Byu Honor Code Matches New Handbook

[Calm]

2 hours 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.

The Church has always recognized the "natural man" in all of us and taught it must be controlled first and eventually removed through the Atonement****, but I don't see a teaching that having those natural impulses is a sin itself.  In the past it was assumed that we could control all our thoughts, imo, and therefore any improper thought would be a sin.  Now teaching is that some thoughts may not be under our control when they first appear, but we control whether we create a mental environment where they are nurtured and encouraged or restrained.

****https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/16.5?lang=eng#p5#5

Edited March 3, 2020 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Okay - what have the Brethren said regarding the honor code change?

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.

Yep.

Since the Brethren have the power to change or clarify the honor code and haven't, I take that as approval of the change.

 

I would argue that the Brethren were involved intimately with the HC change itself, the removal of the language there and the update to the church's handbook.  Their fingerprints are all over the shift away from same sex affectionate behaviors.  We can speculate about the reasons why they made this change and I have my theories, but we shouldn't mistake the lack of clarity about the reasons for the change with a lack of involvement.  

[smac97]

44 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Okay - what have the Brethren said regarding the honor code change?

I think they authorized the change.  That is what they have "said."

Quote

I'm not entirely clear on what you mean when you say homosexual penumbra behaviors. 

Behaviors that fall outside the parameters of "sexual relations" (kissing, dating, holding hands, snuggling, etc.).

Basically, “all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings” up to, but not including, sexual relations.

Quote

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.

How do you square that supposed "implication" with the "Church Educational System Honor Code Related Policies" portion of the policies page:

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, how do you square the above supposed "implication" with this remark by BYU:

Quote

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.”

We seem to be going round and round on this.

Quote

Quote

Their silence also leaves "the principles of the Honor Code ... {un}changed."

Yep.

I don't follow.  If those principles remain unchanged, and if those principles previously prohibited (what I am calling) homosexual "penumbra" behaviors, then how do you arrive at the implication that “all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings” are "no longer prohibited for BYU students"?

Quote

Since the Brethren have the power to change or clarify the honor code and haven't, I take that as approval of the change.

So do I.  But my questions pertain less to the change in the wording, and more to the implication you are drawing from that change.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 3, 2020 by smac97

[rockpond]

53 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I would argue that the Brethren were involved intimately with the HC change itself, the removal of the language there and the update to the church's handbook.  Their fingerprints are all over the shift away from same sex affectionate behaviors.  We can speculate about the reasons why they made this change and I have my theories, but we shouldn't mistake the lack of clarity about the reasons for the change with a lack of involvement.  

I agree.  I can’t imagine a significant honor code change like this being made without the review and approval of the Trustees. 

[rockpond]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think they authorized the change.  That is what they have "said."

Behaviors that fall outside the parameters of "sexual relations" (kissing, dating, holding hands, snuggling, etc.).

Basically, “all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings” up to, but not including, sexual relations.

How do you square that supposed "implication" with the "Church Educational System Honor Code Related Policies" portion of the policies page:

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, how do you square the above supposed "implication" with this remark by BYU:

We seem to be going round and round on this.

I don't follow.  If those principles remain unchanged, and if those principles previously prohibited (what I am calling) homosexual "penumbra" behaviors, then how do you arrive at the implication that “all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings” are "no longer prohibited for BYU students"?

So do I.  But my questions pertain less to the change in the wording, and more to the implication you are drawing from that change.

Thanks,

-Smac

Sounds like we agree that the Brethren approved the change (at least those on the Board of Trustees) but we differ in that you feel the remaining statements in the HC still prohibit same-sex penumbra whereas I do not.  My reasoning for this is that the remaining statements don’t specific same-sex behavior so if something is allowed for opposite-sex couples it stands to reason, IMO, that it is allowed for same-sex couples. 

[Sunslight]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

I know without doubt the church will make some clarifications.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Sunslight said:

I know without doubt the church will make some clarifications.

Interesting.  What’s your source?

[Sunslight]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Interesting.  What’s your source?

It's a matter of logic.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

So then these anecdotal reports of gays dating at BYU are scarcely reliable in giving us the big picture of what’s going on right now. Or am I missing something? 

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

It's a matter of logic.

So the "without doubt" certainty that you expressed is just a personal supposition on your part.

 

[Sunslight]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So the "without doubt" certainty that you expressed is just a personal supposition on your part.

 

We can't have lgbt folks running around holding hands, kissing and dating each other and be considered worthy for the temple.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

We can't have lgbt folks running around holding hands, kissing and dating each other and be considered worthy for the temple.

And why is that?

Edited March 3, 2020 by rockpond

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

We can't have lgbt folks running around holding hands, kissing and dating each other and be considered worthy for the temple.

Sounds like your source of knowledge is informed purely by personal feelings.  You might want to walk back the "without doubt" kind of rhetoric.  

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So then these anecdotal reports of gays dating at BYU are scarcely reliable in giving us the big picture of what’s going on right now. Or am I missing something? 

You mean the ones happening in the past week?  If so, I do not believe there has been enough time to see how it will be dealt with by bishops.  I assume that sometime in the future we will start hearing 'I got called to have a meeting with the bishop' comments.

Edited March 3, 2020 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Okay - what have the Brethren said regarding the honor code change?

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.

Yep.

Since the Brethren have the power to change or clarify the honor code and haven't, I take that as approval of the change.

 

I don’t get how you can take it as approval when Carri Jenkins, speaking for the university said the principles are unchanged even though the more explicit wording was removed. That statement would seem to grandfather in the former wording as part of the “unchanged” principles. 
 

The only thing that seems changed at this point is the manner of enforcement. 

[hope_for_things]

Just now, rockpond said:

I'm curious about this comment but the subject of this thread is the BYU Honor Code and, secondarily, the new Handbook.

There are a number of people here who believe that clarifications on the honor code change are forthcoming.  I was intrigued by your expressed certainty on the matter but it sounds like you were just expressing your opinion (which is fine, of course).

Its interesting because it seems like there are many different opinions about the law of chastity floating around.  Some think that a romantic kiss between members of the same sex is a violation of the law of chastity.  Others don't.  I've ran into many people on this message board that claim the LoC is clearly spelled out, but I don't see any clarity on this issue coming directly from the church, or anywhere in handbooks and honor codes.  Sometimes people want the church authorities to just tell them what to do and what to believe.  It will be interesting to see how those who view this behavior as immoral, will reconcile their views against the church's direction on this issue.  

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t get how you can take it as approval when Carri Jenkins, speaking for the university said the principles are unchanged even though the more explicit wording was removed. That statement would seem to grandfather in the former wording as part of the “unchanged” principles. 
 

The only thing that seems changed at this point is the manner of enforcement. 

If principles referred specifically to gay dating/kissing/hand-holding then why would the HCO say that those things would be handled on a case-by-case basis.  If the former wording was grandfathered in, why would the HCO not have said that those things are still prohibited?

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

You mean the ones happening in the past week?  If so, I do not believe there has been enough time to see how it will be dealt with by bishops.  I assume that sometime in the future we will start hearing 'I got called to have a meeting with the bishop' comments.

It seems to me that this is a tangential issue, how bishops of students respond to the HC changes.  If the HC office is handling these cases differently, that is still a major development. 

Are you suggesting that Bishops will discipline members who are in same sex romantic but non-sexual relationships?  Is there anything in the new handbook that would prescriptively direct bishops to discipline members for this kind of behavior?  

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

You mean the ones happening in the past week?  If so, I do not believe there has been enough time to see how it will be dealt with by bishops.

I agree. 

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its interesting because it seems like there are many different opinions about the law of chastity floating around.  Some think that a romantic kiss between members of the same sex is a violation of the law of chastity.  Others don't.  I've ran into many people on this message board that claim the LoC is clearly spelled out, but I don't see any clarity on this issue coming directly from the church, or anywhere in handbooks and honor codes.  Sometimes people want the church authorities to just tell them what to do and what to believe.  It will be interesting to see how those who view this behavior as immoral, will reconcile their views against the church's direction on this issue.  

The new General Handbook provides a definition for the law of chastity:

38.6.5

Chastity and Fidelity

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.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Are you suggesting that Bishops will discipline members who are in same sex romantic but non-sexual relationships?  Is there anything in the new handbook that would prescriptively direct bishops to discipline members for this kind of behavior?  

I haven't read the whole thing but haven't seen anything in the sections I have read.  If anyone has come across something, I would be interested in knowing.

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I've ran into many people on this message board that claim the LoC is clearly spelled out, but I don't see any clarity on this issue coming directly from the church, or anywhere in handbooks and honor codes.

What do you find unclear about the following:

Quote

 “Sexual Purity,” For the Strength of Youth (2011), 34–37

The sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

“The Family: A Proclamation to the World”

 

Physical intimacy between husband and wife is beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love between husband and wife. God has commanded that sexual intimacy be reserved for marriage.

When you are sexually pure, you prepare yourself to make and keep sacred covenants in the temple. You prepare yourself to build a strong marriage and to bring children into the world as part of an eternal and loving family. You protect yourself from the spiritual and emotional damage that come from sharing sexual intimacy outside of marriage. You also protect yourself from harmful diseases. Remaining sexually pure helps you to be confident and truly happy and improves your ability to make good decisions now and in the future.

The Lord’s standard regarding sexual purity is clear and unchanging. Do not have any sexual relations before marriage, and be completely faithful to your spouse after marriage. Do not allow the media, your peers, or others to persuade you that sexual intimacy before marriage is acceptable. It is not. In God’s sight, sexual sins are extremely serious. They defile the sacred power God has given us to create life. The prophet Alma taught that sexual sins are more serious than any other sins except murder or denying the Holy Ghost (see Alma 39:5).

Never do anything that could lead to sexual transgression. Treat others with respect, not as objects used to satisfy lustful and selfish desires. Before marriage, do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body. Pay attention to the promptings of the Spirit so that you can be clean and virtuous. The Spirit of the Lord will withdraw from one who is in sexual transgression.

Avoid situations that invite increased temptation, such as late-night or overnight activities away from home or activities where there is a lack of adult supervision. Do not participate in discussions or any media that arouse sexual feelings. Do not participate in any type of pornography. The Spirit can help you know when you are at risk and give you the strength to remove yourself from the situation. Have faith in and be obedient to the righteous counsel of your parents and leaders.

Homosexual and lesbian behavior is a serious sin. If you find yourself struggling with same-gender attraction or you are being persuaded to participate in inappropriate behavior, seek counsel from your parents and bishop. They will help you.

Victims of sexual abuse are not guilty of sin and do not need to repent. If you have been a victim of abuse, know that you are innocent and that God loves you. Talk to your parents or another trusted adult, and seek your bishop’s counsel immediately. They can support you spiritually and assist you in getting the protection and help you need. The process of healing may take time. Trust in the Savior. He will heal you and give you peace.

If you are tempted to commit any form of sexual transgression, seek help from your parents and bishop. Pray to your Father in Heaven, who will help you resist temptation and overcome inappropriate thoughts and feelings. If you have committed sexual transgression, talk to your bishop now and begin the process of repentance so that you can find peace and have the full companionship of the Spirit.

Make a personal commitment to be sexually pure. By your words and actions, encourage others to do the same.

 

 

[ALarson]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So then these anecdotal reports of gays dating at BYU are scarcely reliable in giving us the big picture of what’s going on right now. Or am I missing something? 

There are pictures (you can search online....I won't post them here) and also news reports (of the Rainbow Celebration last week).  You also have statements from students quoted in the articles.  

There has definitely been a change, we just honestly do not know without more clarification if the change reflected on campus so far will continue to be allowed.  That's why there is confusion and a need to hear from the leaders.  If they remain silent, then we can assume what is taking place is acceptable and in keeping with the removal of the section "Homosexual Behavior" (and that what is described in those two paragraphs is no longer prohibited on campus).

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

It seems to me that this is a tangential issue, how bishops of students respond to the HC changes.

Not if the HCO has handed over all treatment in this area to bishops and only are brought in if there is notification from a bishop that the endorsement may be pulled.

If bishops are the 'first responders', how they handle cases will be very relevant.

Edited March 3, 2020 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The new General Handbook provides a definition for the law of chastity:

38.6.5

Chastity and Fidelity

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.

Seems pretty straight forward and in line with the new BYU honor code. Nothing about same sex "behaviors".  The old HC is the new folk doctrine.  How times change.