Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Byu Honor Code Matches New Handbook


Calm

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here's what I think:

We live in an era where "transgressive" behavior is cool.  Not content with merely testing boundaries, some in our society seem to revel in deliberately trashing boundaries for any reason, or no particular reason at all.  To an extent, we seem to sometimes witness transgressivism for its own sake. 

Put another way, I think we are seeing folks busting up Chesterton's Fence all over the place (or trying to):

I think the severity of such behaviors is getting worse because we live in a much more interconnected and information-is-instantly-available-at-our-fingertips world.  

I think the severity of this transgressivism ramps up through one-upmanship.  If Person A comes along and pushes against Chesterton's Fence, Person B says "Oh yeah?  Well here, I'm going to actually tear down the fence and spit on it.  Ptooey!"  Person C then comes along and says "Hold my beer.  I'm going to douse the fence in gasoline, torch it, and then dance on its smoldering ashes."  And so on.

While Persons A, B and C are having their little spat about who is the biggest, baddest transgressivist, Person X comes along and re-builds the fence.  Person X, you see, found value in the fence.  It was likely built in the first place for a reason, after all.  However, Persons A/B/C then throw a collective hissy fit. How dare Person X question or oppose their destruction of the fence!  "Check your privilege, X!", they scream.  They then proceed to insult and malign and ridicule X for daring to want to maintain the fence.

And so on.  Such stuff is repeated as much as is necessary to avoid any thoughtful introspection about why the fence was there in the first place.  X could attempt to explain the purpose of the fence, but he'll likely get shouted down.  And branded a backward-thinking, hate-filled bigot.  Not because he has expressed any hatred or bigotry, but rather because he thinks the fence has worth and purpose, and because he dares to speak what he thinks.  And for that, he must be punished.

I think we are seeing many instances in society of thoughtless, feckless transgressivism, a big component of which is a sort of bullying that insults others for daring to consider the continuing utility of, and hence the importance of preserving, Chesterton's Fence.  The bullying is intended to distract observers and participants about the actual location and purpose of the fence.  The focus then becomes less about the fence itself, and more about which method of destroying it is appropriate.  The bullying is intended to make destruction of the fence a foregone conclusion, such that any suggestion of preserving it is dismissed, ridiculed, scorned, even punished.

Anyhoo, back to the topic of the Honor Code.  I suspect we'll see BYU and the Church re-affirm the Honor Code in most or all respects.  This will trigger a hue and cry from some who will act like, well, Persons A/B/C above.

Time will tell, I guess.

Thanks,

-Smac

So far, in this case, there is no evidence of anyone busting up Chesterton's fence.  So you're just hypothesizing that it could happen in response to however BYU chooses to respond to what they've just done with their honor code?

Okay.

 

Link to comment

Charlie Bird, the man who played Cosmo from 2015 to 2018, came out of the closet a few months after graduating. His reaction was that this change was "a big step in the right direction." In his words: "On Wednesday, BYU updated its honor code and removed the two paragraphs that used to make up the “Homosexual Behavior” section. I called a dear friend of mine who works as a BYU administrator to verify the change, then sat outside on the sidewalk to process the news. I thought about how God grants his children the divine gift of agency and how beautiful it is that BYU’s updated honor code uses more principle-based language for LGBTQ students. I applaud that LGBTQ students can now operate more fully in the light. I anticipate a decrease in students who feel the need to lie about who they are. I anticipate a dramatic decrease in secretive, anonymous dating and cases of heartbreaking sexual assault. "

What I found most interesting about this is where his reaction was published:

https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2020/2/19/21144720/byu-honor-code-gay-homosexual-behavior-lgbtq-agency

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, provoman said:
Quote

But I don't see it as a "softening" of the Law of Chastity's prohibition against same-sex behavior.  At all.

Law of Chastity being a specific law:

Quote

The Lord’s law of chastity is:

Abstinence from sexual relations outside of a marriage between a man and a woman according to God’s law.

Fidelity within marriage.

The Law of Chastity applies equally to all in the Church, regardless of orientation, in generic terms no fornication and if married no adultery.

Agreed.  

And also further explained here:

Quote

Sexual relations are reserved for a man and woman who are married and promise complete loyalty to each other. Sexual relations between a man and woman who are not married, or between people of the same sex, violate one of our Father in Heaven’s most important laws and get in the way of our eternal progress.

I assume we agree on this?

21 minutes ago, provoman said:

The applicability of the Law Of Chastity supports the statement from BYU that 'principles remain the same' concerning the Honor Code - violations of the Law of Chastity remain the same.  And with the emphasis on, along with the specificity of, the  Law of Chastity and removal of "homosexual behavior" as honor code violation, reasonably creates confusion of whether gay kissing violate the Law of Chastity.  

I question how reasonable that confusion is.  Surely a married man can't behave "romantically" with a woman other than his wife (go on dates, hold hands, kiss, cuddle, etc.) and then say "Hey, I was reasonably confused about whether such things violate the Law of Chastity."

Latter-day Saint teens and young adults are being taught a code of sexual ethics.  This code was previously shared by large swaths of society, but now fewer and fewer people adhere to it, and instead have allowed incremental degrees of permissiveness to virtually obliterate this code.  

Many folks (including, sadly, some in the Church) seem to harbor some expectation that the Church will incrementally dismantle the Law of Chastity relative to same-sex behavior and same-sex marriage.  I think some are seeing this story about the honor code as indicative of such an incremental process.  I question that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So far, in this case, there is no evidence of anyone busting up Chesterton's fence. 

This

Quote

It is confirmed. Gay dating is okay, kissing and hand holding from the mouth of an HCO counselor. Featuring my first gay kiss

BYU students engaging in same-sex behavior on campus.  In front of the statue of Brigham Young.

24984076-8022527-image-a-9_1582215837942

This isn't pushing down the fence?  At all?  

Are you sure?

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So you're just hypothesizing that it could happen in response to however BYU chooses to respond to what they've just done with their honor code?

Okay.

I'm observing what has happened many times over in the Culture Wars.  And yes, I'm hypothesizing what might happen in relation to this current story.

To wit:

24984056-8022527-image-a-21_158221619016

24984058-8022527-image-a-20_158221618255

Huh.  A protest on campus.  About the Honor Code that every student knew about and agreed to before matriculating.

Are you sure there's no risk to Chesterton's Fence?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This

BYU students engaging in same-sex behavior on campus.  In front of the statue of Brigham Young.

24984076-8022527-image-a-9_1582215837942

This isn't pushing down the fence?  At all?  

Are you sure?

Is the post immature?  Yeah.  Do I expect immaturity on social media from college students?  It's kinda the norm.  Is celebrating the change tearing down the fence?  No.

 

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm observing what has happened many times over in the Culture Wars.  And yes, I'm hypothesizing what might happen in relation to this current story.

To wit:

24984056-8022527-image-a-21_158221619016

24984058-8022527-image-a-20_158221618255

Huh.  A protest on campus.  About the Honor Code that every student knew about and agreed to before matriculating.

Are you sure there's no risk to Chesterton's Fence?

Thanks,

-Smac

These two tweets are about the change that was made to the honor code and then the backtracking by the HCO.  Chesterton's Fence doesn't really come into play here.

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Many folks (including, sadly, some in the Church) seem to harbor some expectation that the Church will incrementally dismantle the Law of Chastity relative to same-sex behavior and same-sex marriage.  I think some are seeing this story about the honor code as indicative of such an incremental process.  I question that.

Keep questioning.  But, in just the last year we've seen policy changes removing the baptismal ban for children of same-gender couples, same-gender marriage has been removed from the list of actions constituting apostasy, Church leaders began widely using the term "LGBT" in public discourse, and now BYU has removed the prescriptive prohibition against dating for same sex couples.

I don't believe and have never suggested that the law of chastity would be dismantled.  It won't. Ever. Happen.  But I contend that we, as a church, are on a long journey that seems to be heading toward a day when same gender marriage will be recognized within the law of chastity.  The last 10 months seem to have increased the pace.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Keep questioning.  But, in just the last year we've seen policy changes removing the baptismal ban for children of same-gender couples, same-gender marriage has been removed from the list of actions constituting apostasy, Church leaders began widely using the term "LGBT" in public discourse, and now BYU has removed the prescriptive prohibition against dating for same sex couples.

We have become similarly gentler in relation to other violations of the Law of Chastity, such as fornication, pornography, etc.

Quote

I don't believe and have never suggested that the law of chastity would be dismantled.  It won't. Ever. Happen. 

And yet...

Quote

But I contend that we, as a church, are on a long journey that seems to be heading toward a day when same gender marriage will be recognized within the law of chastity.  The last 10 months seem to have increased the pace.

I think you are setting yourself up for disappointment.  

If SSM is accepted/endorsed by the Church, then I'll have some thinking to do.  If it is not accepted/endorsed, I'm concerned some folks like you will use it as a litmus test.

In the end, it comes down to keeping covenants in difficult times.  I hope we both end up doing so.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Agreed.  

And also further explained here:

I assume we agree on this?

I question how reasonable that confusion is.  Surely a married man can't behave "romantically" with a woman other than his wife (go on dates, hold hands, kiss, cuddle, etc.) and then say "Hey, I was reasonably confused about whether such things violate the Law of Chastity."

Latter-day Saint teens and young adults are being taught a code of sexual ethics.  This code was previously shared by large swaths of society, but now fewer and fewer people adhere to it, and instead have allowed incremental degrees of permissiveness to virtually obliterate this code.  

Many folks (including, sadly, some in the Church) seem to harbor some expectation that the Church will incrementally dismantle the Law of Chastity relative to same-sex behavior and same-sex marriage.  I think some are seeing this story about the honor code as indicative of such an incremental process.  I question that.

Thanks,

-Smac

I do not how to create the quote like you so I will do my best to address each statement of your

The further explained, that is also linked in the General Hand chapter 38 section regarding same-sex attraction/same-sex behavior. 

"Sexual relations between a man and woman who are not married, or between people of the same sex, violate one of our Father in Heaven’s most important laws and get in the way of our eternal progress. People of any sexual orientation who violate the law of chastity can be reconciled with God through repentance."

Do "sexual relations" mean what society would consider sex or do sexual relations include kissing, hugging, etc? Now I accept that if the Church is focusing solely on the sex aspect of Law of Chastity regarding unmarried relations regardless of sexual orientation, that that would be major change in position from two days ago.

If the Church intends that homosexual behavior as previously understood to remain in violation of Law of Chastity, then I think such should be made known - and we just live through the push back.

As for a spouse romantically dating, kissing, cuddle, with a person not their spouse...I can accept that some of that conduct would violate the express letter of the Law of Chastity, and I can see how some of the conduct would violate any fidelity circumscribed within spirit of the Law of Chastity....however, I believe marriage is a differentiating factor between the unmarried kissing, cuddling, romantically dating. 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

same gender marriage will be recognized within the law of chastity. 

Since homosexual behavior was/is*** forbidden within the law of Chastity, many would see that as "dismantling" and understandably so, imo.

***losing track of how currently phrased and don't want to check right now.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Since homosexual behavior is forbidden within the law of Chastity currently, many would see that as "dismantling" and understandably so, imo.

I certainly understand that view, but I would not use the word "dismantling".  I see it more as making another change to the Law of Chastity, altering or changing the wording....which has been done before.  So, it is not out of the question that it may be altered again, IMO.  

I can definitely see a change made to include those within a committed SSM that would allow them to be able to be obedient to the Law of Chastity (with a slight change in the wording) just as married heterosexual couples can.  

Will it happen?  I honestly don't know (of course), but there is certainly reason to have more hope for this today than there was even a year ago.

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
1 minute ago, provoman said:

I do not how to create the quote like you so I will do my best to address each statement of your

The further explained, that is also linked in the General Hand chapter 38 section regarding same-sex attraction/same-sex behavior. 

"Sexual relations between a man and woman who are not married, or between people of the same sex, violate one of our Father in Heaven’s most important laws and get in the way of our eternal progress. People of any sexual orientation who violate the law of chastity can be reconciled with God through repentance."

Do "sexual relations" mean what society would consider sex or do sexual relations include kissing, hugging, etc?

I think that's sort of akin to asking "Is fidelity to one's spouse limited to sexual relations?  Or is kissing/hugging/dating/handholding with another woman appropriate?"

However, it may be that BYU is going to allow some leeway on this.  I would be surprised, but I'll leave that to those in authority.

1 minute ago, provoman said:

Now I accept that if the Church is focusing solely on the sex aspect of Law of Chastity regarding unmarried relations regardless of sexual orientation, that that would be major change in position from two days ago.

If the Church intends that homosexual behavior as previously understood to remain in violation of Law of Chastity, then I think such should be made known - and we just live through the push back.

As for a spouse romantically dating, kissing, cuddle, with a person not their spouse...I can accept that some of that conduct would violate the express letter of the Law of Chastity, and I can see how some of the conduct would violate any fidelity circumscribed within spirit of the Law of Chastity....however, I believe marriage is a differentiating factor between the unmarried kissing, cuddling, romantically dating. 

Okay.  How about pornography?  Is that a violation of the Law of Chastity?

Masturbation?  Groping?  "Petting?"  

Mosiah 4:29-30 comes to mind: 

Quote

And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them.

But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not.

It seems like the Church is trying to get away from checklists, and more toward a principles-based approach to matters of self-governance.  I think that is admirable, but I think this is where boundary-pushing/destroying transgressivists will attempt to parse out the Law of Chastity in ways such as what you suggest above.  This process is how some BYU students end up rationalizing everything-right-up-to-but-not-quite-including-penetrative-sex sorts of behaviors.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I certainly understand that view, but I would not use the word "dismantling".  I see it more as making another change to the Law of Chastity,

"Another change?"  What changes do you imagine have already been made?

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

altering or changing the wording....which has been done before.  So, it is not out of the question that it may be altered again, IMO.  

Changing wording, yes.  Changing the substance, no.

Adultery?  Nope.

Fornication?  Nope.

Same-sex relations?  Nope.

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I can definitely see a change made to include those within a committed SSM that would allow them to be able to be obedient to the Law of Chastity (with a slight change in the wording) just as married heterosexual couples can.

Wishful thinking, I think.  That's all.

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Will it happen?  I honestly don't know (of course), but there is certainly reason to have more hope for this today than there was even a year ago.

I hope it does not happen.  Homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage seem manifestly incompatible with the Plan of Salvation.

I am concerned that folks like you are setting yourselves up for disappointment.  I am concerned that some are turning or will turn this issue (validation/endorsement/recognition of same-sex behavior/marriage in the Church) into a litmus test.  An either-it-happens-or-I'm-out sort of ultimatum.  To the Church.  To God.  The keeping of covenants, meanwhile, become a secondary concern.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This process is how some BYU students end up rationalizing everything-right-up-to-but-not-quite-including-penetrative-sex sorts of behaviors.

Or the folktale of the quickie marriage and then divorce weekend in Las Vegas for a weekend of sex.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Calm said:

Or the folktale of the quickie marriage and then divorce weekend in Las Vegas for a weekend of sex.

I heard that story when I was at BYU, but I was not referencing that.  No need to go to such lengths to rationalize incremental violations of the Law of Chastity.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If SSM is accepted/endorsed by the Church, then I'll have some thinking to do.

Thinking about what?

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I am concerned that folks like you are setting yourselves up for disappointment.  I am concerned that some are turning or will turn this issue (validation/endorsement/recognition of same-sex behavior/marriage in the Church) into a litmus test.  An either-it-happens-or-I'm-out sort of ultimatum.  To the Church.  To God.  The keeping of covenants, meanwhile, become a secondary concern.

I remain a member in good standing in the church even with my personal beliefs standing in contrast to current church teachings.  Clearly this isn't a litmus test for me nor is it something that is causing me to reconsider my covenants or my relationship with God.

But based on your comment above, it sounds like you might reconsider your relationship with the church if SSM was accepted.  So, for whom is this a litmus test?

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I see it more as making another change to the Law of Chastity, altering or changing the wording....which has been done before.

Outside of plural marriage no longer allowed in mortality (which was doctrinally consistent all along given Jacob 2), what alterations do you see.

And what would actually be the line for dismantling the Law of Chastity in your view? (Just curious, not meaning to argue)

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I certainly understand that view, but I would not use the word "dismantling".  I see it more as making another change to the Law of Chastity, altering or changing the wording....which has been done before.  So, it is not out of the question that it may be altered again, IMO.  

I can definitely see a change made to include those within a committed SSM that would allow them to be able to be obedient to the Law of Chastity (with a slight change in the wording) just as married heterosexual couples can.  

Will it happen?  I honestly don't know.

You can incrementally dismantle a thing or you can, by degrees, “change” it out of existence. Two ways of saying the same thing, as I see it. 

Once your long-hoped-for day has come and same-sex marriage is no longer prohibited under the law of chastity, what then? Will heterosexual couples, citing sincere and earnest love within their unmarried partnerships, push to have the Church drop the requirement of marriage as essential for obeying the law of chastity? 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Once your long-hoped-for day has come and same-sex marriage is no longer prohibited under the law of chastity, what then? Will heterosexual couples, citing sincere and earnest love within their unmarried partnerships, push to have the Church drop the requirement of marriage as essential for obeying the law of chastity? 

You ought to be able to see the difference in those two things.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Another change?"  What changes do you imagine have already been made?

It used to be that members could live the law of chastity and not be legally married (polygamy).  The wording was changed.

 

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Changing wording, yes.  Changing the substance, no.

Adultery?  Nope.

Fornication?  Nope.

Same-sex relations?  Nope.

Here is the wording that is on the church website:

Quote

 

The Law of Chastity

What is the law of chastity?

We are to have sexual relations only with our spouse to whom we are legally married. No one, male or female, is to have sexual relations before marriage. After marriage, sexual relations are permitted only with our spouse.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-39-the-law-of-chastity?lang=eng

That very well could easily include those entering a SSM.

No mention of sexual relations ONLY between "a man and a woman".   

I'm not saying this will happen, but when there has been changes made in the past, there may very will be more changes in the future.   One may not believe that it was ever ok to have sex with a partner who you were not legally married to and still be obedient to the Law of Chastity.  

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Thinking about what?

About how to reconcile my perspective with that change.

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:
Quote

I am concerned that folks like you are setting yourselves up for disappointment.  I am concerned that some are turning or will turn this issue (validation/endorsement/recognition of same-sex behavior/marriage in the Church) into a litmus test.  An either-it-happens-or-I'm-out sort of ultimatum.  To the Church.  To God.  The keeping of covenants, meanwhile, become a secondary concern.

I remain a member in good standing in the church even with my personal beliefs standing in contrast to current church teachings. 

I was attempting to make my observation non-personal.  Not directed at you.  Hence "I am concerned that folks like you..."  Perhaps I should have been more clear about that.  I have no interest in questioning or adjudicating your standing in the Church.

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Clearly this isn't a litmus test for me nor is it something that is causing me to reconsider my covenants or my relationship with God.

I am glad to hear it.  Unfortunately, I have known a number of people who have used this issue as a litmus test.

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But based on your comment above, it sounds like you might reconsider your relationship with the church if SSM was accepted. 

No, I wouldn't.

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So, for whom is this a litmus test?

Not for me.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Outside of plural marriage no longer allowed in mortality (which was doctrinally consistent all along given Jacob 2), what alterations do you see.

The actual wording of the Law of Chastity was changed (to no longer include those not legally married).  That's all I'm saying would need to occur to include those entering a SSM.

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

And what would actually be the line for dismantling the Law of Chastity in your view? (Just curious, not meaning to argue)

Just as I stated above to Smac (and no "dismantling" needed, IMO).  This wording (from churchofjesuschrist.org) could very easily include those in a SSM:

Quote

 

What is the law of chastity?

We are to have sexual relations only with our spouse to whom we are legally married. No one, male or female, is to have sexual relations before marriage. After marriage, sexual relations are permitted only with our spouse.

 

 

Link to comment

 

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That very well could easily include those entering a SSM.

That manual was written in 2003 iirc, significantly before the time of legal gay marriage statewide.  

Had any states legalized gay marriage by then?  What about countries?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, ALarson said:

My too early prediction of the future (I'm very bad at predictions, I have no seer stone to help me unfortunately).  

I predict that BYU will slowly stop disciplining gay students for showing affection towards members of the same sex.  These behaviors will become normalized and accepted over the next few years.  I doubt that BYU leaders backtracking statements asserting that nothing has changed, will actually hold up on this subject.  Hallelujah!  

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...