hope_for_things Posted March 3, 2020 Posted March 3, 2020 5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: What do you find unclear about the following: Do you know if they will be issuing a new FTSOY pamphlet? Looks like this old one is perpetuating folk doctrines. In all seriousness though, thanks for posting as I wondered what other sources were out there. I do think the church is "changing" on this issue. But I imagine for those who have a hard time describing what is happening in terms of change, perhaps it will be easier for them to just believe that God's standards didn't change, its just that our old standard wasn't in alignment with God's standard and the new standard is now in alignment.
hope_for_things Posted March 3, 2020 Posted March 3, 2020 7 minutes ago, Calm said: 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. I wasn't aware that the HCO was going to hand over all treatment to bishops. Where did you hear this?
Hamba Tuhan Posted March 3, 2020 Posted March 3, 2020 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Do you know if they will be issuing a new FTSOY pamphlet? Looks like this old one is perpetuating folk doctrines. In other words, the teachings are clear; you just don't like them and really hope they'll change? 2
Scott Lloyd Posted March 3, 2020 Posted March 3, 2020 7 minutes ago, rockpond said: 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? I can’t claim to know the answers to those questions. I’m not even sure the change was a good idea. The current confusion and uproar would indicate at the very least that it was not well thought through. But my opinion is that the case-by-case adjudication is because of what I have already pointed out here: that it can be difficult on first consideration to distinguish a platonic show of affection from behavior that is romantic/sexual in nature and intent. If two gay men go bowling at the Wilkinson Center, is it a “date” per se, or is it merely two friends engaging in some wholesome diversion? If they are seen embracing on campus, is it a platonic expression because they haven’t seen each other in a while, or is there something romantic or sexual underlying it? I’m saying the removal of the “more proscriptive” wording might be pursuant to avoiding the administration of unfair and heavy-handed penalties for behavior that is really quite innocent. And again this is only a guess on my part; at this point, I have no way of knowing. I don’t think you do either, for that matter. 3
hope_for_things Posted March 3, 2020 Posted March 3, 2020 2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: In other words, the teachings are clear; you just don't like them and really hope they'll change? When you say this, are you claiming that you have knowledge that the 2011 version of the FTSOY pamphlet somehow takes precedent over the newly written general handbook? It seems clear to me that this older language is similar to what was in the old BYU honor code, and I would think we should expect an update to reflect the church's more recent direction on the issue. Are you expecting otherwise?
ALarson Posted March 3, 2020 Posted March 3, 2020 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: When you say this, are you claiming that you have knowledge that the 2011 version of the FTSOY pamphlet somehow takes precedent over the newly written general handbook? It seems clear to me that this older language is similar to what was in the old BYU honor code, and I would think we should expect an update to reflect the church's more recent direction on the issue. Are you expecting otherwise? Maybe just this part will be removed if the leaders want to keep things consistent regarding the removal of the prohibition of "Homosexual Behavior" in the honor code (and the wording in the handbook): Quote 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. That will be interesting to watch for regarding any newer versions that are published.
Hamba Tuhan Posted March 3, 2020 Posted March 3, 2020 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: When you say this, are you claiming that you have knowledge that the 2011 version of the FTSOY pamphlet somehow takes precedent over the newly written general handbook? For the Strength of Youth is in perfect harmony with the newly issued handbook ... and also with pretty much all other Church publications that teach on this subject. It also has universal application in the Church ... in stark contrast to the 'honour code' at a university that a small fraction of members will ever set foot on. Quote I would think we should expect an update to reflect the church's more recent direction on the issue. Are you expecting otherwise? I think we should always expect updates to publications. I think the specific updates you are hoping for are delusional. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted March 3, 2020 Posted March 3, 2020 24 minutes ago, ALarson said: 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). Again, it is too soon to draw conclusions from anecdotal information. Im sure there are many people who would love to believe this means that homosexual behavior right up to the point of culmination is now OK at BYU and, by extension, in the Church. But wishing for it doesn’t make it so. 1
ALarson Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Again, it is too soon to draw conclusions from anecdotal information. The behavior changes reported are not all anecdotal. From the SLT about the Rainbow Celebration on BYU campus last week: Quote Rainbow Day at BYU draws hundreds of students It was the third Rainbow Day celebration at Brigham Young University to support the LGBTQ community — and this time, unlike the few before, hundreds of students showed up. They filled the campus quad with rainbow flags and signs. They shouted, “Love is love,” at anyone who walked up to their table. And they hugged and kissed and high-fived in excitement. It’s the first time many have felt like they could. “All of us who are out can now be free to be ourselves,” said student Erin Berglund, who identifies as lesbian. “It’s a relief.” The Wednesday event had been planned for months. But, by coincidence, it came shortly after the religious Provo school first publicly acknowledged that it had removed the longstanding ban on “homosexual behavior” from its Honor Code. The strict set of rules at BYU, which is owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, had previously prohibited “all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings." Those who acted on such feelings before could be punished or suspended. Anna Stevenson said she used to worry about wearing or saying anything in her classes that might out her as gay. On Wednesday, though, with the policy change, she no longer felt like she had to hide. She pulled on a pair of rainbow socks and a pride T-shirt and carried colorful flags in each hand. And she stood out and proud in front of the campus library. “I could have been kicked out of school for this before,” she said. “But now I don’t have to worry about that.” Many students who came to the celebration of Rainbow Day said they, too, feel like they can be openly LGBTQ on campus If these students have misinterpreted what the removal of the section "Homosexual Behavior" from the Honor Code means, I do feel there needs to be a clarification or correction. If nothing is said or done, they will continue to believe same-sex dating and shows of affection on campus are now allowed. Edited March 4, 2020 by ALarson 1
Calm Posted March 4, 2020 Author Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: For the Strength of Youth is in perfect harmony with the newly issued handbook ... and also with pretty much all other Church publications that teach on this subject. It also has universal application in the Church ... in stark contrast to the 'honour code' at a university that a small fraction of members will ever set foot on. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/10-aaronic-priesthood?lang=eng Quote 10.10 Standards Standards provide sure direction to strengthen and guide members of the Church. As young men keep gospel standards, they will be of great service in the Church and the world. They will also be worthy to receive the ordinances of the temple. In the booklet For the Strength of Youth, the First Presidency outlines gospel standards and teaches youth how to apply them. Every young man should have a copy of For the Strength of Youth. He should review the standards often and consider how well he is living them. The bishopric, quorum leaders, quorum advisers, and specialists should study the standards in the booklet and exemplify them. They should find ways to teach and reinforce these standards often in lessons and camps, youth conferences, and other activities. Bishopric members and quorum advisers can encourage parents to study gospel standards, exemplify them, and discuss them with their sons. They can also encourage young men to use For the Strength of Youth as a resource for home evening lessons and talks. Also mentioned to be used by leaders here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/6-ward-leadership?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/11-young-women?lang=eng¶=title_number10-p40 Standards of FTSOY to be used in interviews here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/31-interviews-and-counseling?lang=eng Quote 31.1.7.5 Matters for Discussion Key matters for discussion include the growth of the young person’s testimony of Heavenly Father, the mission and Atonement of Jesus Christ, and the restored gospel. The bishop and his counselors emphasize the importance of keeping baptismal covenants. They teach youth to prepare to make and keep temple covenants through daily righteous living. Bishopric members encourage youth to pray regularly in private and with their family and to study the scriptures. They also encourage youth to stay close to their parents. When discussing obedience to the commandments, the bishop and his counselors make appropriate use of the limited-use temple recommend interview questions and the standards and explanations in For the Strength of Youth. Leaders adapt the discussion to the understanding and questions of the youth. They ensure that discussions about moral cleanliness do not encourage curiosity or experimentation. Given how often it is referenced as a resource for teaching standards, I would have expected it to be updated at the same time as well if not in line with current handbook. Edited March 4, 2020 by Calm 3
Scott Lloyd Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 6 minutes ago, ALarson said: The behavior changes reported are not all anecdotal. From the SLT about the Rainbow Celebration on BYU campus last week: If these students have misinterpreted what the removal of the section "Homosexual Behavior" from the Honor Code means, I do feel there needs to be a clarification or correction. If nothing is said or done, they will continue to believe same-sex dating and shows of affection on campus are now allowed. I agree that there needs to be a clarification. I’m not sure a conclusion can be definitively drawn if one is not forthcoming. 1
Calm Posted March 4, 2020 Author Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) 44 minutes ago, ALarson said: Maybe just this part will be removed if the leaders want to keep things consistent regarding the removal of the prohibition of "Homosexual Behavior" in the honor code (and the wording in the handbook): That will be interesting to watch for regarding any newer versions that are published. Why not remove that part at same time the Handbook update given that there are significant references to FTSOY in the handbook, especially in regards to what should be discussed in interviews? (See my previous post two up from this one for specifics) Edited March 4, 2020 by Calm 1
ALarson Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Calm said: Why not remove that part at same time the Handbook update given that there are significant references to it in the handbook, especially in regards to what should be discussed in interviews? (See my previous post two up from this one for specifics) I can't answer that question. But not making them consistent (or in agreement) is only adding to the confusion here, IMO. One thing it seems we do all agree on is that we would like to hear a clarification from the leaders. Edited March 4, 2020 by ALarson
Calm Posted March 4, 2020 Author Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, ALarson said: I can't answer that question. But not making them consistent (or in agreement) is only adding to the confusion here, IMO. One thing it seems we do all agree on is that we would like to hear a clarification from the leaders. But they are in agreement and consistent if something is not specifically mentioned in the first, but instead the reader is referred to the second for further information, imo. Added: the church policy section on moral issues is at the very end of the handbook. In several other sections before that FTSOY is already pointed to for standards. I would assume the writers figured that leaders wouldn't have read the prior sections and then when consulting section 38 would suddenly assume they could now ignore the previous standards referenced. Edited March 4, 2020 by Calm 1
ALarson Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 4 minutes ago, Calm said: But they are in agreement and consistent if something is not specifically mentioned in the first, but instead the reader is referred to the second for further information, imo. I'm not sure what you mean. Where is that stated in the Honor Code?
Calm Posted March 4, 2020 Author Posted March 4, 2020 1 minute ago, ALarson said: I'm not sure what you mean. Where is that stated in the Honor Code? I am talking about the Handbook and FTSOY.
MustardSeed Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 It’s my opinion and observation that we love our letters of the law. And we also like to make sure that others are held accountable if they don’t follow it. IMO this is what happens when you are part of a community that has so many rules and requirements. 1
hope_for_things Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 45 minutes ago, ALarson said: Maybe just this part will be removed if the leaders want to keep things consistent regarding the removal of the prohibition of "Homosexual Behavior" in the honor code (and the wording in the handbook): That will be interesting to watch for regarding any newer versions that are published. I think it will definitely need to be updated to align with other changes we’re seeing.
hope_for_things Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 46 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: For the Strength of Youth is in perfect harmony with the newly issued handbook ... and also with pretty much all other Church publications that teach on this subject. It also has universal application in the Church ... in stark contrast to the 'honour code' at a university that a small fraction of members will ever set foot on. I think we should always expect updates to publications. I think the specific updates you are hoping for are delusional. It can’t be in harmony and also contain the controversial language that has been removed from the BYU HC. Its clear to me that the church is making changes in a particular direction here.
Hamba Tuhan Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 32 minutes ago, Calm said: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/10-aaronic-priesthood?lang=eng Also mentioned to be used by leaders here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/6-ward-leadership?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/11-young-women?lang=eng¶=title_number10-p40 Standards of FTSOY to be used in interviews here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/31-interviews-and-counseling?lang=eng Given how often it is referenced as a resource for teaching standards, I would have expected it to be updated at the same time as well if not in line with current handbook. Yep. The level of hopeful delusion that permeates this entire thread is almost literally breathtaking. 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 Just now, hope_for_things said: It can’t be in harmony and also contain the controversial language that has been removed from the BYU HC. Its clear to me that the church is making changes in a particular direction here. And it is clear to me that you see precisely what you want to see. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) 30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I think it will definitely need to be updated to align with other changes we’re seeing. Wouldn’t that be a case of the tail wagging the dog? For the Strength of Youth is referenced several times in the current handbook; the BYU Honor Code is not. And the changes to the Honor Code are purported to make it consistent with the handbook. Edited March 4, 2020 by Scott Lloyd 1
hope_for_things Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 37 minutes ago, Calm said: Given how often it is referenced as a resource for teaching standards, I would have expected it to be updated at the same time as well if not in line with current handbook. But these things take a lot of time and seem to move slowly. Didn’t they even say that this new handbook just contains a portion of the updates and further updates will be happening in the coming years. Seems safe to assume other policies like FTSOY will be updated at some future point as well.
Calm Posted March 4, 2020 Author Posted March 4, 2020 Just now, hope_for_things said: But these things take a lot of time and seem to move slowly. Didn’t they even say that this new handbook just contains a portion of the updates and further updates will be happening in the coming years. Seems safe to assume other policies like FTSOY will be updated at some future point as well. Since when has BYU ever been the forefront of church policy changes? 1
hope_for_things Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: And it is clear to me that you see precisely what you want to see. Well we all do that to some extent, this is human nature. The challenge is to try and see from multiple perspectives and hopefully we’ll learn in the process.
Recommended Posts