Byu Honor Code Matches New Handbook

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

Wow, just saw this comment, and it reminds me of how you thought I was being too harsh with my earlier comments about people having prejudice towards LGB individuals....   

[hope_for_things]

Nevermind, found the link

Edited February 28, 2020 by hope_for_things

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

I had a gay companion on my mission and was never uncomfortable with him at any point in our service together.  He was an amazing missionary and is an amazing person as the vast majority of LGBTQ individuals are.  

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

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.

Wow, just saw this comment, and it reminds me of how you thought I was being too harsh with my earlier comments about people having prejudice towards LGB individuals....   

So gay people are incapable of being "conniving"?  Heterosexuals certainly are.

I'm not saying "LGB individuals" are conniving.  I'm not into the collective identity / collective guilt thing (as you seem to be).

However, all of us are flawed human beings.  I have personal experience with a number of instances of BYU students behaving in the way described above.  They were, to my knowledge, heterosexual.  However, I think homosexuals are likewise not immune from temptations to do these sorts of things.  Hence my comment.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[hope_for_things]

Whats somewhat surprising to me when we have these online discussions is just how prejudiced and ugly they sound to my ears.  If we were to take all the comments made in a thread like this and change every reference to LGBTQ individuals to another persecuted minority group along any kind of racial, religious, gender, age, color, nationality, physical or mental handicaps category and I think by 2020 standards across the board almost everyone on this message board would be uncomfortable with the comments in that context.   Yet for some strange reason having a bias towards LGBTQ individuals is somehow tolerated or goes unseen as a blind spot.   

Its an important reminder to me of just how essential it is for allies like myself to continue to have conversations and support LGBTQ individuals wherever I can.   

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, JulieM said:

I really hope the days are over when anyone thinks it’s their right to “report” or judge each other like this.  

Back when I was at BYU I had a professor who taught one of those huge, weed out classes - accounting, I think it was.

I distinctly remember him giving everyone 'the talk' one day early on in the semester about academic integrity. He said that he had an honest, kind, wonderful college aged daughter who, unfortunately, was just shy of making the cutoff for admission at the university. 

I don't remember the exact way he phrased the next part, but the gist of it was: If any of you are found to have been in violation of the Honor Code in any way then he would do everything in his power to ensure that you were expelled from the university - because he didn't want anyone who wasn't willing to live up to the church/school's standards taking a spot away from someone who would be more than happy to do so.

That really resonated with me.

If you want to have sex with your sweetheart while you are at school, there are countless options for you to chose from. 

You want to do the same while at BYU? Then I genuinely hope you get caught and expelled. There are plenty of other people who would be more than happy to take your spot and live up to the commitments you are unwilling to follow.

 

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Back when I was at BYU I had a professor who taught one of those huge, weed out classes - accounting, I think it was.

I distinctly remember him giving everyone 'the talk' one day early on in the semester about academic integrity. He said that he had an honest, kind, wonderful college aged daughter who, unfortunately, was just shy of making the cutoff for admission at the university. 

I don't remember the exact way he phrased the next part, but the gist of it was: If any of you are found to have been in violation of the Honor Code in any way then he would do everything in his power to ensure that you were expelled from the university - because he didn't want anyone who wasn't willing to live up to the church/school's standards taking a spot away from someone who would be more than happy to do so.

That really resonated with me.

If you want to have sex with your sweetheart while you are at school, there are countless options for you to chose from. 

You want to do the same while at BYU? Then I genuinely hope you get caught and expelled. There are plenty of other people who would be more than happy to take your spot and live up to the commitments you are unwilling to follow.

I think if a student is doing anything that is not in keeping with the Honor Code, it is up to them to work it out on their own and go see their Bishop privately (if necessary).  The days of spying on or snitching or reporting on other students, is hopefully in the past.  Those were some really ugly times, IMO.

The only reason I can think of that would justify reporting someone is if they are hurting another person (abuse).  Otherwise, mind your own business and just make sure you are honorably adhering to the Honor Code.

Edited February 28, 2020 by ALarson

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So gay people are incapable of being "conniving"?  Heterosexuals certainly are.

I'm not saying "LGB individuals" are conniving.  I'm not into the collective identity / collective guilt thing (as you seem to be).

However, all of us are flawed human beings.  I have personal experience with a number of instances of BYU students behaving in the way described above.  They were, to my knowledge, heterosexual.  However, I think homosexuals are likewise not immune from temptations to do these sorts of things.  Hence my comment.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Well, perhaps you can clarify what you meant by your comment then.  The insinuation that I got from reading it was that you believe an LGB person is being conniving by attending BYU and perhaps dating other LGB individuals which is no longer prohibited thankfully.  Could you define what a conniving LGB person attending BYU looks like in your eyes?  

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think if a student is doing anything that is not in keeping with the Honor Code, it is up to them to work it out on their own and go see their Bishop privately (if necessary).  The days of spying on or snitching or reporting on other students, is hopefully in the past.  Those were some really ugly times, IMO.

Lawyers have a legal obligation to "snitch" on attorneys or judges.  Here is Rule 8.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct:

Quote

(a) A lawyer who knows that another legal professional has committed a violation of the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that legal professional’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a legal professional in other respects shall inform the appropriate professional authority.

(b) A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable Rules of Judicial Conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge's fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority.

From the "Comments" explaining the reasoning for this rule:

Quote

{1} Self-regulation of the legal profession requires that members of the profession initiate disciplinary investigation when they know of a violation of the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct. Lawyers have a similar obligation with respect to judicial misconduct. An apparently isolated violation may indicate a pattern of misconduct that only a disciplinary investigation can uncover. Reporting a violation is especially important where the victim is unlikely to discover the offense.
...
{3} If a lawyer were obliged to report every violation of the Rules, the failure to report any violation would itself be a professional offense. Such a requirement existed in many jurisdictions but proved to be unenforceable. This Rule limits the reporting obligation to those offenses that a self-regulating profession must vigorously endeavor to prevent. A measure of judgment is, therefore, required in complying with the provisions of this Rule. The term "substantial" refers to the seriousness of the possible offense and not the quantum of evidence of which the lawyer is aware. A report should be made to the bar disciplinary agency unless some other agency, such as a peer review agency, is more appropriate in the circumstances. Similar considerations apply to the reporting of judicial misconduct.

Do you think this "snitching" requirement, imposed on attorneys, is "really ugly"?  Why or why not?

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The only reason I can think of that would justify reporting someone is if they are hurting another person (abuse).  Otherwise, mind your own business and just make sure you are honorably adhering to the Honor Code.

Did you serve a mission?  What would your thoughts be about one missionary "snitching" on another?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Well, perhaps you can clarify what you meant by your comment then.  The insinuation that I got from reading it was that you believe an LGB person is being conniving by attending BYU and perhaps dating other LGB individuals which is no longer prohibited thankfully.  Could you define what a conniving LGB person attending BYU looks like in your eyes?  

I did: "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."

But to clarify: The connivance arises where the individual applies to and attends BYU with no intention of following the Honor Code.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Amulek]

22 hours ago, ALarson said:

I think if a student is doing anything that is not in keeping with the Honor Code, it is up to them to work it out on their own and go see their Bishop privately (if necessary).  The days of spying on or snitching or reporting on other students, is hopefully in the past.  Those were some really ugly times, IMO.

The only reason I can think of that would justify reporting someone is if they are hurting another person (abuse).  Otherwise, mind your own business and just make sure you are honorably adhering to the Honor Code.

The church heavily subsidizes the cost of tuition for those attending BYU - even for non members. Those who lie to the university and their ecclesiastical leaders about their behavior in order to maintain their enrollment are defrauding the church out of thousands upon thousands of dollars each year. In what world is that sort of behavior acceptable? 

 

Edited February 29, 2020 by Amulek

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Amulek said:

The church heavily subsidizes the cost of tuition for those attending BYU - even for non members. Those you lie to the university and their ecclesiastical leaders about their behavior in order to maintain their enrollment are defrauding the church out of thousands upon thousands of dollars each year. In what world is that sort of behavior acceptable? 

I think most who find themselves in violation of the Honor Code are already attending the university.  Those students, just as other members of the church, should take care of this on their own and seek help if needed privately or visit their Bishop to discuss it.  It makes for a really awful and unhealthy atmosphere when students are snitching on or ratting each other out to the Honor Code Office.  I doubt they (the HCO) appreciate or encourage calls like that (at least I'd hope not!).  

Edited February 28, 2020 by ALarson

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I did: "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."

But to clarify: The connivance arises where the individual applies to and attends BYU with no intention of following the Honor Code.

Thanks,

-Smac

I can't imagine any actual person would want to suffer through 4 years just to "stick it to the church".  A very straw-man mischaracterization, hence my complaint.  

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Do you think this "snitching" requirement, imposed on attorneys, is "really ugly"?  

My reference was specifically regarding this time period in BYU's history:

Quote

 

1962

Under BYU president Wilkinson no students were allowed to attend BYU who were known to be attracted to people of the same sex.[1]:379 Additionally, student spying[64]:207–217 and bishops reporting confidential confessions to the Honor Code Office were encouraged.[9]:154

September – Under president Ernest Wilkinson a complete ban of any students attracted to people of the same sex regardless of behavior was instituted at BYU per the directives of apostles Kimball and Petersen.[1]:379[9]:154 The ban lasted until April 1973.[65][9]:155 Wilkinson received permission in 1967 to request that BYU bishops report any student whom they suspected was breaking rules or who had confessed to violating BYU conduct codes. This resulted in 72 students suspected of homosexual activity reported to the Standards Office (now called the Honor Code Office) within the first year of the new policy, and many expulsions and suspensions. Security files were kept on suspected gay students and student spying was encouraged.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LGBT_Mormon_history_in_the_20th_century

Surveillance

BYU bans extramarital sexual activity for straight students and further forbids any same-sex dating or physical expression of attraction including hugs for students identifying as LGBTQIA+.[10][33][34]

Under Oaks, a system of surveillance and searches of dorms of problem students, including suspected homosexuals, was implemented.[35] This included electronic recording devices which BYU Security Chief Robert Kelshaw confirmed in 1975 had been planted on students to gather information. In reference to the widespread campaign to find homosexuals among BYU students, Oaks stated, "Two influences we wish to exclude from the BYU community are active homosexuals and drug users, and these subjects are therefore among those with which our security force is concerned."[36]

Four years later BYU's newspaper reported Oaks asking BYU security to be "especially watchful" for any student homosexual infractions.[37]:126[38] Stake outs by BYU security looking for license plates of BYU students at gay bars in Salt Lake City[39][40] and fake contact advertisements were placed in a gay Salt Lake City newspaper to ensnare gay students[41][39] resulting in the arrest of former BYU student David Chipman.[37]:126[42][43] However, the director of public relations for the university stated that by 1979 Oaks ordered BYU security to stop surveilling gay bars and to cease posting entrapment advertisements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigham_Young_University_LGBT_history

 

[ALarson]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Did you serve a mission?  What would your thoughts be about one missionary "snitching" on another?

Yes, I served a mission.

And no, I would not have snitched on another missionary.  If I felt they were in emotional or physical danger (or harming another person/abuse), I would do everything I could to help them and encourage them to seek help themselves.   

ETA:

Let me clarify that if there was abuse taking place, I would feel I'd need to report that to the authorities if my companion would not go in on his own.

Edited February 28, 2020 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

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.

 

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.

I'm not following.  Are you saying a gay person who holds hands with another gay person is slipping up on something?  

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

 

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). 

 

Don't be obtuse. 

 

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. 

I'm aware.  I find the University's distinction here not only problematic but silly.  

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

 

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.

Bishop's aren't most qualified per se.  They are likely less qualified, generally speaking.  

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

 

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?

 

I agree.  BYU has created quite a pickle for itself going forward, unless it really does want to change Church teaching and notions.  I can't imagine that being even possible for BYU.  

[stemelbow]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

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.

What the....??? A gay person who graduates from BYU might brag about sticking it to the Church because he/she graduated from BYU?  

"Hahah...I went to BYU, not for an education, but I got my degree so when it was all over I could tell people I got a degree from BYU and though I paid for school, the school operates in part on moneys from members so I really stuck I to the Church."  

That is the lamest notion of sticking it to someone I could imagine.  The Church should be very happy this person got a degree, and so should everyone else.  

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What the....??? A gay person who graduates from BYU might brag about sticking it to the Church because he/she graduated from BYU?  

No.  A conniving gay person.  Surely you noticed the modifier?

And I obviously have similar objections to conniving heterosexual persons.  However, I was responding to a post asking about why gay students would want to attend BYU, so I provided a few possible motives.

Quote

"Hahah...I went to BYU, not for an education,

Yes, for an education.  But not just that.

Quote

but I got my degree so when it was all over I could tell people I got a degree from BYU and though I paid for school, the school operates in part on moneys from members so I really stuck I to the Church."  

I'm saying yes, that is possible.  

Quote

That is the lamest notion of sticking it to someone I could imagine.  The Church should be very happy this person got a degree, and so should everyone else.  

Connivance is nothing to be "happy" about.

I am quite happy with anyone who wants to attend BYU, provided they have a good faith intent to follow the Honor Code.  I find it connivance on this point (that is, someone taking up a slot at BYU while not intending to follow the Honor Code) to be reprehensible.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 28, 2020 by smac97

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

Did you serve a mission?  What would your thoughts be about one missionary "snitching" on another?

Yes, I served a mission.

And no, I would not have snitched on another missionary. 

A pity.

On my mission, we had a pair of missionaries who were assigned to a small, fairly isolated town in Taiwan.  They were also in charge of a small branch, so the senior elder was the branch president, and his companion was his assistant/counselor.  It turns out they both went wild, and did so for a period of months.  It went on for months because they were fairly isolated, and because they didn't report each other.

Once the mission president found out, he sent them home immediately.  I later heard that the missionary work in that town was essentially undone.  For years.  And the local members were demoralized.  The elders were representatives of the Church.  They should have held themselves up to a high standard of behavior.  Instead, they caused much harm to themselves, the local members, prospective members, and the Church.  Flagrant hypocrisy tends to do that.

So you'll understand why I don't feel particularly bothered by the idea of reporting substantial misconduct, particularly when the misconduct is grossly violative of a standard of behavior the violators agreed to follow.

"Snitch" is a risible word, also.

33 minutes ago, ALarson said:

If I felt they were in emotional or physical danger (or harming another person/abuse), I would do everything I could to help them and encourage them to seek help themselves.   

ETA:

Let me clarify that if there was abuse taking place, I would feel I'd need to report that to the authorities if my companion would not go in on his own.

So you would "snitch" about "abuse," but nothing else?  Why?  How did you go about drawing this line?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

49 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I can't imagine any actual person would want to suffer through 4 years just to "stick it to the church". 

I can.  And the point is that conniving persons don't "suffer through 4 years."   They lie.  They say they'll follow the Honor Code, but they don't.  That's a big part of the problem.

49 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

A very straw-man mischaracterization, hence my complaint.  

Not really.  I was responding to an inquiry as to why a gay person might want to attend BYU.  I gave a few possible reasons.

I'm aware of instances of "conniving" students at BYU (again, those who lie when agreeing to follow the Honor Code).  I'm not aware of any of them being gay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A pity.

On my mission, we had a pair of missionaries who were assigned to a small, fairly isolated town in Taiwan.  They were also in charge of a small branch, so the senior elder was the branch president, and his companion was his assistant/counselor.  It turns out they both went wild, and did so for a period of months.  It went on for months because they were fairly isolated, and because they didn't report each other.

Once the mission president found out, he sent them home immediately.  I later heard that the missionary work in that town was essentially undone.  For years.  And the local members were demoralized.  The elders were representatives of the Church.  They should have held themselves up to a high standard of behavior.  Instead, they caused much harm to themselves, the local members, prospective members, and the Church.  Flagrant hypocrisy tends to do that.

So you'll understand why I don't feel particularly bothered by the idea of reporting substantial misconduct, particularly when the misconduct is grossly violative of a standard of behavior the violators agreed to follow.

Well, what you describe sounds pretty crazy and I cannot imagine this being allowed (or hidden) for long (even in an isolated town)!  And, you asked about me snitching on my own companion....not joining in with him and being a part of what he was doing.  It sounds like the mission president handled it well.  Also, if they were both participating in it, why would you think it's odd that "they didn't report each other"?  There are all kinds of bizarre stories on missions, but as a general rule, I would definitely not snitch on a companion.  I'd handle it in other ways.....

 

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So you would "snitch" about "abuse," but nothing else?  Why?  How did you go about drawing this line?

I'd report any abuse I became aware of to the authorities.  However, if it was my own missionary companion who was the perpetrator, I'd first try to get them to turn themselves in and get help.  (I'd do this for others too if I personally knew them.....but the main thing would be to make sure the abuse stopped.)

 

 

Edited February 28, 2020 by ALarson

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, what you describe sounds pretty crazy and I cannot imagine this being allowed (or hidden) for long (even in an isolated town)! 

Well, it apparently went on for quite a while.  And apparently some people knew about it, but didn't - as you put - "snitch."  So the damage done - to the reputation of the Church, the testimonies of the members, the missionaries themselves, etc. - was exacerbated and enlarged.

Meanwhile, students at BYU have far more free time, and far less supervision/oversight, than missionaries.  Hence a lot more opportunity to violate the Honor Code.

Hence the theoretical connivance I posted about.

Quote

And, you asked about me snitching on my own companion....not joining in with him and being a part of what he was doing.  It sounds like the mission president handled it well. 

Yes. But by then, huge amounts of damage had been done.  Damage that could have been averted had someone been willing to, as you put it, "snitch" about the misconduct.

Quote

Also, if they were both participating in it, why would you think it's odd that "they didn't report each other"? 

I didn't say I "think it's odd."  I said "It went on for months because they were fairly isolated, and because they didn't report each other."

Quote

There are all kinds of bizarre stories on missions, but as a general rule, I would definitely not snitch on a companion.  I'd handle it in other ways.....

While a missionary is violating his covenants, breaking mission rules, exhibiting gross hypocrisy, undermining the entire point and purpose of missionary work, injuring the reputation of the Church and its member, etc., you would let all that happen?

Again, a pity. 

Quote

I'd report any abuse I became aware of to the authorities.  However, if it was my own missionary companion who was the perpetrator, I'd first try to get them to turn themselves in and get help.  (I'd do this for others too if I personally knew them.....but the main thing would be to make sure the abuse stopped.)

Again, why are you willing to "snitch" about "abuse," but nothing else?  How did you go about drawing this line?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 28, 2020 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours 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 can’t say what the process would be like. I’m only speculating at this point. 

My understanding is that the non-member enrollment comprises only a tiny fraction of the whole anyway because the (non-tithing-subsidized) tuition is so unfavorable. Some could get in on a scholarship, I suppose, but I don’t know how prevalent that is. 
 

Bear in mind that non-member students must agree to abide by Honor Code standards while enrolled, whether or not they embrace them as part of their own religious faith. Consider Word of Wisdom adherence, for example. Would a pastor insist that a member of his flock do that as a condition for the pastor giving the ecclesiastical endorsement? Who knows? 
 

It would be like me agreeing to abstain from pork or to eat kosher while attending a private Jewish college 

Edited February 28, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I'd report any abuse I became aware of to the authorities. 

There is more than one type of abuse. Being forced to live in a situation where another is lying and participating in actions they had promised not to do can create a harmful, abusive environment. I have heard of a few students who had to give up school for a time because they could not afford to pay for two leases and landlords or the school refused to act on reports of immorality or drug/alcohol related behaviour. 
 

If a roommate is not cooperating to create a livable environment for all living there, I think it appropriate for them to be reported.  If someone is overreacting, then it may become a chance for them to get counseling and learn coping mechanisms. If they aren’t, they have a right to get what they are paying for, a safe place in terms of physical and emotional and financial health. 

Edited February 28, 2020 by Calm

[ALarson]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, it apparently went on for quite a while.  And apparently some people knew about it, but didn't - as you put - "snitch."  So the damage done - to the reputation of the Church, the testimonies of the members, the missionaries themselves, etc. - was exacerbated and enlarged.

Meanwhile, students at BYU have far more free time, and far less supervision/oversight, than missionaries.  Hence a lot more opportunity to violate the Honor Code.

Hence the theoretical connivance I posted about.

Yes. But by then, huge amounts of damage had been done.  Damage that could have been averted had someone been willing to, as you put it, "snitch" about the misconduct.

I didn't say I "think it's odd."  I said "It went on for months because they were fairly isolated, and because they didn't report each other."

While a missionary is violating his covenants, breaking mission rules, exhibiting gross hypocrisy, undermining the entire point and purpose of missionary work, injuring the reputation of the Church and its member, etc., you would let all that happen?

Wow...you're really worked up about this 🤣

I honestly would actually have attempted to handle any of those situations by going to the person first and trying to help them and get them to go for help.  

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, why are you willing to "snitch" about "abuse," but nothing else?

I think I've already answered this and I do believe if a child or other person is being abused, it's a completely different situation (and criminal).  I would do everything possible to protect whoever was being abused and would also want to help for the perpetrator even if it took reporting him/her to the authorities.  I'd first try to get them to turn themselves in and get help.

Edited February 28, 2020 by ALarson