Byu Honor Code Matches New Handbook

[smac97]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

I don't see any significant differences. 

Not sure what you're referencing here.

Just now, hope_for_things said:

People have used scriptures and statements from leaders to support other prejudices throughout time, including slavery and interracial marriage. 

Meh.  Skipping to unsubstantiated accusations of prejudice is lazy.  A potshot.  Bullying.  A guilt trip.

Not buying it.

Just now, hope_for_things said:

Thats why I brought that particular example up because its no longer considered taboo in Mormon culture, yet there were church leaders who felt that it wasn't ordained of God, even after the priesthood and temple bans were done away with.  From my vantage point, we're seeing a similar expression of prejudice today after the BYU honor code change.  

Right.  No need for evidence.  Just skip straight to the accusatory shaming.

-Smac

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree that the pornography analogy is a good one

Not really (IMO) since it has not been removed from the Honor Code.

Why do you believe the section "Homosexual Behavior" has now been removed if it means no change in what is prohibited?  (Honest question)

Edited February 27, 2020 by ALarson

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nor is there an "explicit" prohibition against a married man kissing / dating / holding hands with someone other than his wife.  I am reminded here of D&C 58:26-27:

My perspective on this issue is informed by huge amounts of precedent set by the Church.  I think the idea that the Church has substantially revised its approach to the Law of Chastity so as to authorize same-sex "penumbra" behaviors is . . . unlikely.

I guess we'll see.

I don't.  I think the prohibition against same-sex relations (and likely its associated "penumbra" behaviors) is pretty much categorical.  As much as are the prohibitions againt adultery and fornication.  Has the Church acquiesced to social norms about these?  Nope.

Again, I guess we'll see.  I hope the clarification comes soon.  I am concerned that this issue has, for some, become a litmus test.  The ambiguity about the changes to the Honor Code is, I fear, fomenting a lot of wishful thinking in some quarters.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I doubt that you'll see any "clarification" come.  If I had to bet money on it, I would say that we won't see anything official come out.  I mentioned this in a comment a couple days ago, that I believe that BYU will enforce the new policy as it is written, that LGB students will be able to date and kiss and show affection without any significant consequences institutionally at BYU.  Conversely, I think people who hold the view that these behaviors are still out of line with God's will, will continue to hold prejudice against LGB individuals.  This likely would keep the church as a culture from changing very quickly. 

Unfortunately this could be a repeating of mistakes from our history along the same lines as racism within the church today, where its been over 40 years since the 1978 revelation, and we still are raising racist kids in the church who attend BYU and continue to hold ideas that the church policy-wise no longer holds.  Even when you have an Apostle in Elder Stevenson attending an NAACP meeting and apologizing for racism being printed in the current manuals, and declaring that they would instruct members to disregard this passage, but what happens in practice?  No official, disregard this message, was every sent to the church.  The church has a horrible track record with respect to correcting for these issues.  

[Amulek]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Why do you believe the section "Homosexual Behavior" has now been removed if it means no change in what is prohibited?  (Honest question)

I think it was changed for a couple of reasons: (1) because of the inherent incapability of knowing intent; just because two girls are holding hands or two men kiss doesn't necessarily mean that they are engaging in homosexual behavior. BYU has students from around the world who have different cultural attitudes regarding what we might consider to be physical displays of affection. Why should those students get hauled before the HCO for doing that which they have done their entire lives (and which has nothing to do with same sex attraction)?

And (2) I think the removal was meant to move away from there being a bright line rule with automatic punishments associated with its violation to one where ecclesiastical leaders take a bigger role in dealing with these situations on a case by case basis. So, for example, if someone went to a party and got caught making out with someone of the same gender, rather than that being an automatic HC violation it becomes something for him to work out with his priesthood leader. 

I have a hard time believing that the policy change was to facilitate or encourage courtship among gay students at BYU. 

 

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I doubt that you'll see any "clarification" come.  If I had to bet money on it, I would say that we won't see anything official come out.  I mentioned this in a comment a couple days ago, that I believe that BYU will enforce the new policy as it is written, that LGB students will be able to date and kiss and show affection without any significant consequences institutionally at BYU.  Conversely, I think people who hold the view that these behaviors are still out of line with God's will, will continue to hold prejudice against LGB individuals.  This likely would keep the church as a culture from changing very quickly. 

I think you may be right.  The safest thing for the leaders would be to just stay silent regarding this entire thing (with the BYU Honor Code and the quotes coming from those speaking to the officers there).  

I do think there will be a doubling down on SSM (possibly in GC).  But, the same-sex dating and public affection will be allowed and no longer prohibited at BYU.

I would like to know if students are seeing any difference on campus or what discussions are taking place among them at BYU.

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I doubt that you'll see any "clarification" come.  If I had to bet money on it, I would say that we won't see anything official come out.  I mentioned this in a comment a couple days ago, that I believe that BYU will enforce the new policy as it is written, that LGB students will be able to date and kiss and show affection without any significant consequences institutionally at BYU. 

We'll see, I guess.

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Conversely, I think people who hold the view that these behaviors are still out of line with God's will, will continue to hold prejudice against LGB individuals. 

Lazy cheap shot.

-Smac

[ALarson]

20 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I think it was changed for a couple of reasons: (1) because of the inherent incapability of knowing intent; just because two girls are holding hands or two men kiss doesn't necessarily mean that they are engaging in homosexual behavior. BYU has students from around the world who have different cultural attitudes regarding what we might consider to be physical displays of affection. Why should those students get hauled before the HCO for doing that which they have done their entire lives (and which has nothing to do with same sex attraction)?

I don't know.  I think most anyone would see the difference between a platonic kiss (even a peck on the lips) between the same sex, and a passionate or romantic one.  So, I'm not sure that reason would warrant actually removing this from the Honor Code:

Quote

 

Homosexual Behavior

Brigham Young University will respond to homosexual behavior rather than to feelings or attraction and welcomes as full members of the university community all whose behavior meets university standards. Members of the university community can remain in good Honor Code standing if they conduct their lives in a manner consistent with gospel principles and the Honor Code.

One's stated same-gender attraction is not an Honor Code issue. However, the Honor Code requires all members of the university community to manifest a strict commitment to the law of chastity. Homosexual behavior is inappropriate and violates the Honor Code. Homosexual behavior includes not only sexual relations between members of the same sex, but all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings.

 

 

Edited February 27, 2020 by ALarson

[hope_for_things]

24 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think you may be right.  The safest thing for the leaders would be to just stay silent regarding this entire thing (with the BYU Honor Code and the quotes coming from those speaking to the officers there).  

I do think there will be a doubling down on SSM (possibly in GC).  But, the same-sex dating and public affection will be allowed and no longer prohibited at BYU.

I would like to know if students are seeing any difference on campus or what discussions are taking place among them at BYU.

I hope you're wrong about the doubling down in GC.  I see the most recent softening on the LGB side of things as being a pull back from the previous doubling down.  I think it was interesting that President Oaks gave a fireside presentation on Sunday last week and from what I heard from those who attended, he didn't say anything about LGBTQ issues or do any kind of the negative speaking he's been somewhat infamous for.  Its probably the hopeful person in me, but I think we'll see less rhetoric in future months and years.  I look at the past two decades as the era where churches were fighting against culture changes on the LGB issues specifically and those battles were largely lost.  I think we can view the recent changes as a sign that they are beginning to move on and move forward.  

On the transgender issue, unfortunately I think there are many more battles in the culture and within Mormonism for years to come....  

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If the “principles ... remain the same” as they were in the previous iteration of the Honor Code, then one might expect that a bishop or whoever handles instances “on a case-by-case” basis will be guided by those principles even though they are no longer as explicitly stated as before. 
 

I agree that the pornography analogy is a good one: It is handled case by case, but that doesn’t mean implicit approval of pornography consumption. 
 

Likewise, those who infer from the recent change that romantic expression of homosexual attraction is now approved  are misguided in their inference. 

It's not a good analogy because pornography is mentioned in the Honor Code and the General Handbook of the Church.  Dating and demonstrations of affection between members of the same gender are no longer mentioned in the HC nor are they mentioned in the handbook.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Not really (IMO) since it has not been removed from the Honor Code.

Why do you believe the section "Homosexual Behavior" has now been removed if it means no change in what is prohibited?  (Honest question)

I could only guess. Is that what you want? 

[Amulek]

35 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't know.  I think most anyone would see the difference between a platonic kiss (even a peck on the lips) between the same sex, and a passionate or romantic one.  So, I'm not sure that reason would warrant actually removing this from the Honor Code:

Hand holding is the more common phenomenon.

In Europe and other places, holding hands is common for friends. How do go about determining whether or not that behavior is "homosexual?"

If you see two blond haired girls holding hands as they walk across campus, how do you know if they are best friends from Scandinavia or girlfriends from Los Angeles? 

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

We'll see, I guess.

Lazy cheap shot.

-Smac

I thought using the word prejudice was a somewhat neutral term.  All of us have prejudice for and against things and peoples.  If someone who has strong religious convictions believes their prejudice is in line with God's will then thats a very difficult perspective to change.  

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I thought using the word prejudice was a somewhat neutral term. 

Right.  Almost as "neutral" as your comment about "other prejudices throughout time, including slavery and interracial marriage."

You created a one-to-one comparison between opposing same-sex marriage and supporting slavery.  This, in your view, is "somewhat neutral"?

Just how stupid do you think we are?

-Smac

Edited February 27, 2020 by smac97

[ALarson]

38 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I hope you're wrong about the doubling down in GC.  I see the most recent softening on the LGB side of things as being a pull back from the previous doubling down.  I think it was interesting that President Oaks gave a fireside presentation on Sunday last week and from what I heard from those who attended, he didn't say anything about LGBTQ issues or do any kind of the negative speaking he's been somewhat infamous for.  Its probably the hopeful person in me, but I think we'll see less rhetoric in future months and years.  I look at the past two decades as the era where churches were fighting against culture changes on the LGB issues specifically and those battles were largely lost.  I think we can view the recent changes as a sign that they are beginning to move on and move forward.  

I hope you are right....

If the leaders just remain silent on this, then members will just believe what they've read in the press or what they heard right from a BYU professor.  If no corrections are made, then those will stand.

And, the leaders are not shy about correcting wrong information or correcting BYU professors (remember Randy L. Bott).  So if they stay silent, it will appear that they agree with the information that went out to the public regarding this change.

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Right.  Almost as "neutral" as your comment about "other prejudices throughout time, including slavery and interracial marriage."

You created a one-to-one comparison between opposing same-sex marriage and supporting slavery.  This, in your view, is "somewhat neutral"?

Just how stupid do you think we are?

-Smac

There's no escaping the racism in church history and their ideas that this racism was supported by God.  In order to change the future, we have to repent and acknowledge our past mistakes out in the open.  

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

Right.  Almost as "neutral" as your comment about "other prejudices throughout time, including slavery and interracial marriage."

You created a one-to-one comparison between opposing same-sex marriage and supporting slavery.  This, in your view, is "somewhat neutral"?

Just how stupid do you think we are?

There's no escaping the racism in church history and their ideas that this racism was supported by God. 

Which is neither here nor there, since your remarks are attributing "prejudice" to us, and creating a one-to-one comparison between that prejudice and supporting slavery.

And then you have the nerve to suggest that this accusation is "neutral."

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

In order to change the future, we have to repent and acknowledge our past mistakes out in the open.  

"We have to repent?"  Of what?  I've never owned a slave.

I would hope that it goes without saying, but "collective guilt" isn't a thing.  I am not culpable for the sins of my ancestors.  

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Which is neither here nor there, since your remarks are attributing "prejudice" to us, and creating a one-to-one comparison between that prejudice and supporting slavery.

And then you have the nerve to suggest that this accusation is "neutral."

"We have to repent?"  Of what?  I've never owned a slave.

I would hope that it goes without saying, but "collective guilt" isn't a thing.  I am not culpable for the sins of my ancestors.  

-Smac

Unfortunately racism is alive and well in our current church culture, as evidenced by the recent manuals and BYU discussions.  Personally, I believe repentance is not only an individual, but also a collective endeavor.  Culpability and responsibility are two different things.  I believe we are all responsible to atone for the sins of humanity in whatever ways we can, and I feel strongly that this is part of the cause of becoming a Zion like people.  You seem to go back to thinking of religion in legal terminology, which is understandable, its just not the way I view religion.  

[CV75]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

If we're saying that there are cases where gay dating would be permitted, than I can accept that logic.

However, without more clarity, we'll have situations of "leadership roulette" where local leaders for some members will be totally fine with gay dating and others will instruct them to stop or face a membership council.

I think it more accurate and less biased to say that there are cases where dating is not breaking the honor code or law of chastity, cases where it is, and cases where it is heading in an unwise direction--each up to individual agency.

There are all kinds of other possible decisions between the dichotomy you posed, and anyone can appeal in those rare instances in which they feel the decision of his judge in Israel is off base.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

think most anyone would see the difference between a platonic kiss (even a peck on the lips) between the same sex, and a passionate or romantic one

You pay attention much to times when women get notes about their 'inappropriate' clothing choices?  I suspect there is enough of a contingent at BYU that thinks they have a right to determine standards for others and who see many things in the worst light as possible that if the HCO was getting out of the business of dealing with sexual behaviour and punting that over to bishops that they would want to have something they can point to when receiving calls that do not see the difference that lets them off the hook of having to deal with it.

Smac and others that live in wards or stakes with BYU students, if you have the chance, please check with your leaders on if they have been given training in this area.  It appears to be a possibility and if so, it indicates to me there is a definite shift...as in bishops getting training where HCO people are confused about what is happening implies to me the HCOs are considered soon to be irrelevant to any counseling or discipline in this area.

I can also see confusion resulting from HCO people being told "you won't be handing any sexual morality cases anymore, including same sex dating" and interpreting that as no one will be handling them when what was meant is only church leaders will be.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

And, the leaders are not shy about correcting wrong information or correcting BYU professors (remember Randy L. Bott).  So if they stay silent, it will appear that they agree with the information that went out to the public regarding this change.

But there is a difference in the case of one professor who was talking about past issues and massive media involved confusion.  This otoh reminds me of Nov 2015 announcement of apostasy of gay marriage and its effect of children of gay parents. 

I can see church leaders thinking this is BYU's problem, they need to deal with it, but BYU people confused on who should be saying what and therefore saying nothing in hopes their usually quiet student population will just move on shortly.

Edited February 27, 2020 by Calm

[rockpond]

42 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think it more accurate and less biased to say that there are cases where dating is not breaking the honor code or law of chastity, cases where it is, and cases where it is heading in an unwise direction--each up to individual agency.

There are all kinds of other possible decisions between the dichotomy you posed, and anyone can appeal in those rare instances in which they feel the decision of his judge in Israel is off base.

I didn't think I had posed a dichotomy.  But what you've said here makes sense to me.

[Teancum]

I have to say after reading through much if this thread it is so wonderful to be free and liberated from religious rules that religions and their adherents seek to impose on others and to judge them as "worthy" without any real evidence to back up those religious rules other than faith and some metaphysical experience that people have that makes them think they "know" certain truths. And thus those people want to impose these religious rules on others and societies without any solid evidence that what they propose has any more validity than any other religious speculation. Such an approach that this seems to create should be resoundingly condemned. This whole policy change on excommunication, honor codes, etc is laughable to any outside the Mormon, yes Mormon (another laughable change) culture. 

I hope some of you will free yourself from the false claims that bind you down.

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I have to say after reading through much if this thread it is so wonderful to be free and liberated from religious rules that religions and their adherents seek to impose on others and to judge them as "worthy" without any real evidence to back up those religious rules other than faith and some metaphysical experience that people have that makes them think they "know" certain truths. And thus those people want to impose these religious rules on others and societies without any solid evidence that what they propose has any more validity than any other religious speculation. Such an approach that this seems to create should be resoundingly condemned. This whole policy change on excommunication, honor codes, etc is laughable to any outside the Mormon, yes Mormon (another laughable change) culture. 

I hope some of you will free yourself from the false claims that bind you down.

How lovely for you. 

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

You pay attention much to times when women get notes about their 'inappropriate' clothing choices? 

Ugh....yes!  I haven't seen anything like that posted for quite awhile and I hope it means it is no longer happening.  What an awful thing to do to a young woman (or to anyone for that matter).

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I can also see confusion resulting from HCO people being told "you won't be handing any sexual morality cases anymore, including same sex dating" and interpreting that as no one will be handling them when what was meant is only church leaders will be

Yes, I can see that too.  I do hope there is more clarifying coming from the leaders for all involved.

Edited February 28, 2020 by ALarson

[Amulek]

So, I was thinking about another way of articulating my thoughts on the 'why' of the Honor Code change, and I started thinking of it in terms of the spectrum of homosexual behavior. For the sake of argument, let's assume the spectrum of homosexual behavior looks something like this:

1. Complete abstinence and no homosexual behavior of any type whatsoever
2. Complete abstinence and intent to not engage in any homosexual behavior but with occasional participation in homosexual behavior
3. Complete abstinence and desire to not engage in any homosexual behavior but with multiple occasions of participation in homosexual behavior
4. Complete abstinence and desire to actively engage in homosexual behavior but without intent to marry (i.e., NCMO dating)
5. Complete abstinence and desire to actively engage in homosexual behavior with intent to court / marry (i.e., relationship dating)
6. Failure to maintain abstinence and no desire to avoid homosexual behavior of any type whatsoever

Now, that's not necessarily a perfect breakdown - especially as you get toward the bottom. In reality, I think it's much broader than this, but I think maybe this will be sufficient to get my point across.

As originally written, anything beyond Item 1 would be considered an automatic Honor Code violation and would subject a student to potential consequences. I think that is a harsher line than what the school wanted to pursue, so the intent of removing the original language was to give the Honor Code Office the ability to work with students who fall into the 2 - 3 range on a case-by-case basis without having any sort of participation in homosexual behavior be an automatic strike against you.

I honestly don't believe the intent was to make 4 the new 1. The church doesn't want students to be dating, kissing, making out with members of the same sex because they don't want students to develop romantic feelings for and form long term relationships with those they do not have the potential to form eternal unions with.