rockpond Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 6 minutes ago, Amulek said: 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: Complete abstinence and no homosexual behavior of any type whatsoever Complete abstinence and intent to not engage in any homosexual behavior but with occasional participation in homosexual behavior Complete abstinence and desire to not engage in any homosexual behavior but with multiple occasions of participation in homosexual behavior Complete abstinence and desire to actively engage in homosexual behavior but without intent to marry (i.e., NCMO dating) Complete abstinence and desire to actively engage in homosexual behavior with intent to court / marry (i.e., relationship dating) 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. Interesting perspective. Could be.
kllindley Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 16 minutes ago, Amulek said: 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: Complete abstinence and no homosexual behavior of any type whatsoever Complete abstinence and intent to not engage in any homosexual behavior but with occasional participation in homosexual behavior Complete abstinence and desire to not engage in any homosexual behavior but with multiple occasions of participation in homosexual behavior Complete abstinence and desire to actively engage in homosexual behavior but without intent to marry (i.e., NCMO dating) Complete abstinence and desire to actively engage in homosexual behavior with intent to court / marry (i.e., relationship dating) 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. This largely reflects my own view and it is very well written. 1
Amulek Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 2 hours ago, Calm said: How often has the Church or BYU jumped from a 1 to a 4 to use your reasoning? While not completely without precedent, it isn't something that happens very frequently. And when it has happened, it has always been communicated much better. Quote I think it is wishful thinking that such a significant move would be made with no steps in between. I think "wishful thinking" is probably the right characterization for those who think BYU now supports same sex casual dating. The only official statement we have from the school thus far is that "there may have been some miscommunication regarding what the Honor Code changes mean;" and that "the principles of the Honor Code remain the same." I think the miscommunication about the meaning of the changes is clearly a reference to those who are reading too much into it. 3
rockpond Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 39 minutes ago, Amulek said: While not completely without precedent, it isn't something that happens very frequently. And when it has happened, it has always been communicated much better. I think "wishful thinking" is probably the right characterization for those who think BYU now supports same sex casual dating. The only official statement we have from the school thus far is that "there may have been some miscommunication regarding what the Honor Code changes mean;" and that "the principles of the Honor Code remain the same." I think the miscommunication about the meaning of the changes is clearly a reference to those who are reading too much into it. If this is actually what is intended, and gay BYU students who date those of their same gender start getting called into the HCO to discuss it. And then those students are told that they need to limit or curtail their dating. BYU will be creating more bad publicity for itself. The students will rightfully be able to say that there is no prohibition against gay dating. 1
Tacenda Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 I think Ernest Wilkinson is probably rolling over in his grave.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 (edited) 9 minutes ago, rockpond said: If this is actually what is intended, and gay BYU students who date those of their same gender start getting called into the HCO to discuss it. And then those students are told that they need to limit or curtail their dating. BYU will be creating more bad publicity for itself. The students will rightfully be able to say that there is no prohibition against gay dating. Maybe it won’t be the HCO that does it. Maybe there would be a referral made to the person’s bishop (either on-campus or home ward). The enforcement mechanism is already in place with the ecclesiastical endorsement. Edited February 28, 2020 by Scott Lloyd
Calm Posted February 28, 2020 Author Posted February 28, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, rockpond said: If this is actually what is intended, and gay BYU students who date those of their same gender start getting called into the HCO to discuss it. And then those students are told that they need to limit or curtail their dating. BYU will be creating more bad publicity for itself. The students will rightfully be able to say that there is no prohibition against gay dating. I think more likely it will be students seen engaging in same sex romantic or sexual behaviour will be reported to or will on their own be discussing same sex dating or desires to same sex date with their bishops and for some who then decide to not follow standards of the Church as interpreted by their bishop (hopefully based on significant training) and hopefully interpreted the same by the student, they will lose the endorsement and need to transfer to another school, again hopefully to the satisfaction of all concerned. At that point the Church bears the responsibility and since BYU is heavily subsidized by the Church, anyone claiming the Church has no right to have input into attendance through the endorsement....not a great argument. It seems to me legally protecting BYU to a certain extent because it is not then their standard, but the Church's. And churches have more leeway than schools in terms of what they can require of members/attendees. Iirc, a member of a different church attending BYU gets it from their pastor, not the local bishop right? Edited February 28, 2020 by Calm 1
Teancum Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: How lovely for you. Quite, Thank you.
JulieM Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 (edited) 10 hours ago, Calm said: I think more likely it will be students seen engaging in same sex romantic or sexual behaviour will be reported to... Calm, I really hope the days are over when anyone thinks it’s their right to “report” or judge each other like this. Who do you think gay students should be reported to (if they are dating or having sex)? Should heterosexual students be reported for being involved in the same behavior since even President Nelson has stated they should be treated the same? ”Finally, we also clarified that homosexual immorality would be treated in the eyes of the Church in the same manner as heterosexual immorality.” - Pres. Russell M. Nelson (to BYU students on Sept. 17, 2019) Edited February 28, 2020 by JulieM 2
MiserereNobis Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Maybe it won’t be the HCO that does it. Maybe there would be a referral made to the person’s bishop (either on-campus or home ward). The enforcement mechanism is already in place with the ecclesiastical endorsement. How do you think this would work for non-LDS students? I poked around a little bit to understand the ecclesiastical endorsement and it looks like a non-LDS student can use their own religious leader for an endorsement. What if the student's religion is ok with gay marriage? The endorsement wouldn't be removed so the student could continue to openly date. Just curious what you think the process would be. On a side-note, do people have experiences with non-LDS students at BYU navigating BYU/LDS culture? 3
MustardSeed Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 15 minutes ago, JulieM said: Calm, I really hope the days are over when anyone thinks it’s their right to “report” or judge each other like this. Who do you think gay students should be reported to (if they are dating or having sex)? Should heterosexual students be reported for being involved in the same behavior since even President Nelson has stated they should be treated the same? I was loosely traumatized by this reporting at Ricks. They were ratted out, I was blamed for ratting (?) and locked out of my apartment and cold shouldered the remainder of the year. 20 years later it turns out someone’s fiancé was the rat. I never got an apology. 😕 I still have hard feelings. I think the pressure to tattle is obscene. 3
MiserereNobis Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 39 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: How do you think this would work for non-LDS students? I poked around a little bit to understand the ecclesiastical endorsement and it looks like a non-LDS student can use their own religious leader for an endorsement. What if the student's religion is ok with gay marriage? The endorsement wouldn't be removed so the student could continue to openly date. Just curious what you think the process would be. On a side-note, do people have experiences with non-LDS students at BYU navigating BYU/LDS culture? I'll just add why a non-LDS openly gay student would want to attend BYU would be beyond me, so it's more just a thought experiment.
ALarson Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 (edited) 41 minutes ago, MustardSeed said: I was loosely traumatized by this reporting at Ricks. They were ratted out, I was blamed for ratting (?) and locked out of my apartment and cold shouldered the remainder of the year. 20 years later it turns out someone’s fiancé was the rat. I never got an apology. 😕 I still have hard feelings. I think the pressure to tattle is obscene. Yes, I'm surprised that anyone would believe that this is going to be encouraged AT ALL now. If nothing else, I'm hopeful this most recent change will stop the reporting of students....and especially students who are gay. They should never feel like they have to hide who they are like they used to have to do in order to feel safe at BYU. If any of them have issues they want to work through or repent of, they should be allowed the same consideration as any other person or student. They should on their own go in to talk to someone about it (counseling) or go to one of their leaders where they can handle it privately. Edited February 28, 2020 by ALarson 1
smac97 Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 (edited) 13 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: I'll just add why a non-LDS openly gay student would want to attend BYU would be beyond me, so it's more just a thought experiment. 1. It's a good school. 2. The tuition is heavily subsidized. 3. A conniving gay person may enjoy the prospect of "bleeding" the Church by taking up a slot at BYU, having his/her tuition subsidized, and then graduating and having bragging rights about sticking it to the Church. 4. A genuinely decent gay person may appreciate the overall atmosphere at BYU, and be willing to actually adhere to the standards of behavior expected of him/her while a student. Thanks, -Smac Edited February 28, 2020 by smac97
stemelbow Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 13 hours ago, Amulek said: 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: Complete abstinence and no homosexual behavior of any type whatsoever Complete abstinence and intent to not engage in any homosexual behavior but with occasional participation in homosexual behavior Complete abstinence and desire to not engage in any homosexual behavior but with multiple occasions of participation in homosexual behavior Complete abstinence and desire to actively engage in homosexual behavior but without intent to marry (i.e., NCMO dating) Complete abstinence and desire to actively engage in homosexual behavior with intent to court / marry (i.e., relationship dating) 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. I can't see difference between 2, 3, and 4. Wouldn't "occasional participation" be the same as "multiple occasions of participation"? Also wouldn't "actively engaging in..without intent to marry" be the same as "occasional participation in"? How is there possibly a line to draw there, since actively engaging in holding hands and kissing, is really just occasional participation in? I mean no one's constantly actively holding hands and kissing. That happens occasionally. I'm also a bit annoyed by the energy put into distinguishing between "without intent to marry" and "with intent to court/marry". Whenever someone goes so far as to hold a person's hand, the intent to marry may not really be there, but the natural feeling of closeness very naturally feels like courting. I mean if BYU thinks they can decipher these distinctions, they have nothing but headache ahead of them. It sounds like petty rule making of the sake of rule making to me. They need to be consistent. Leave it at "yes they can date, hold hands and kiss. Once they break the rule of abstinence before marriage, then there is a problem". Well, that is if they remain intent on being in the students bed with them.
provoman Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said: How do you think this would work for non-LDS students? I poked around a little bit to understand the ecclesiastical endorsement and it looks like a non-LDS student can use their own religious leader for an endorsement. What if the student's religion is ok with gay marriage? The endorsement wouldn't be removed so the student could continue to openly date. Just curious what you think the process would be. On a side-note, do people have experiences with non-LDS students at BYU navigating BYU/LDS culture? I think any student, regardless of religions affiliation, in a same-sex marriage would not be permitted to continue at BYU. CES Policies "Live a chaste and virtuous life, including abstaining from any sexual relations outside a marriage between a man and a woman." BYU Provo Conduct policy Conduct All students are required to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the Honor Code. ... Sexual misconduct; ... 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. (I think Law of Chastity applies to "any other conduct") Violations of the Honor Code may result in actions up to and including separation from the university. BYU Provo Ecclesiastical endorsement Non-Latter-day Saint students are to be endorsed by (1) the local ecclesiastical leader if the student is an active member of the congregation, (2) the bishop of the Latter-day Saint ward in which they currently reside, or (3) the nondenominational BYU chaplain. Not sure if number 1 means the individuals personal religious affiliation. (BYU Idaho requires the endorsement be from the bishop of the Latter-day Saint ward in which they currently reside) I do not know BYU Provo endorsement procedures; as, are there specific questions that must be affirmed. I was able find some specific endorsement information for BYU Idaho for some insight: The bishop verifies the following: The student lives a chaste and virtuous life, including avoidance of pornography, abstinence from sexual relations outside of marriage, and abstinence from homosexual conduct 1
Calm Posted February 28, 2020 Author Posted February 28, 2020 (edited) 37 minutes ago, smac97 said: 2. The tuition is heavily subsidized. Not as much for nonLDS, it doubles for them so about $6000 more for undergrad for two semesters. Edited February 28, 2020 by Calm 1
ALarson Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 (edited) 22 minutes ago, provoman said: The student lives a chaste and virtuous life, including avoidance of pornography, abstinence from sexual relations outside of marriage, and abstinence from homosexual conduct I'm wondering if those last 5 words will be removed now since the "Homosexual Behavior" section has been removed from the Honor Code. That will be interesting to see.... The "abstinence from sexual relations outside of marriage" applies to both heterosexual and same-sex students and would be in keeping with the current Honor Code. That is also in harmony with what President Nelson has stated. Edited February 28, 2020 by ALarson 1
provoman Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 25 minutes ago, ALarson said: I'm wondering if those last 5 words will be removed now since the "Homosexual Behavior" section has been removed from the Honor Code. That will be interesting to see.... Based on a recording purported to be of a BYU IDAHO Administrator, the removal of "homosexual behavior" is a BYU PROVO action and BYU Provo action only. But yes we will have to wait and see.
ALarson Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 (edited) 12 minutes ago, provoman said: Based on a recording purported to be of a BYU IDAHO Administrator, the removal of "homosexual behavior" is a BYU PROVO action and BYU Provo action only. Oh wow....that is interesting. I'll see if I can find BYU-I current Honor Code online. It will be odd (IMO) if their Honor Codes are not consistent (all private church universities), but that may be true. 12 minutes ago, provoman said: But yes we will have to wait and see. 👍 ETA: Found this from the Deseret News: Quote BYU’s website says the code was updated on Feb. 12. The Church Educational System honor code applies to all of the church’s institutions of higher education — BYU, BYU-Idaho, BYU-Hawaii, BYU-Pathway Worldwide and LDS Business College. Both the previous versions of the honor code and General Handbook were principles-based. The updates of each are intended to make them even more so, according to news releases both by the university and the church. BYU enrolls gay students and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints welcomes gay members in its congregations. Students sign the honor code agreeing to abstain from all sexual relationship outside a marriage between a man and a woman. Previously, BYU’s honor code included a section on “homosexual behavior” that stated, “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.” https://www.deseret.com/faith/2020/2/19/21144529/byu-honor-code-mormon-church-lds-updates-honor-code-homosexual-behavior-lgbtq Edited February 28, 2020 by ALarson 2
provoman Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 3 minutes ago, ALarson said: Oh wow....that is interesting. I'll see if I can find BYU-I current Honor Code online. It will be odd (IMO) if their Honor Codes are not consistent (all private church universities), but that may be true. 👍 "Its BYU Provo that's changed..." 1
ALarson Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, provoman said: "Its BYU Provo that's changed..." See my edit above from the Deseret News: Quote The Church Educational System honor code applies to all of the church’s institutions of higher education — BYU, BYU-Idaho, BYU-Hawaii, BYU-Pathway Worldwide and LDS Business College And here: Quote The Honor Code update applies to all CES institutions of higher education, including BYU, BYU-Idaho, BYU-Hawaii and LDS Business College. https://universe.byu.edu/2020/02/19/honor-code-changes-remove-explicit-ban-on-homosexual-behavior/ Edited February 28, 2020 by ALarson 2
MiserereNobis Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 1 hour ago, provoman said: I think any student, regardless of religions affiliation, in a same-sex marriage would not be permitted to continue at BYU. I was more thinking of openly dating, not married. 2
Amulek Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 58 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I can't see difference between 2, 3, and 4. You can't or you won't? I thought I was pretty clear, but I would be happy to elaborate if you sincerely can't tell the difference. Quote Wouldn't "occasional participation" be the same as "multiple occasions of participation"? Why would I have listed them separately if I thought I was talking about the same thing? Try thinking of it in terms of someone who slips up occasionally versus someone who struggles and slips up frequently. Quote Also wouldn't "actively engaging in..without intent to marry" be the same as "occasional participation in"? No. By "occasional participation" I'm talking more about someone who slips up every now and then. Someone who I would characterize as "actively engaging in" would be more like someone who intentionally looks for people to date / hook up with (i.e, NCMO dating). Quote How is there possibly a line to draw there, since actively engaging in holding hands and kissing, is really just occasional participation in? I mean no one's constantly actively holding hands and kissing. That happens occasionally. Don't be obtuse. Quote I'm also a bit annoyed by the energy put into distinguishing between "without intent to marry" and "with intent to court/marry". Whenever someone goes so far as to hold a person's hand, the intent to marry may not really be there, but the natural feeling of closeness very naturally feels like courting. If you have been following the entire discussion (and not just selectively focusing on the parts you want to hear) you would recall the the university has already said that dating with the intent to marry would still be considered a violation of the Honor Code. Hence, the distinction. Quote I mean if BYU thinks they can decipher these distinctions, they have nothing but headache ahead of them. It sounds like petty rule making of the sake of rule making to me. They need to be consistent. In my opinion, that is exactly what the school is trying to do. By shifting things so that every situation is handled on a case-by-case basis and having bishops play a larger role in the process, that allows those who are most qualified to guide / council individuals as things come up. Quote Leave it at "yes they can date, hold hands and kiss. Once they break the rule of abstinence before marriage, then there is a problem". I understand that's the rule some would favor. I just don't think that's the rule the church wants to have in effect. Do you honestly think the church wants students to be actively dating, kissing, or otherwise being romantic with members of the same sex? Behaviors that you yourself admit: develop a "natural feeling of closeness" and that engaging in such behaviors "feels like courting?" If courting a member of the same sex is still a violation of the Honor Code, then it seems strange that the purpose behind the change would be to encourage behavior which would lead people in that direction. Right? 2
Bernard Gui Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, MustardSeed said: I was loosely traumatized by this reporting at Ricks. They were ratted out, I was blamed for ratting (?) and locked out of my apartment and cold shouldered the remainder of the year. 20 years later it turns out someone’s fiancé was the rat. I never got an apology. 😕 I still have hard feelings. I think the pressure to tattle is obscene. My first BYU roommate in Helaman Halls was gay. I was very uncomfortable with his actions and requested a change, but I did not give the reason. Another student who had a similar experience and I asked to be made roommates. The exchange was made without incident. 1964. Edited February 28, 2020 by Bernard Gui 1
Recommended Posts