Byu Honor Code Matches New Handbook

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am talking about the Handbook and FTSOY.

Well, I feel it's really confusing when the Honor Code specifically removes the section describing behavior that was previously prohibited (Homosexual Behavior), but this same behavior is still described as being a "serious sin" in the FTSOY ("Homosexual and lesbian behavior is a serious sin").  

Combine that with what we've seen take place on campus (what is described as homosexual behavior) since this change, with no clarification yet from our leaders and it's even more conflicting.   I know what we have heard is hearsay (from the honor code officers and the professor), but those statements are in agreement with the behavior we've seen on campus or heard about.

I just believe that the Handbook, the FTSOY and the Honor Code should all state the same thing regarding this issue.  If one of them actually did specifically state that homosexual behavior was prohibited and it has been removed (and is apparently now being allowed on campus), it is not consistent.

Once again...let's just wait for more clarification that is hopefully coming from our leaders.

 

Edited March 4, 2020 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

And it is clear to me that you see precisely what you want to see.

All lies and jest

For  a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. 

— Simon and Garfunkle, “The Boxer”

[Calm]

Just now, ALarson said:

just believe that the Handbook, the FTSOY and the Honor Code should all state the same thing regarding this issue. 

Past treatments have raised this expectation.  If the HCO is now getting out of the sexual morality business and leaving it to the Church (as they should have all along imo), it could take awhile for people to adjust expectations.

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Wouldn’t that be a case of the tail wagging the dog? For the Strength of Youth is referenced many 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. 

The handbook was updated and so was the BYU HC.  The FYSOY manual is the older document now and reflects the folk doctrine.  

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Since when has BYU ever been the forefront of church policy changes?

Didn’t say it was traditionally.  Since when was FTSOY the forefront?  
 

All we know is the handbook and the HC were both updated the same day to align with each other policy wise.  Don’t know why other documents were left for a later date. 

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Once again...let's just wait for more clarification that is hopefully coming from our leaders.

I’ll continue to assert this, mark my prediction, the desired clarity is not coming.  The new policy is the new doctrine.  

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Since when was FTSOY the forefront?  

Has been a standard in the Church since it was printed.  And is currently cited in the Handbook as a resource for standards.

BYU Honor Code was never referenced as a source of info on church doctrine or policy in church documents asfar as I remember.

Quote

Don’t know why other documents were left for a later date. 

I believe thiswould be assuming facts not in evidence.

Edited March 4, 2020 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, I feel it's really confusing when the Honor Code specifically removes the section describing behavior that was previously prohibited (Homosexual Behavior), but this same behavior is still described as being a "serious sin" in the FTSOY ("Homosexual and lesbian behavior is a serious sin".  

Combine that with what we've seen take place on campus (what is described as homosexual behavior) since this change, with no clarification yet from our leaders and it's even more conflicting.   I know what we have heard is hearsay (from the honor code officers and the professor), but those statements are in agreement with the behavior we've seen on campus or heard about.

I just believe that the Handbook, the FTSOY and the Honor Code should all state the same thing regarding this issue.  If one of them actually did specifically state that homosexual behavior was prohibited and that has been removed (and is apparently now being allowed on campus), it is not consistent.

Once again...let's just wait for more clarification that is hopefully coming from our leaders.

 

If the one that seemingly conflicts with the other two has more limited application than the other two, wouldn’t it stand to reason that it is the one out of the three that is errant?

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

When I was at BYU, I would hug old (male) friends and mission comps that I hadn’t seen in a long time.  I’ve even been known to kiss them on the cheek as is the custom where I served my mission.  I would also go out to eat or play tennis with my roommate.  Nobody ever confused this for a same-gender date nor was I ever reported to the HCO. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The handbook was updated and so was the BYU HC.  The FYSOY manual is the older document now and reflects the folk doctrine.  

The newly updated handbook authoritatively references For the Strength of Youth in several instances. That hasn’t changed. 

The updated Honor Code purports to be consistent with the handbook, not the other way around. 

And give us a break with the “folk doctrine” epithet. You are not the grand arbiter of what constitutes folk doctrine. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

When I was at BYU, I would hug old (male) friends and mission comps that I hadn’t seen in a long time.  I’ve even been known to kiss them on the cheek as is the custom where I served my mission.  I would also go out to eat or play tennis with my roommate.  Nobody ever confused this for a same-gender date nor was I ever reported to the HCO. 

 

But if one or both of you had self-identified as gay (not likely in those days; much more so today) there could well have been reason for misunderstanding. 

[Scott Lloyd]

51 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

The “we all do this” aphorism is a cop out that does not excuse it in a given instance. 

Edited March 4, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If the one that seemingly conflicts with the other two has more limited application than the other two, wouldn’t it stand to reason that it is the one out of the three that is errant?

I think it could cause problems if they are not all in agreement.

What if one Bishop is giving endorsements according to the Honor Code and another one is giving endorsements using the FYSOY?  

What if one Bishop refuses to give a youth an endorsement because of homosexual behavior and then that youth visits the campus and sees this is no longer prohibited?  Or one youth who is gay gets an endorsement but their same-sex dating partner is refused one because they are dating?

The leaders would be setting themselves up for discrimination accusations.

Edited March 4, 2020 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, ALarson said:

I think it could cause problems if they are not all in agreement.

What if one Bishop is giving endorsements according to the Honor Code and another one is giving endorsements using the FYSOY.  

What if one Bishop refuses to give a youth an endorsement because of homosexual behavior and then that youth visits the campus and sees this is no longer prohibited?  Or one youth who is gay gets an endorsement but their same-sex dating partner is refused one because they are dating?

The leaders would be setting themselves up for discrimination accusations.

First, I’m not sure your conclusion that the Honor Code is not in agreement with the other two is correct. 
 

Second, even if you are correct, the Handbook and “For the Strength of Youth” have general application; the Honor Code does not. So it stands to reason that if there is syncing to be done, the Honor Code ought to be synced up with the other two, not the other way around. 

[ALarson]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

Past treatments have raised this expectation.  If the HCO is now getting out of the sexual morality business and leaving it to the Church (as they should have all along imo), it could take awhile for people to adjust expectations.

I still see that this could cause problems (see my post to Scott above).  If one youth is refused an endorsement from their Bishop because of behavior that is no longer prohibited by the Honor Code (and openly allowed on campus), they could claim discrimination.  Especially if other Bishops are endorsing youths who are dating and gay (because they believe it's not against the Honor Code now).

Edited March 4, 2020 by ALarson

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

First, I’m not sure your conclusion that the Honor Code is not in agreement with the other two is correct. 

That's why we need clarification.

What we do know is that the section titled "Homosexual Behavior" was removed from the list of behaviors or actions that are prohibited at BYU.

But, that behavior is still described as being a "serious sin" in the FTSOY.

Those seems to be in conflict especially when you see what is openly taking place on campus now between same-sex couples.

(I'm off of here now....have a great evening!!)

Edited March 4, 2020 by ALarson

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I still see that this could cause problems (see my post to Scott above).  If one youth is refused an endorsement from their Bishop because of behavior that is no longer prohibited by the Honor Code (and openly allowed on campus), they could claim discrimination.  Especially if other Bishops are endorsing youths who are dating and gay (because they believe it's not against the Honor Code now).

False expectations do result in problems.

Bishops need training about the changes, imo, to help remove leadership roulette as much as possible.  I have heard one report of training occuring, but I expect more if this is true...though I may have false expectations in this myself.

Edited March 4, 2020 by Calm

[Sunslight]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

And why is that?

Because they are breaking the law of chastity.

[Sunslight]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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

It's a coming, clarifications coming!

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's why we need clarification.

What we do know is that the section titled "Homosexual Behavior" was removed from the list of behaviors or actions that are prohibited at BYU.

But, that behavior is still described as being a "serious sin" in the FTSOY.

Those seems to be in conflict especially when you see what is openly taking place on campus now between same-sex couples.

(I'm off of here now....have a great evening!!)

I’ve already acknowledged that clarification is needed. 
 

But I do believe you and others may be jumping to conclusions about the removal of the wording. 

So yes, do let us wait for clarification. And if none is forthcoming, let’s still be wary about conclusion jumping and view the matter in context. 

[Calm]

Anyone have a copy of the old handbook to know if this is the same or different language?

Quote

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.

 

[hope_for_things]

45 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The newly updated handbook authoritatively references For the Strength of Youth in several instances. That hasn’t changed. 

The updated Honor Code purports to be consistent with the handbook, not the other way around. 

And give us a break with the “folk doctrine” epithet. You are not the grand arbiter of what constitutes folk doctrine. 

As I mentioned to Calm, the handbook updates are happening in fazes so it makes sense that FTSOY will be updated as well.  
 

You don’t like the term folk doctrine?  Ok, what about theories to be formally disavowed at some future date?  

[hope_for_things]

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

I believe thiswould be assuming facts not in evidence.

Just a reasoned inference since we know that even the handbook wasn’t completely updated.   

[hope_for_things]

43 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The “we all do this” aphorism is a cop out that does not excuse it in a given instance. 

I thought it a more charitable response than accusing someone of just seeing things the way they want to see it.  Apparently you prefer a more accusatory  type of exchange? 

[Scott Lloyd]

54 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I’ll continue to assert this, mark my prediction, the desired clarity is not coming.  The new policy is the new doctrine.  

Let it be remembered: 

If the Almighty has truth to communicate to this people, it will come not through the prophet, seer and revelator; not through the united voice of the prophets and apostles; not through additions to the scriptural canon; but through incidental changes to the BYU Honor Code. 
 

Thus saith the oracle Hope_for_Things.