Byu Honor Code Matches New Handbook

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its very encouraging.  

I was thinking about the BYU tweet shortly after the initial news about the change in policy and wondering how that compares to our history on the polygamy issue.  If we take a look back at polygamy, the first manifesto was crafted to appease the government.  It was very carefully worded so as to send the message that the church would comply with the technicality of the law, but at the same time many of the leaders still believed in and continued to practice polygamy, even taking on additional wives after the first manifesto.  Hence the need for a second manifesto and a show of additional enforcement from the institution during the Reed Smoot trials.  

In summary, something that started out as just appeasing government and society on an issue, without church leaders theologically abandoning the practice of polygamy, later evolved into the idea that this abandonment of polygamy was inspired revelation and then an even more emphatic turn away from polygamy developed to the tune of where we are today with the dominant narrative being that polygamy isn't necessary for the highest exaltation and there is a strong desire to not be associated with the past practice or rhetoric on this topic.  

That's an interesting comparison.....great thoughts!  I do wonder if the tweet was worded to appease the hard liners regarding this issue ("nothing" has changed).  

17 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I wonder if we might see the same thing playing out with respect to LGB individuals.  BYU changes the policy, but then makes a vague statement asserting that in practical application terms, nothing has changed.  But it clearly has changed and the HC office isn't enforcing things the same way, and if this continues forward there could be a day where people looking backwards on this time period see the change as inspired from God and where the church culture has evolved to a point that it wants to distance itself from its homophobic past practices.  Well, thats one man's speculation about what might play out going forward.  I just was thinking it interesting to compare to our past with polygamy.  

I agree.  I do believe if no clarification is made here and those who have changed their behavior on campus (to behavior that was previously prohibited by the Honor Code) are not punished in any way, this will become the norm on campus.  

You state above: "if this continues forward there could be a day where people looking backwards on this time period see the change as inspired from God"?

Well, many already believe it is (inspired).  But, it will be interesting to watch if this stands (no clarification) and then how member's thinking and acceptance evolves.  

Edited March 3, 2020 by ALarson

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's an interesting comparison.....great thoughts!  I do wonder if the tweet was worded to appease the hard liners regarding this issue ("nothing" has changed).  

I agree.  I do believe if no clarification is made here and those who have changed their behavior on campus (to behavior that was previously prohibited by the Honor Code) are not punished in any way, this will become the norm on campus.  

You state above: "if this continues forward there could be a day where people looking backwards on this time period see the change as inspired from God"?

Well, many already believe it is (inspired).  But, it will be interesting to watch if this stands (no clarification) and then how member's thinking and acceptance evolves.  

I think this makes a whole lot of sense from my vantage point.  The church is trying to play to multiple sides on these issues.  If you think back to the infamous bubble chart that was leaked, with threats on the liberal and conservative sides (for lack of better distinctions) of these issues.  The church is constantly doing a dance, with the ultimate goal to retain as many members as possible.  These small changes give us a lot to consider and try to read between the lines around because it isn't always clear which direction the church is going and as evidenced by the policy of exclusion in Nov 2015 and its relatively quick reversal, the church has a history of changing directions on this very topic. 

Perhaps we shouldn't just be taking our vitamins, maybe some stronger medicine is needed? 

[provoman]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s bound to happen sooner or later. Assuming this isn’t some subtle form of don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy, the first time some angry student goes public because he was sanctioned for making out with his boyfriend on campus, the headlines are going to appear. 

 

53 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Assuming such a sanctioning were to happen but it isn't looking like that's where this is headed.

 

I think that is where "dating means different things" and addressed on a "case by case" is headed. 

[ALarson]

27 minutes ago, provoman said:

I think that is where "dating means different things" and addressed on a "case by case" is headed. 

What do you believe would warrant opening a case against a student who is gay and openly dating or showing affection on campus?  

Because so far, it appears that this behavior is no longer prohibited and no cases are being filed or opened (by the Honor Code Office) for "Homosexual Behavior".  

 

Edited March 3, 2020 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

DADT, with respect to gay dating, was what BYU had prior to this change.

Assuming such a sanctioning were to happen but it isn't looking like that's where this is headed.

If it wasn’t enforced before, why are people raising such a fuss about it now?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

But so far, behavior that was prohibited on campus is now being allowed.  That is a change.  So, have the "principles" not changed, but has the prohibited Homosexual "Behavior" changed regarding openly dating, hand holding, hugging and kissing between same-sex couples?  They did remove the entire section titled "Homosexual Behavior" from the honor code (another change).

It appears that is the case at least for now.  

You say it was prohibited before. Rockpond says it was don’t-ask-don’t-tell before. 
 

You guys need to get your stories straight. 

Edited March 3, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If it wasn’t enforced before, why are people raising such a fuss about it now?

Not sure what you mean by that.

The US Armed Forces "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy prohibited LGB military service members from both declarations of their sexual orientation/relationships AND open homosexual conduct.

Prior to this change, BYU was unlike DADT in that LGB students were free to disclose their sexual orientation.  But, it was similar to DADT in that open homosexual conduct could result in expulsion.

After last month's honor code change, LGB students are no longer prohibited from open homosexual conduct so long as it does not cross the line into a violation of the law of chastity.

That is why people are celebrating and/or "raising such a fuss".

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You say it was prohibited before. Rockpond says it was don’t-ask-don’t-tell before. 
 

You guys need to get your stories straight. 

You misunderstood me or didn't understand the DADT policy.  Please see my response above.

[provoman]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

What do you believe would warrant opening a case against a student who is gay and openly dating or showing affection on campus?  

Because so far, it appears that this behavior is no longer prohibited and no cases are being filed or opened (by the Honor Code Office) for "Homosexual Behavior".  

 

I do not know what would warrant opening a case, that is a case-by-case review by the HCO. 

As for "no cases are being filed or opened for homosexual behavior", do we know that.  At the very least, a Law of Chastity violation would be grounds for a case to be opened. 

[JulieM]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You say it was prohibited before. Rockpond says it was don’t-ask-don’t-tell before.

Maybe the student’s  fear of being reported is what has changed?  Read the quotes from students posted.  They were afraid to even wear socks or clothes with rainbows on them!  Now they feel free to openly date, hug and kiss on campus.  So there definitely has been a change by removing that part of the honor code.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Not sure what you mean by that.

The US Armed Forces "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy prohibited LGB military service members from both declarations of their sexual orientation/relationships AND open homosexual conduct.

Prior to this change, BYU was unlike DADT in that LGB students were free to disclose their sexual orientation.  But, it was similar to DADT in that open homosexual conduct could result in expulsion.

After last month's honor code change, LGB students are no longer prohibited from open homosexual conduct so long as it does not cross the line into a violation of the law of chastity.

That is why people are celebrating and/or "raising such a fuss".

Are you sure it is no longer prohibited? I thought there was a statement that the principles are the same but it was going to be handled case by case. If what was prohibited before is now freely allowed, doesn’t that amount to a change in principles in some respect? 

Edited March 3, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Are you sure it is no longer prohibited? I thought there was a statement that the principles are the same but it was going to be handled case by case. 

None of us are sure how this is going to be play out over the long term.  And the "principles are the same" statement is fairly nebulous.

But, if we're looking at the documented Honor Code, same gender dating is not prohibited.  And anecdotal reports seem to be that it is happening without repercussion, though not much time has passed.

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I think you probably know my question was why would the request even be made?

Do you have an answer for that?

Sure, because the church wants those attending its university to reflect the church's values and the image it wants to present. As such, being clean shaven, well kept, and modestly dressed are the order of the day.

The overwhelming majority of students are able to meet those requirements without any difficulty. 

 

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

None of us are sure how this is going to be play out over the long term. 

Well, I suppose that's true.  I think we can all make reasonable inferences, though.  And based on the current state of things, contradictory inferences can indeed be drawn.

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And the "principles are the same" statement is fairly nebulous.

I think this statement tends to militate in favor of the status quo ante remaining in place, but with oversight of this matter being shifted to the individual and his/her bishop.

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But, if we're looking at the documented Honor Code, same gender dating is not prohibited. 

The Honor Code states:

Quote

 

Church Educational System Honor Code

Brigham Young University and other Church Educational System institutions exist to provide an education in an atmosphere consistent with the ideals and principles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That atmosphere is created and preserved by a community of faculty, administration, staff, and students who voluntarily commit to conduct their lives in accordance with the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ and who strive to maintain the highest standards in their personal conduct regarding honor, integrity, morality, and consideration of others. By accepting appointment, continuing in employment, being admitted, or continuing class enrollment, each member of the BYU community personally commits to observe these Honor Code standards approved by the Board of Trustees “at all times and in all things, and in all places” (Mosiah 18:9):

• Be honest.
• Live a chaste and virtuous life, including abstaining from any sexual relations outside a marriage between a man and a woman.
• Respect others, including the avoidance of profane and vulgar language.
• Obey the law and follow campus policies.
• Abstain from alcoholic beverages, tobacco, tea, coffee, vaping, and substance abuse.
• Participate regularly in Church services (required only of Church members).
• Observe Brigham Young University’s dress and grooming standards.
• Encourage others in their commitment to comply with the Honor Code.

I wonder if "Live a chaste and virtuous life" proscribes same-sex "penumbra" behaviors.

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And anecdotal reports seem to be that it is happening without repercussion, though not much time has passed.

Yes, these are factors to consider.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I wonder if "Live a chaste and virtuous life" proscribes same-sex "penumbra" behaviors.

Only in the same way that it proscribes opposite-sex "penumbra" behaviors so long as "penumbra" doesn't violate the law of chastity ("Abstinence from sexual relations outside of a marriage between a man and a woman according to God’s law.  Fidelity within marriage.")

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, rockpond said:

None of us are sure how this is going to be play out over the long term.  And the "principles are the same" statement is fairly nebulous.

But, if we're looking at the documented Honor Code, same gender dating is not prohibited.  And anecdotal reports seem to be that it is happening without repercussion, though not much time has passed.

 

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, I suppose that's true.  I think we can all make reasonable inferences, though.  And based on the current state of things, contradictory inferences can indeed be drawn.

I think this statement tends to militate in favor of the status quo ante remaining in place, but with oversight of this matter being shifted to the individual and his/her bishop.

The Honor Code states:

I wonder if "Live a chaste and virtuous life" proscribes same-sex "penumbra" behaviors.

Yes, these are factors to consider.

Thanks,

-Smac

I should think the determining factor on the “prenumbra behaviors” would be whether they were platonic vs romantic/sexual in nature, with the former being tolerable and the latter not. Since drawing the distinction can be a complicated, matter I can see the administration/board of trustees choosing to make it a case-by-case procedure and shifting the role for its implementation to ecclesiastical leaders. If that is indeed what is happening, I’m not sure it would be readily apparent within such a short time frame; hence the “anecdotal reports” of homosexual behavior occurring  “without repercussion”.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I should think the determining factor on the “prenumbra behaviors” would be whether they were platonic vs romantic/sexual in nature, with the former being tolerable and the latter not. Since drawing the distinction can be a complicated, matter I can see the administration/board of trustees choosing to make it a case-by-case procedure and shifting the role for its implementation to ecclesiastical leaders. If that is indeed what is happening, I’m not sure it would be readily apparent within such a short time frame; hence the “anecdotal reports” of homosexual behavior occurring  “without repercussion”.

What is platonic dating?

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Quote

I wonder if "Live a chaste and virtuous life" proscribes same-sex "penumbra" behaviors.

Only in the same way that it proscribes opposite-sex "penumbra" behaviors so long as "penumbra" doesn't violate the law of chastity ("Abstinence from sexual relations outside of a marriage between a man and a woman according to God’s law.  Fidelity within marriage.")

I question that.  Heterosexual "penumbra" behaviors have long been fine at BYU (within the bounds of decorum, of course).  In contrast, homosexual "penumbra" behaviors have long been categorically prohibited.

On the "Church Educational System Honor Code Related Policies" portion of the policies page, we find this:

Quote

Students must abstain from the use of alcohol, tobacco, and illegal substances and from the intentional misuse or abuse of any substance. Sexual misconduct; obscene or indecent conduct or expressions; disorderly or disruptive conduct; participation in gambling activities; involvement with pornographic, erotic, indecent, or offensive material; 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.

Have homosexual "penumbra" behaviors ever been permitted at BYU?  Apparently not. 

Can such behaviors therefore fall within the parameters of "sexual misconduct" or "indecent conduct" or "any other conduct or action inconsistent with the principles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Honor Code"?  

Also consider these remarks by BYU:

Quote

University Spokesperson Carri Jenkins responded late Wednesday to questions clarifying what the Honor Code adjustments mean for BYU and its students:

Q. “What exactly are the changes introduced in today’s honor code update? There seems to be some confusion.“

A. “We have removed the more prescriptive language from the Honor Code and kept the focus on the principles of the Honor Code, which have not changed.”

Q. “What implications do these changes have for students at BYU?”

A. “The principles of the Honor Code remain the same. As we have said so often in the past, we will handle questions that arise on an individual, case-by-case basis.”

Q. “Was there any motivation behind these changes besides the release of the new church handbook?”

A. “To align the Honor Code with the doctrine and policies of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

The principles "have not changed."

So what were those "principles" prior to February 19, 2020 relative to homosexual "penumbra" behaviors?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Only in the same way that it proscribes opposite-sex "penumbra" behaviors so long as "penumbra" doesn't violate the law of chastity ("Abstinence from sexual relations outside of a marriage between a man and a woman according to God’s law.  Fidelity within marriage.")

I think there’s an important distinction to be drawn here. Any behavior pursuant to romance or courtship strikes me as being in conflict with the law of chastity as pertaining to homosexual relationships; not necessarily so with heterosexual relationships. The latter looks forward to culmination within a marriage authorized by the law of God; the former looks forward to culmination that is not so authorized. 
 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What is platonic dating?

You tell me. It’s your expression, not mine. It strikes me as an oxymoron. 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I question that.  Heterosexual "penumbra" behaviors have long been fine at BYU (within the bounds of decorum, of course).  In contrast, homosexual "penumbra" behaviors have long been categorically prohibited.

On the "Church Educational System Honor Code Related Policies" portion of the policies page, we find this:

Have homosexual "penumbra" behaviors ever been permitted at BYU?  Apparently not. 

Can such behaviors therefore fall within the parameters of "sexual misconduct" or "indecent conduct" or "any other conduct or action inconsistent with the principles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Honor Code"?  

Also consider these remarks by BYU:

The principles "have not changed."

So what were those "principles" prior to February 19, 2020 relative to homosexual "penumbra" behaviors?

Thanks,

-Smac

Church handbook doesn't say anything about same gender dating either, IIRC.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You tell me. It’s your expression, not mine. It strikes me as an oxymoron. 

It's not my expression.  I agree that it's an oxymoron.  I thought that's what your comments were referring to.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think there’s an important distinction to be drawn here. Any behavior pursuant to romance or courtship strikes me as being in conflict with the law of chastity as pertaining to homosexual relationships; not necessarily so with heterosexual relationships. The latter looks forward to culmination within a marriage authorized by the law of God; the former looks forward to culmination that is not so authorized. 
 

That's fine.  But I'm not talking about what strikes you as being in conflict with the law of chastity.  I'm focusing on the actual text of the Honor Code and General Handbook.

Edited March 3, 2020 by rockpond

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

It's not my expression.  I agree that it's an oxymoron.  I thought that's what your comments were referring to.

Where in anything I’ve written here have I ever used the expression “platonic dating”?

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Where in anything I’ve written here have I ever used the expression “platonic dating”?

You wrote the following in response to Smac's comment "same-sex "penumbra" behaviors"...

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I should think the determining factor on the “prenumbra behaviors” would be whether they were platonic vs romantic/sexual in nature, with the former being tolerable and the latter not.

It's not really all that important and I'm fine dropping it entirely.  You have since expanded on those remarks.  I just didn't understand what a platonic same-sex penumbra behavior might be.

Edited March 3, 2020 by rockpond