Byu Honor Code Matches New Handbook

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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

Something claimed as outlined by the First Presidency in recent years and emphasized over and over in recent documents and talks isn't likely to be labeled as "folk doctrine" any time soon if ever (I suspect a very small percentage of any FP teaching has been disavowed or replaced).

Edited March 4, 2020 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

25 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

It's a coming, clarifications coming!

According to what?  Is this still just your intuition or do you have some evidence of some kind?  

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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?  

I don’t like smug declarations of conjecture delivered as though it were settled fact. 
 

And the word is phases, not “fazes”.

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

😆

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Something claimed as outlined by the First Presidency in recent years and emphasized over and over in recent documents and talks isn't likely to be labeled as "folk doctrine" any time soon if ever (I suspect a very small percentage of any FP teaching has been disavowed or replaced).

I’m labeling it folk doctrine to get ahead of the curve.  Similar to the evils of interracial marriage and other teachings from our past, this too will go down as folk doctrine.  It will just take a few years for others to acknowledge it as such.  

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t like smug declarations of conjecture delivered as though it were settled fact. 
 

And the word is phases, not “fazes”.

I’m typing on my phone apologies for any spelling errors.  You seem to like strongly worded opinions when you agree with the ideas from what I can see.  

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m labeling it folk doctrine to get ahead of the curve.  Similar to the evils of interracial marriage and other teachings from our past, this too will go down as folk doctrine.  It will just take a few years for others to acknowledge it as such.  

You believed it was folk doctrine for quite sometime, it seems to me.

[hope_for_things]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

You believed it was folk doctrine for quite sometime, it seems to me.

Not folk doctrine as much as false doctrine.  Now that the church is officially moving on, it’s become folk doctrine.  

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

So, how does this honor code change solve that misunderstanding?

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, 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.

"Leadership roulette" is common in the church for a variety of circumstances.  This latest change will probably add to it.

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So, how does this honor code change solve that misunderstanding?

Wouldn't solve it in the sense that some passerbys might see it as romance rather than friendship, but it likely prevents a file being opened with 'suspected of engaging in homosexual relationship' or however it used to be done.

Edited March 4, 2020 by Calm

[rockpond]

3 hours 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.

 

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

And why is that?

 

1 hour ago, Sunslight said:

Because they are breaking the law of chastity.

 

Actually, the church defines the law of chastity as pasted below (from the General Handbook).  So, holding hands, kissing, and dating (whether done by a same-sex or opposite-sex couple) does not constitute breaking 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]

1 hour ago, Sunslight said:

It's a coming, clarifications coming!

We've got you insisting that clarifications are coming!  Without doubt.  And @hope_for_things insisting that clarifications are not coming.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Wouldn't solve it, but it likely prevents a file being opened with 'suspected of engaging in homosexual relationship' or however it used to be done.

But Scott is saying that gay dating is still prohibited by the honor code as a matter of principle.  So why wouldn't the same thing happen now that happened before?

(I'm just trying to understand the logic that Scott is employing.)

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But Scott is saying that gay dating is still prohibited by the honor code as a matter of principle.  So why wouldn't the same thing happen now that happened before?

(I'm just trying to understand the logic that Scott is employing.)

Because HCO will send (if they do anything at all at the beginning) any reporters to bishops, who then interview the individual to hear their side and HCO only opens a file if endorsement is at issue (the bishop informs them) unlike before where they got involved in judging what was and was not (and from what I heard reported at times may have come to a decision based on the opinion of the person reporting rather then waiting to interview everyone involved)....if I understand what the process is to be...which I may not.

Edited March 4, 2020 by Calm

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Because HCO will send (if they do anything at all at the beginning) any reporters to bishops, who then interview the individual to hear their side and HCO only opens a file if endorsement is at issue (the bishop informs them) unlike before where they got involved in judging what was and was not (and from what I heard reported at times may have come to a decision based on the opinion of the person reporting rather then waiting to interview everyone involved)....if I understand what the process is to be...which I may not.

All of that could be the case but none of that has anything to do with the change to the honor code.  You are hypothesizing a change to HCO procedures.

I'm not understanding Scott's logic on this.

[Scott Lloyd]

54 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So, how does this honor code change solve that misunderstanding?

By being less heavy handed, less conclusory. By providing space to resolve misunderstandings before unjust penalties are imposed. 
 

(I’m speaking theoretically here. Don’t put me in a position of defending a change I’m not fully on board with. You’ll have to pick an argument with someone who is, if that’s what you want.)

[smac97]

46 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Actually, the church defines the law of chastity as pasted below (from the General Handbook).  So, holding hands, kissing, and dating (whether done by a same-sex or opposite-sex couple) does not constitute breaking 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.

By your reckoning, using pornography "does not constitute breaking the law of chastity," either.  

Not sure that works.

Thanks

-Smac

[MiserereNobis]

I'm obviously an outsider, despite my years on this board and a few years before that interacting with LDS folk.

It would seem rather... provincial that a minor change (removal of a couple of sentences?) from a BYU honor code would herald in a new doctrine. I'm not saying it can't be so, but if it is, it would simply reinforce the Utah-centric nature of your religion. Do the LDS in Ghana care about the BYU honor code? Do the changes in the honor code represent LDS doctrine? If so, what about peripheral stuff, such as beards?

For those saying that clarification will come at general conference, hopefully such clarification will not mention BYU, because that will again reinforce that this is a Utah religion. The equivalent, as I see it, would be the Pope writing an encyclical (a letter to all Catholic leaders world-wide) to address some policy issue at a university in Rome. That would be... strange.

Again and obviously I am an outsider, but this intense focus on a BYU policy seems odd, unless one accepts the premise that the LDS religion is centered in what goes on at BYU, in which case, one's view of this religion is not very world-wide.

Edited March 4, 2020 by MiserereNobis

[Hamba Tuhan]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

By your reckoning, using pornography "does not constitute breaking the law of chastity," either. 

And yet pornography is mentioned further down in the section that rockpond continues to quote only in part. Along with 'same-sex relations' and 'parternerships' 'that [are] not authorized by God's law', including 'same-sex marriage'.

Edited March 4, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

24 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Again and obviously I am an outsider, but this intense focus on a BYU policy seems odd, unless one accepts the premise that the LDS religion is centered in what goes on at BYU, in which case, one's view of this religion is not very world-wide.

I've often posited that an informed outsider's view can be clearer than an insider's. As one of the few non-American Saints who regularly participate on this board, I feel I often see things that my American fellows do not.

Your observation is spot-on. But we have people in the Church who are desperate to grasp at anything to validate their flights of doctrinal fantasy.

Edited March 4, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

As I mentioned to Calm, the handbook updates are happening in fazes

The section of the Handbook dealing with youth interviews that mentions referring to the FTSOY booklet appears to be one that is updated already.  They could have easily removed referring to those standards if they were out of date.

Edited March 4, 2020 by Calm

[Sunslight]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

 

 

 

Actually, the church defines the law of chastity as pasted below (from the General Handbook).  So, holding hands, kissing, and dating (whether done by a same-sex or opposite-sex couple) does not constitute breaking 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.

"Like other violations of the law of chastity, homosexual activity is a serious sin. It is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality (see Romans 1:24–32). It distorts loving relationships and prevents people from receiving the blessings that can be found in family life and the saving ordinances of the gospel."

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/chastity?lang=eng

[rockpond]

57 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

By being less heavy handed, less conclusory. By providing space to resolve misunderstandings before unjust penalties are imposed. 
 

(I’m speaking theoretically here. Don’t put me in a position of defending a change I’m not fully on board with. You’ll have to pick an argument with someone who is, if that’s what you want.)

I’m not trying to pick and argument.  I’ve said multiple times that I am trying to understand your logic.

What you describe above is a procedural change within the HC Office.  If the principle that same gender shows of affection are prohibited  has not changed, how did the removal of those sentences in the HC make the procedural change you describe?

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

"Like other violations of the law of chastity, homosexual activity is a serious sin. It is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality (see Romans 1:24–32). It distorts loving relationships and prevents people from receiving the blessings that can be found in family life and the saving ordinances of the gospel."

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/chastity?lang=eng

More folk doctrine!