Scott Lloyd Posted March 3, 2020 Posted March 3, 2020 2 minutes ago, rockpond said: 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 I’m drawing inferences regarding what might be the intent of recent changes. Which is all any of us can do it at this point. I’m saying it would strike me as highly inconsistent to forbid homosexual intercourse but tolerate behavior leading up or looking forward thereto.
smac97 Posted March 3, 2020 Posted March 3, 2020 5 minutes ago, rockpond said: Church handbook doesn't say anything about same gender dating either, IIRC. I'm reminded of a scene from A Man for All Seasons. Thomas More is on trial for refusing to swear to the Oath of Supremacy. From Wikipedia: Quote Upon returning home, Meg informs her father that a new oath is being circulated and that all must take it or face charges of high treason. Initially, More says he would be willing to take the oath, provided it refers only to the King's marriage to Boleyn. Upon learning that it names the King as Supreme Head of the Church, More refuses to take it and is subsequently imprisoned in the Tower of London. More remains steadfast in his refusal to take the Oath and refuses to explain his objections, knowing that he cannot be convicted if he hasn't explicitly denied the King's supremacy. A request for new books to read backfires, resulting in confiscation of the books he has, and Rich removes them from More's cell. More is finally brought to trial, but refuses to speak about the marriage or why he will not take the Oath, and cites his silence in defence. Here's the dialogue at the trial, involving More and Cromwell as the prosecutor: Quote Cromwell: Now, Sir Thomas, you stand on your silence. Sir Thomas More: I do. Cromwell: But, gentlemen of the jury, there are many kinds of silence. Consider first the silence of a man who is dead. Let us suppose we go into the room where he is laid out, and we listen: what do we hear? Silence. What does it betoken, this silence? Nothing; this is silence pure and simple. But let us take another case. Suppose I were to take a dagger from my sleeve and make to kill the prisoner with it; and my lordships there, instead of crying out for me to stop, maintained their silence. That would betoken! It would betoken a willingness that I should do it, and under the law, they will be guilty with me. So silence can, according to the circumstances, speak! Let us consider now the circumstances of the prisoner's silence. The oath was put to loyal subjects up and down the country, and they all declared His Grace's title to be just and good. But when it came to the prisoner, he refused! He calls this silence. Yet is there a man in this court - is there a man in this country! - who does not know Sir Thomas More's opinion of this title? Crowd in court gallery: No! Cromwell: Yet how can this be? Because this silence betokened, nay, this silence was, not silence at all, but most eloquent denial! Sir Thomas More: Not so. Not so, Master Secretary. The maxim is "Qui tacet consentire": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent". If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented, not that I denied. Cromwell: Is that in fact what the world construes from it? Do you pretend that is what you wish the world to construe from it? Sir Thomas More: The world must construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law. Does the removal of an express prohibition from the Honor Code warrant a conclusion that the previously-expressly-prohibited conduct is now authorized? Because "Silence Gives Consent"? I have my doubts about that. Thanks, -Smac 2
rockpond Posted March 3, 2020 Posted March 3, 2020 1 minute ago, smac97 said: I'm reminded of a scene from A Man for All Seasons. Thomas More is on trial for refusing to swear to the Oath of Supremacy. From Wikipedia: Here's the dialogue at the trial, involving More and Cromwell as the prosecutor: Does the removal of an express prohibition from the Honor Code warrant a conclusion that the previously-expressly-prohibited conduct is now authorized? Because "Silence Gives Consent"? I have my doubts about that. Thanks, -Smac Making a change to the honor code isn't silence. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted March 3, 2020 Posted March 3, 2020 Just now, rockpond said: You wrote the following in response to Smac's comment "same-sex "penumbra" behaviors"... It's not really all that important and I'm find dropping it entirely. You have since expanded on those remarks. I just didn't understand what a platonic same-sex penumbra behavior might be. Your quotation from me did not contain the expression “platonic dating”. I neither stated nor implied it. It was you who dropped it into the conversation. It is an inane expression, oxymoronic because of the non-platonic connotation of “dating”. You seem to agree, so I will not accept your implying that it came from me. Doing so is quite underhanded.
smac97 Posted March 3, 2020 Posted March 3, 2020 16 minutes ago, rockpond said: Making a change to the honor code isn't silence. Isn't silence your point, though? Removal of the express prohibition against homosexual "penumbra" behaviors ---> Silence re: homosexual "penumbra" behaviors ---> Consent / Permission for homosexual "penumbra" behaviors? Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Thanks, -Smac
Scott Lloyd Posted March 3, 2020 Posted March 3, 2020 (edited) 25 minutes ago, rockpond said: Making a change to the honor code isn't silence. I think Smac is expressing doubt that removal from the handbook of wording giving express disapproval of certain behavior means that the behavior is now acceptable. I doubt it as well. In fact, I would be very surprised if any future official statement from BYU or the Church would sustain that conclusion. Edited March 3, 2020 by Scott Lloyd
Sunslight Posted March 3, 2020 Posted March 3, 2020 The church/ school is going to have to come out and define the law of chastity better to include acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior. Same sex dating and kissing in a romantic way is not keeping the law of chastity. 2
Calm Posted March 3, 2020 Author Posted March 3, 2020 1 hour ago, provoman said: 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. If it goes first to their bishop, it may take longer for an endorsement to be pulled or even told it will be pulled if they don't change conduct. The bishop has to find out somehow, probably has a few counseling sessions where he may or may not speak about the endorsement try to get to know how the student plans to live his life, then moving into giving the student a chance to choose between endorsement and conduct.
rockpond Posted March 3, 2020 Posted March 3, 2020 35 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I’m saying it would strike me as highly inconsistent to forbid homosexual intercourse but tolerate behavior leading up or looking forward thereto. And, it strikes me as highly inconsistent to say that there is nothing wrong with being homosexual, but forbid acting on it. Yet these seem to be things that our church leaders are saying. 1
rockpond Posted March 3, 2020 Posted March 3, 2020 3 minutes ago, Sunslight said: The church/ school is going to have to come out and define the law of chastity better to include acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior. Same sex dating and kissing in a romantic way is not keeping the law of chastity. Reference please.
longview Posted March 3, 2020 Posted March 3, 2020 1 minute ago, Sunslight said: The church/ school is going to have to come out and define the law of chastity better to include acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior. Same sex dating and kissing in a romantic way is not keeping the law of chastity. Its like what the Supreme Court explained: we can't really define pornography but we know it when we see it. Hence the need for the student to counsel with his/her bishop. If it is hot and heavy: WHOA!
rockpond Posted March 3, 2020 Posted March 3, 2020 34 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Your quotation from me did not contain the expression “platonic dating”. I neither stated nor implied it. It was you who dropped it into the conversation. It is an inane expression, oxymoronic because of the non-platonic connotation of “dating”. You seem to agree, so I will not accept your implying that it came from me. Doing so is quite underhanded. My apologies if I implied that you said "platonic dating". I was seeking to understand your comments, not trying to put words in your mouth.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 3, 2020 Posted March 3, 2020 4 minutes ago, Calm said: If it goes first to their bishop, it may take longer for an endorsement to be pulled or even told it will be pulled if they don't change conduct. The bishop has to find out somehow, probably has a few counseling sessions where he may or may not speak about the endorsement try to get to know how the student plans to live his life, then moving into giving the student a chance to choose between endorsement and conduct. If a case goes to a bishop, how would we even know about that? Wouldn’t it be confidential?
Sunslight Posted March 3, 2020 Posted March 3, 2020 5 minutes ago, rockpond said: Reference please. Chastity is defined as proper intimate relations between a man and a woman. Anything outside of that is not chaste. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted March 3, 2020 Posted March 3, 2020 4 minutes ago, rockpond said: And, it strikes me as highly inconsistent to say that there is nothing wrong with being homosexual, but forbid acting on it. Yet these seem to be things that our church leaders are saying. How is that being inconsistent? It reflects a recognition on the part of the Church that a person’s sexual orientation may be beyond his control but that how or whether he chooses to act on it is very much within his control. That strikes me as eminently reasonable. For you to call it inconsistent seems argumentative. 1
hope_for_things Posted March 3, 2020 Posted March 3, 2020 1 hour 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 You might find my earlier musings interesting in the thread this morning. I see a possibility for this scenario to play out similar to polygamy, and how what started out with the manifesto as a carefully worded appeasement as a means to an end, later became seen as inspiration for the dominant practice in a church that distances itself from the prior essential and collective identity defining doctrine of polygamy. I can easily see this happening with LGB behaviors and the removal of the prior prohibition which over time could lead to a distancing from the very idea of discrimination against the LGB community.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 3, 2020 Posted March 3, 2020 8 minutes ago, rockpond said: My apologies if I implied that you said "platonic dating". I was seeking to understand your comments, not trying to put words in your mouth. Fair enough.
rockpond Posted March 3, 2020 Posted March 3, 2020 20 minutes ago, smac97 said: Isn't silence your point, though? Removal of the express prohibition against homosexual "penumbra" behaviors ---> Silence re: homosexual "penumbra" behaviors ---> Consent / Permission for homosexual "penumbra" behaviors? Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Thanks, -Smac From your example: "Suppose I were to take a dagger from my sleeve and make to kill the prisoner with it; and my lordships there, instead of crying out for me to stop, maintained their silence. That would betoken! It would betoken a willingness that I should do it, and under the law, they will be guilty with me. So silence can, according to the circumstances, speak!" In this case, our prophet and apostles oversee a University that just made a significant change to the Honor Code. Their silence. according to the circumstances, speaks to their approval of the change, not their disapproval. Their silence leaves the change in place. They have the power and authority to reverse, revise, or clarify the change and they have chosen not to do so. *Please know that I am not comparing the Honor Code change to murder nor am I saying that the prophet/apostles are like silent witnesses to a murder. Just building on the example that was given.
smac97 Posted March 3, 2020 Posted March 3, 2020 1 minute ago, rockpond said: Quote I’m saying it would strike me as highly inconsistent to forbid homosexual intercourse but tolerate behavior leading up or looking forward thereto. And, it strikes me as highly inconsistent to say that there is nothing wrong with being homosexual, but forbid acting on it. Well, the Church teaches: Quote Same-sex attraction refers to emotional, physical, or sexual attraction to a person of the same gender. The experience of same-sex attraction is not the same for everyone. Some people may feel exclusively attracted to the same gender, while others may feel attracted to both genders. The Church distinguishes between same-sex attraction and homosexual behavior. People who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual can make and keep covenants with God and fully and worthily participate in the Church. Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin and does not prohibit one from participating in the Church, holding callings, or attending the temple. Sexual purity is an essential part of God’s plan for our happiness. 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. So what is the inconsistency? The Church teaches that sexual relations are proper within a closed set ("reserved for a man and woman who are married"). All other sexual relations ("between a man and woman who are not married, or between people of the same sex") are prohibited. An unmarried heterosexual male may be sexually attracted to a woman to whom he is not married. That's not wrong per se, but acting on it is. Seem pretty consistent. Thanks, -Smac 2
smac97 Posted March 3, 2020 Posted March 3, 2020 1 minute ago, rockpond said: From your example: "Suppose I were to take a dagger from my sleeve and make to kill the prisoner with it; and my lordships there, instead of crying out for me to stop, maintained their silence. That would betoken! It would betoken a willingness that I should do it, and under the law, they will be guilty with me. So silence can, according to the circumstances, speak!" In this case, our prophet and apostles oversee a University that just made a significant change to the Honor Code. Their silence. according to the circumstances, speaks to their approval of the change, not their disapproval. I'm not sure the Brethren have been "silent." I think they approved the change to the wording of the Honor Code. What I find questionable, though, is the notion that "the change" amounts to a tacit approval/authorization of homosexual "penumbra" behaviors. 1 minute ago, rockpond said: Their silence leaves the change in place. Their silence also leaves "the principles of the Honor Code ... {un}changed." 1 minute ago, rockpond said: They have the power and authority to reverse, revise, or clarify the change and they have chosen not to do so. Yes. How is that significant? 1 minute ago, rockpond said: *Please know that I am not comparing the Honor Code change to murder nor am I saying that the prophet/apostles are like silent witnesses to a murder. Just building on the example that was given. Sure. I understood that. Thanks, -Smac 1
Kenngo1969 Posted March 3, 2020 Posted March 3, 2020 12 minutes ago, longview said: Its like what the Supreme Court explained: we can't really define pornography but we know it when we see it. Hence the need for the student to counsel with his/her bishop. If it is hot and heavy: WHOA! I don't necessarily disagree, but to be precise, it was only one United States Supreme Court Justice who coined the aphorism, "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it": Justice Potter Stewart.
Calm Posted March 3, 2020 Author Posted March 3, 2020 41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I’m saying it would strike me as highly inconsistent to forbid homosexual intercourse but tolerate behavior leading up or looking forward thereto. It would seem contrary to at least how keeping commandments have been taught, such as the analogy of staying away from the cliff as much as possible rather than going up to the edge. At the very least, I am thinking it needs to be clarified whether this is allowing students to make what is seen as poor choices in pursuing same sex romantic relationships up to, but not including sex or such is no longer seen as poor choices...which honestly to me makes no sense if sex and same sex marriage (when one knows the Law of Chastity) are seen as sins. No one with the least idea of human romantic behaviour would assume that in accepting all behaviour as appropriate right up to the point of no return there won't be students crossing the line in the heat of passion. It is allowed with heterosexual in one sense because there is the possibility of marriage, with that as a future some arousing of physical passion is wise to encourage marriage and hopefully most will be able to delay gratification. Those who don't can still marry without being sealed and work through repentance that way. Or pull back and repent, but still are working towards marriage . Same sex relationships don't currently have that option, so allowing the lighting of dynamite while forbidding it exploding...not seeing how that could possibly work. So if it is about allowing people to make their own choices and then live with the consequences, I would to expect strongly worded teachings from church leaders that same sex romantic behaviour is walking near the cliff and those who want to remain chaste will avoid it. 2
Calm Posted March 3, 2020 Author Posted March 3, 2020 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: If a case goes to a bishop, how would we even know about that? Wouldn’t it be confidential? Honor code office didn't announce them either, did they? At least not until already public. If not, then we find out as it always has been. The student shares the info publicly, someone breaks confidentiality, or someone who they have shared it with privately makes it public. Edited March 3, 2020 by Calm
hope_for_things Posted March 3, 2020 Posted March 3, 2020 20 minutes ago, Sunslight said: The church/ school is going to have to come out and define the law of chastity better to include acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior. Same sex dating and kissing in a romantic way is not keeping the law of chastity. I'll continue to say it, but I don't think we'll see any official clarification statements coming out. Essentially the ground has moved on this issue and the people hoping for official communication on all sides of this discussion aren't going to get it. BYU is no longer enforcing the old rules, they are moving forward and people will have to get comfortable with the new normal. Does this change views on how Chastity is defined? Overtime, I would argue yes, but for the time being as evidenced in this thread there are those who define it differently than how its currently being enforced in the new BYU honor code. 2
rockpond Posted March 3, 2020 Posted March 3, 2020 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: I'm not sure the Brethren have been "silent." I think they approved the change to the wording of the Honor Code. Okay - what have the Brethren said regarding the honor code change? 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: What I find questionable, though, is the notion that "the change" amounts to a tacit approval/authorization of homosexual "penumbra" behaviors. I'm not entirely clear on what you mean when you say homosexual penumbra behaviors. But, the phrase that was removed from the honor code is this: “all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings.” That, paired with silence from the Brethren, implies that such is no longer prohibited for BYU students. 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: Their silence also leaves "the principles of the Honor Code ... {un}changed." Yep. 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: Yes. How is that significant? Since the Brethren have the power to change or clarify the honor code and haven't, I take that as approval of the change.
Recommended Posts