media outlets in leveraging this as thrilling new “evidence” to advance a narrative of the inevitable triumph of their favored social-political trajectory.  

Indeed, according to Professor Brau – and other self-identified “LGBT allies” in our midst – these changes represent not a “higher and holier” way of guiding people – but a substantial pivot to line up the Church of Jesus Christ (even just a little bit more) with a view of identity and sexuality they consider more enlightened.  

Despite repeated assurances to the contrary by President Ballard, President Oaks, and President Nelson himself, many of these members insist it’s just a matter of time when so much more will change – including, as many continue to hold out for, a future revelation affirming gay marriage as blessed by God.  

If that’s what you really, sincerely believe, it’s little wonder this Honor Code adjustment might catch your attention – especially if you’ve been watching and waiting for anything like it for years. (Professor Brau acknowledged this is a change he’s been praying for over a longer period of time).  

That’s admittedly where a number of our brothers and sisters are – and not just those who have stepped away.  For those who can lay serious questions humbly down in a place of uncertainty and still seek to serve, I can’t help but admire their faith, especially if they can do so with an openness to their own view about how this all unfolds ultimately being wrong.

For others, of course, their hearts end up aching – or contracting – in this place of uncertainty…impatient at the slow pace at which the Church seems to be moving in the direction they are sure it needs to go. In that case, it can be hard not to want to interfere and advocate here and there for the collective shift one has envisioned will ultimately be needed.

Indeed.  I see that same dynamic playing out here.  

Quote

That’s where the activism goes too far, I’m afraid.  Indeed, for such a “very explosive, complex, and emotionally and spiritually charged issue like this,” as another colleague at BYU confided to me this week, it’s striking in Dr. Brau’s presentation that “there seemed to be no dialogue, no question and answers, no open discussion, or entertainment of concerns or questions or opposing views.”

He continued:

A great many of the students applauded and cheered at one point in the video, I wonder about those who did not…students who were concerned (and who may have remained silent or, even worse, participated in cheering and applauding because they didn’t want to be singled out in the crowd for not being sufficiently ‘open-minded’, ‘tolerant and loving’, or ‘lacking a testimony’.)

Professor Brau had a message for those students. After hinting that this change in the Honor Code implied a newfound university openness to both dating among gay couples and physical affection, he went on to argue that those who felt any concern or hesitation about the changes were questioning the faith and those called to lead it, saying “It amazes me because what they’re saying is they don’t have a testimony of the living apostles.” 

(The irony of saying this as one who essentially admitted disagreeing with core teachings of these same apostles for years seems lost on the professor).  

And finally, this:

Quote

And rather than encouraging students to seek personal inspiration to apply the same core principles of chastity (in a higher, holier way), notice how Professor Brau summarized this principle-based shift to his students: “They want each person to come up – whether you are gay, straight, trans, bi, cis –  with a personal definition to you on what it means to be virtuous and to obey the law of chastity. They want to come up with your own personal definition of that.”

Oh dear professors – there’s enough confusion and to spare all over the internet.  Cannot a BYU classroom at least be a place for sacred, crucial clarity? 

Prophets have not been unclear about these matters. Just over five months ago, President Russell M. Nelson spoke to these very issues in a direct, plain way – reiterating both the truth of God’s love and the union Father continues to hold out as the ideal: “God has not changed His definition of marriage.”

Are we really to think this prophet – and the Lord who directs him – are tacitly endorsing the pursuit of romantic attachment that would lead precious sons and daughters of God farther away from this ideal?  

Not a chance. 

I agree with Jacob.  I cannot believe that the prophet and apostles are endorsing the pursuit of romantic attachment that would lead precious sons and daughters of God further away from their eternal potential.  

[longview]

@Tacenda linked to a BYU video by Jim Brau.  I agree with practically everything he had to say.  Women can kiss each other and hold hands.  So can men.  In some cultures they embrace in a very close and intimate manner.  In many cases they are NOT necessarily acting on homosexual impulses or desires (to some degree in a sexually gratifying manner).  We must always strive to act in a Christlike manner.  It is not always incumbent on us to pass judgment on the spot.

However, I do have some concerns and caveats:

1. some intimacies between young couple (man/woman) is respected and even encouraged if there is no flagrant groping or something similar.  Some are in process of dating and working toward a possible engagement and they can still stay within the Law of Chastity.  They are moving toward the righteous objective of Eternal Increase and dominion over uncountable souls.
2. intimacies between same sex people need to be more restrained and NOT be so demonstrative.  Because it does NOT lead to Eternal Marriage as described in the Proclamation on the Family.  To engage in "flagrant" homosexual behavior in my opinion is acting outside the Law of Chastity.  Their only hope for a "forever marriage" is in the Telestial Kingdom (I don't know about the Terrestrial) and they will NOT have spirit children and will NOT provide for new iteration of the Plan of Happiness.
3. heterosexual affections and dating is going in the RIGHT direction.
4. homosexual affections and dating is going in the WRONG direction.  As such, it will justifiably bring into question the motivation and commitment of homosexuals to the Gospel and the ultimate objective.  To engage in that kind of behavior is to broadcast their "implicit testimonies" that they place low priority on Eternal Increase and a greater desire for worldly gratification.
5. I suppose the Honor Code can permit those kinds of behavior at Church schools and we can be respectful of that.  They can participate in Church activities, obtain callings, and other privileges.  To obtain Temple Recommends?  I really doubt that.

[Calm]

Quote

Professor Brau had a message for those students. After hinting that this change in the Honor Code implied a newfound university openness to both dating among gay couples and physical affection, he went on to argue that those who felt any concern or hesitation about the changes were questioning the faith and those called to lead it, saying “It amazes me because what they’re saying is they don’t have a testimony of the living apostles.” 

(The irony of saying this as one who essentially admitted disagreeing with core teachings of these same apostles for years seems lost on the professor).  

Excellent point.

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, longview said:

@Tacenda linked to a BYU video by Jim Brau.  I agree with practically everything he had to say.  Women can kiss each other and hold hands.  So can men.  In some cultures they embrace in a very close and intimate manner.  In many cases they are NOT necessarily acting on homosexual impulses or desires (to some degree in a sexually gratifying manner).  We must always strive to act in a Christlike manner.  It is not always incumbent on us to pass judgment on the spot.

However, I do have some concerns and caveats:

1. some intimacies between young couple (man/woman) is respected and even encouraged if there is no flagrant groping or something similar.  Some are in process of dating and working toward a possible engagement and they can still stay within the Law of Chastity.  They are moving toward the righteous objective of Eternal Increase and dominion over uncountable souls.
2. intimacies between same sex people need to be more restrained and NOT be so demonstrative.  Because it does NOT lead to Eternal Marriage as described in the Proclamation on the Family.  To engage in "flagrant" homosexual behavior in my opinion is acting outside the Law of Chastity.  Their only hope for a "forever marriage" is in the Telestial Kingdom (I don't know about the Terrestrial) and they will NOT have spirit children and will NOT provide for new iteration of the Plan of Happiness.
3. heterosexual affections and dating is going in the RIGHT direction.
4. homosexual affections and dating is going in the WRONG direction.  As such, it will justifiably bring into question the motivation and commitment of homosexuals to the Gospel and the ultimate objective.  To engage in that kind of behavior is to broadcast their "implicit testimonies" that they place low priority on Eternal Increase and a greater desire for worldly gratification.
5. I suppose the Honor Code can permit those kinds of behavior at Church schools and we can be respectful of that.  They can participate in Church activities, obtain callings, and other privileges.  To obtain Temple Recommends?  I really doubt that.

I'm thinking that it will taper off, the need  to show freedom in the interactions with their girl friend/boy friend. I haven't been on a college campus for a while, is there a lot of kissing on campus? Especially BYU's campus?

I do agree, that this does have dichotomy written all over it, and it feels like it can only lead to what is normal within the heterosexual couple and lead to marriage etc. 

 

[ALarson]

39 minutes ago, longview said:

They are moving toward the righteous objective of Eternal Increase.....

1. intimacies between same sex people need to be more restrained and NOT be so demonstrative.  Because it does NOT lead to Eternal Marriage as described in the Proclamation on the Family.  To engage in "flagrant" homosexual behavior in my opinion is acting outside the Law of Chastity.  Their only hope for a "forever marriage" is in the Telestial Kingdom (I don't know about the Terrestrial) and they will NOT have spirit children.....

None of us know how procreation will take place after this life.  We can theorize, hope and wish....and form our own opinions, but none of us really KNOW how things will work.

I fully believe that we will be with those we love (if they choose to be with us as well).  The entire way sealings have been performed by humans has really made a complicated mess of things (in many cases), IMO.  So there is really no cut and dry image of how things will be (again, IMO).  I sincerely believe that there will be same sex couples who love each other there with God and who knows how procreation will happen (?).....unless you believe there is sex in heaven to procreate?

Edited February 27, 2020 by ALarson

[CV75]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

So your answer is that the prophet and apostles approve of gay dating by church members in some cases?

I don't think they handle these particular questions on a case by case basis. They do offer general counsel that people apply correct understanding of the doctrine and their faith in Christ to wisely inform their decisions about behavior.

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Then you believe they will be handled just the same as when heterosexual couples have morality issues and go to their Bishop with questions or to repent?  

Do you believe those who are gay (students or not) can now openly date, hold hands, show affection in public just as heterosexual couples who are dating and remain in good standing/morally clean?  

If not, then what do you believe "handled on a case-by-case basis" means exactly?

Perhaps better stated, I believe that any student with questions and concerns about their morality can go to their bishop, and any student with questions and concerns about the letter of the Honor Code can go to their HCO.

I think anyone can remain in good standing/stay morally clean and openly date, hold hands and show affection in public at the same time. I see that as balancing the Honor Code and the Law of Chastity (which the vast majority probably do that without going to the HCO or their bishop), something the students have to do no matter whether or how they receive HCO explanations or bishop's counsel.

Aside from what they publish generally, I think it is good for the HCO to handle questions and reports on case by case basis. Also that it is good for bishops to give personal  counsel on a case by case basis.

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

None of us know how procreation will take place after this life.  We can theorize, hope and wish....and form our own opinions, but none of us really KNOW how things will work.

I think reasoned and reasonable inferences can be made.

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I fully believe that we will be with those we love (if they choose to be with us as well). 

Only if those relationships are sealed and ratified by the Holy Spirit of Promise.  From D&C 132:7 :

Quote

All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

There is no provision in the Restored Gospel for same-sex marital relationships to be preserved after death.  None.  Nor is there any indication that this will change in the future, (most particularly in the Proclamation).

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The entire way sealings have been performed by humans has really made a complicated mess of things (in many cases), IMO. 

Well, sorta.

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

So there is really not cut and dry image of how things will be (again, IMO).  I sincerely believe that there will be same sex couple who love each other there with God and who knows how procreation will happen.....unless you believe there is sex in heaven to procreate?

I sincerely believe that there will not be same-sex couples in the eternities.  I see no provision for it in the Plan of Salvation, nor any indication of a future provision for it.

Time will tell, I suppose.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think reasoned and reasonable inferences can be made.

What is "reasoned" or "reasonable" varies from person to person.  Bottom line is, we simply do not know how procreation takes place after this life.

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Only if those relationships are sealed and ratified by the Holy Spirit of Promise

That is what you believe and I respect that.  But once again....we do not know if this is how things will be after this life.

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There is no provision in the Restored Gospel for same-sex marital relationships to be preserved after death

Not yet.... 😛

But one thing that is constant is change.

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I sincerely believe that there will not be same-sex couples in the eternities

I don't doubt that is what you firmly believe (and once again, I respect that).  But others believe differently.  

Quote

Time will tell, I suppose.

We agree on that!

Edited February 27, 2020 by ALarson

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

Your question is framed as simple yes/no request, but that is not how I can answer a question that is best handled on a case-by-case basis, not because clarification isn’t needed for those who have questions, but precisely because it is.

These expectations confuse (rather, cloud) the simple solution that your question is best handled on a case-by-case basis.

 

21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I don't think they handle these particular questions on a case by case basis. They do offer general counsel that people apply correct understanding of the doctrine and their faith in Christ to wisely inform their decisions about behavior.

 

So you think that there is a situation in which a gay member could apply the general counsel offered by the prophet and apostles and date members of the same gender while remaining in full fellowship in the church?

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Excellent point.

I think Brau's "testimony of the living apostles" point was that those teachings change over time at continuing revelation offers further light and knowledge.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

What is "reasoned" or "reasonable" varies from person to person. 

But it's not a crapshoot, right?  It's not just a matter of sheer conjecture.

Every indication we have, past and present, is that same-sex relations are prohibited.  

Also, there has been no indication that this will ever change.

Also, there is substantial evidence that this will never change (the Proclamation).

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Bottom line is, we simply do not know how procreation takes place after this life.

Based on what we do know, I think we can make reasoned and reasonable inferences.

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

There is no provision in the Restored Gospel for same-sex marital relationships to be preserved after death

Not yet.... 😛

But one thing that is constant is change.

Oh, I agree.  But I don't see a change in this coming.  The only thing I see indicating such a change is . . . wishful thinking.

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

I sincerely believe that there will not be same-sex couples in the eternities

I don't doubt that is what you firmly believe (and once again, I respect that).  But others believe differently.  

I think my assessment is substantiall more reasoned and reasonable than the contrary assessments (which, again, seem to be based on wishful thinking, and nothing else).

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

Time will tell, I suppose.

We agree on that!

I'm glad of that.

Meanwhile, I think we work with what we've got.  And what we've got is pretty clear.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So you think that there is a situation in which a gay member could apply the general counsel offered by the prophet and apostles and date members of the same gender while remaining in full fellowship in the church?

I have a hard time imagining such a scenario.

If you're question is tweaked: "So you think that there is a situation in which a {member could} apply the general counsel offered by the prophet and apostles and {view pornography} while remaining in full fellowship in the church?"  How would you respond?

Or this: "So you think that there is a situation in which a {married member could} apply the general counsel offered by the prophet and apostles and {date, hold hands with, snuggle, kiss, and so on with a woman other than his wife} while remaining in full fellowship in the church?"  How would you respond?

Put another way, what "general counsel offered by the prophet and apostles" is congruent with same-sex "penumbra" behaviors (dating, kissing, etc.)?

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

If you're question is tweaked: "So you think that there is a situation in which a {member could} apply the general counsel offered by the prophet and apostles and {view pornography} while remaining in full fellowship in the church?"  How would you respond?

That seems like a "no" to me.

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Or this: "So you think that there is a situation in which a {married member could} apply the general counsel offered by the prophet and apostles and {date, hold hands with, snuggle, kiss, and so on with a woman other than his wife} while remaining in full fellowship in the church?"  How would you respond?

Again, that's a "no".

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Put another way, what "general counsel offered by the prophet and apostles" is congruent with same-sex "penumbra" behaviors (dating, kissing, etc.)?

Thanks,

-Smac

That's why I'm asking the question... I'm seeking to understand @CV75's point that this should just be handled on a case by case basis using the general counsel from the Fifteen and that no further clarification is needed.

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But it's not a crapshoot, right?  It's not just a matter of sheer conjecture.

Every indication we have, past and present, is that same-sex relations are prohibited.  

"Relations are prohibited"?  What about this most recent change?  

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Based on what we do know, I think we can make reasoned and reasonable inferences.

Ok....how do you believe procreation will literally take place?  Do you believe there needs to be sex involved?  Sperm?  An egg?  Do women still get pregnant after this life and give birth?  (Those are just a few of the question that I am referring to that we don't have answers for...).   Also...

How is a spirit created?  Does it definitely take a man AND a woman creating one together?

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Oh, I agree.  But I don't see a change in this coming.

I'm sure you don't.  But I imagine that those who were in charge of BYU in the 1960's and 70's would not have ever seen this most recent change coming either.

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think my assessment is substantiall more reasoned and reasonable than the contrary assessments

That's because they are your's 😅

We all think that our own assessments are substantially more reasoned and reasonable!

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, I think we work with what we've got.  And what we've got is pretty clear.

Not so clear anymore, IMO.  Lots of changes have taken place and I feel more coming (with ebbs and flows.....and with new leadership over the years).  

But like you stated:  "Time will tell".

Edited February 27, 2020 by ALarson

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That's why I'm asking the question... I'm seeking to understand @CV75's point that this should just be handled on a case by case basis using the general counsel from the Fifteen and that no further clarification is needed.

I agree with the case-by-case handling bit.  But I think the rollout of the change to the Honor Code was not handled as well as it could/should have been, such that clarification is needed.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

Every indication we have, past and present, is that same-sex relations are prohibited.  

"Relations are prohibited"?  What about this most recent change?  

Nothing to indicate that the prior prohibition against same-sex relations has been altered.  

“Even though we have removed the more prescriptive language, the principles of the Honor Code remain the same.”

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

Based on what we do know, I think we can make reasoned and reasonable inferences.

Ok....how do you believe procreation will literally take place? 

I'm not inclined to have a public discussion about it.

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

I think my assessment is substantially more reasoned and reasonable than the contrary assessments

That's because they are your's 😅

No.  Because the evidence that same-sex relations will be ratified in the future is not only non-existent, but plainly controverted by every piece of prophetic counsel we have received on the subject (the most obvious being the Proclamation).

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nothing to indicate that the prior prohibition against same-sex relations has been altered.  

Nothing?  What about the statements we are hearing quoted by those who speak to officers in the Honor Code Office?

I agree there needs to be clarification, but there is definitely indications that some "same-sex relations" will no longer be prohibited on campus.   That's a change.

I agree there will be no change regarding SSM (if that's what you mean by "relations"?).  Not now....

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not inclined to have a public discussion about it.

Ok....interesting you choose to avoid answering, but I do understand because we honestly do not know the answers to the questions I asked.

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Because the evidence that same-sex relations will be ratified in the future is not only non-existent,

I'm going to disagree with you on that one.  

(Unless you are not including same-sex dating and the showing of affection between those dating in public when you use the word "relations"?  By "relations", do you include dating?)

Edited February 27, 2020 by ALarson