Byu Honor Code Matches New Handbook

[rockpond]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Not sure that works.

Thanks

-Smac

It’s not my reckoning.  I quoted the definition of the law of chastity directly from the general handbook.  I’m not suggesting that pornography is okay and that use of it is not a sin.  It’s simply not listed in the handbook definition (nor the temple definition) of the law of chastity. 

[rockpond]

30 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

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.

Permitting gay dating at BYU does not signal a doctrinal change for the church.

But I do think it portends future policy changes in the church. 

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

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.

I’d say your analysis is pretty much spot on. Bravo. 

[rockpond]

32 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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'.

There are a lot of things mentioned further down in that section. As I noted, I was quoting the law of chastity as defined in the handbook. 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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?

By making determination of Honor Code violation in this respect less conclusory and less potentially subject to misunderstanding. I’ve already suggested and given examples of how platonic affection could be mistaken for romantic or sexual intimacy. 
 

At this point I feel I’ve answered your questions adequately, and your repeated repetition of them is becoming tedious. I choose not to continue the back-and-forth on how removal of the sentences does or does not change the principles. 

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

By making determination of Honor Code violation in this respect less conclusory and less potentially subject to misunderstanding. I’ve already suggested and given examples of how platonic affection could be mistaken for romantic or sexual intimacy. 
 

At this point I feel I’ve answered your questions adequately, and your repeated repetition of them is becoming tedious. I choose not to continue the back-and-forth on how removal of the sentences does or does not change the principles. 

Yes, you do keep repeating an illogical premise.

You say that the principles of the HC haven’t changed while at the same time saying that determination of the HC violation is now less conclusory.  If gay dating is still prohibited than determination of the violation isn’t less conclusory.

You also claim that it is less subject to misunderstanding and yet the language that clarified the prohibition of expression of same gender affection is now gone.  Just gone.  That doesn’t make it less subject to misunderstanding.

Your examples of how platonic affection could be mistaken for romantic intimacy have no relevance if gay dating is still prohibited.  The mistake could still be made.

As for your claim that platonic affection could be mistaken for sexual intimacy, that seems crazy so I’ll just set it aside.

And, yeah, I figure you find this tedious because it’s tough, if not impossible, to find a shred of logic in the position you’ve stake out for yourself on this. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

53 minutes ago, rockpond said:

There are a lot of things mentioned further down in that section. As I noted, I was quoting the law of chastity as defined in the handbook. 

The entire section is titled 'Chastity and Fidelity'. I can understand why you might want to quote only the first two bullet points, but the section doesn't change into a discussion of something else immediately after those two.

Edited March 4, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The entire section is titled 'Chastity and Fidelity'. I can understand why you might want to quote only the first two bullet points, but the section doesn't change into a discussion of something other than the Law of Chastity immediately after those two.

I didn’t quote “only the first two bullet points”, I quoted ALL of the bullet points.  I quoted the entire law of chastity definition.

Go ahead and paste the entire section if you’d like.  Yes, it discusses chastity and fidelity, but the part that defines the law of chastity is as I copied and pasted into my post.  Further, the definition I quoted also happens to match the definition provided in the endowment. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

42 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Go ahead and paste the entire section if you’d like.

Here's the remainder, including the rest of the bullet points:

Quote

Only a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife should have sexual relations. In God’s sight, moral cleanliness is very important. Violations of the law of chastity are very serious (see Exodus 20:14; Matthew 5:28; Alma 39:5). Those involved misuse the sacred power God has given to create life.

A Church membership council may be necessary if a member:

• Has sexual relations outside of a marital relationship authorized by God’s law, such as adultery, fornication, and same-sex relations (see 32.6.2).
• Is in a form of marriage or partnership that is not authorized by God’s law, such as cohabitation, civil unions and partnerships, and same-sex marriage.
• Uses pornography intensively or compulsively, causing significant harm to a member’s marriage or family (see 38.6.11).

The decision about whether to hold a membership council in these situations depends on many circumstances. These are outlined in 32.7. For example, violating temple covenants increases the likelihood of a council being necessary to help a person repent. In some cases, personal counseling and informal membership restrictions may be sufficient (see 32.8).

See 32.6.1.2 for when a council is required for sexual sins.

 

Quote

Further, the definition I quoted also happens to match the definition provided in the endowment.

Yes. It is likewise similar to the Gospel Topics entry on chastity:

Quote

Chastity is sexual purity. Those who are chaste are morally clean in their thoughts, words, and actions. Chastity means not having any sexual relations before marriage. It also means complete fidelity to husband or wife during marriage.

 And like the Handbook, this entry provides additional clarity beyond the simple definition, including the following:

Quote

All sexual relations outside of marriage violate the law of chastity and are physically and spiritually dangerous for those who engage in them.

The Ten Commandments include the command that we not commit adultery, which is sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband (see Exodus 20:14). The Apostle Paul said that it is “the will of God” that we “abstain from fornication,” which is sexual intercourse between an unmarried person and anyone else (1 Thessalonians 4:3). Latter-day prophets repeatedly speak out against these sins and against the evil practice of sexual abuse.

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.

Merely refraining from sexual intercourse outside of marriage is not sufficient in the Lord’s standard of personal purity ...

Those who find themselves struggling with sexual temptations, including feelings of same-gender attraction, should not give in to those temptations. People can choose to avoid such behavior and receive the Lord’s help as they pray for strength and work to overcome the problem.

 

Edited March 4, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Here's the remainder, including the rest of the bullet points:

 

Those bullet points aren't listed under the definition of the law of chastity.  They are the list of when a membership council may be necessary.

Here's the entire section:

 

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.

Physical intimacy between husband and wife is intended to be beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love between husband and wife.

Only a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife should have sexual relations. In God’s sight, moral cleanliness is very important. Violations of the law of chastity are very serious (see Exodus 20:14; Matthew 5:28; Alma 39:5). Those involved misuse the sacred power God has given to create life.

A Church membership council may be necessary if a member:

• Has sexual relations outside of a marital relationship authorized by God’s law, such as adultery, fornication, and same-sex relations (see 32.6.2).

• Is in a form of marriage or partnership that is not authorized by God’s law, such as cohabitation, civil unions and partnerships, and same-sex marriage.

• Uses pornography intensively or compulsively, causing significant harm to a member’s marriage or family (see 38.6.11).

The decision about whether to hold a membership council in these situations depends on many circumstances. These are outlined in 32.7. For example, violating temple covenants increases the likelihood of a council being necessary to help a person repent. In some cases, personal counseling and informal membership restrictions may be sufficient (see 32.8).

 

You'll note when looking at the section in its entirety, it still does not include same-sex dating, kissing, hand-holding etc as a violation of the law of chastity.  In fact,  the section referenced next to "same-sex relations" takes you to this section that repeats the definition of the law of chastity:

 

32.6.2.2

Sexual Immorality

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 (see Exodus 20:14; Doctrine and Covenants 63:16).

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Yes, you do keep repeating an illogical premise.

You say that the principles of the HC haven’t changed while at the same time saying that determination of the HC violation is now less conclusory.  If gay dating is still prohibited than determination of the violation isn’t less conclusory.

You also claim that it is less subject to misunderstanding and yet the language that clarified the prohibition of expression of same gender affection is now gone.  Just gone.  That doesn’t make it less subject to misunderstanding.

Your examples of how platonic affection could be mistaken for romantic intimacy have no relevance if gay dating is still prohibited.  The mistake could still be made.

As for your claim that platonic affection could be mistaken for sexual intimacy, that seems crazy so I’ll just set it aside.

And, yeah, I figure you find this tedious because it’s tough, if not impossible, to find a shred of logic in the position you’ve stake out for yourself on this. 

My, you are angry about this thing, aren’t you?

I’ve not staked out a position. I’ve merely suggested a plausible reason for the removal of the wording. I don’t even know whether that IS the reason, as the rationale has not yet been made very clear. 

I’ve already said I’m not fully on board with this Honor Code change. It seems ill-considered. It is too ambiguous and, as we have seen, has resulted in too much confusion, too much scope for unseemly rationalization. I might be properly be characterized as agnostic toward it. 

So if you’re spoiling for a fight, go vent your rage on somebody who thinks the Honor Code change is a good idea but is not dialed into the notion that it is symptomatic of creeping acceptance by the Church of the belief that homosexual behavior is or ever will be compatible with the law of God. 

[Calm]

For those who believe a change in policy at BYU means a change of doctrine for the Church so that same sex romantic conduct is no longer seen as sinful even if same sex relations in and out of marriage are , could you explain how you see this coming about in the last little while, for example the people involved in making these decisions of changing doctrine...when and why did they change their minds?  I assume you believe all the First Presidency would be involved in a doctrinal change.  How do you envision this coming to be?

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My, you are angry about this thing, aren’t you?

Nope.  If you sense anger, you are reading that into my comments.

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ve not staked out a position.

Isn't your position that gay dating is still prohibited by the honor code?

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ve merely suggested a plausible reason for the removal of the wording.

I'm seeking for the plausible portion of the reason you are suggesting.

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t even know whether that IS the reason, as the rationale has not yet been made very clear.

I’ve already said I’m not fully on board with this Honor Code change. It seems ill-considered. It is too ambiguous and, as we have seen, has resulted in too much confusion, too much scope for unseemly rationalization. I might be properly be characterized as agnostic toward it. 

So if you’re spoiling for a fight, go vent your rage on somebody who thinks the Honor Code change is a good idea but is not dialed into the notion that it is symptomatic of creeping acceptance by the Church of the belief that homosexual behavior is or ever will be compatible with the law of God. 

I'm not spoiling for a fight.  I've said repeatedly that I am trying to understand the logic behind your position.

[Calm]

The former MormonandGay website, current Topics/Gay church pages has links and quotes from the new handbook, so I assume it is considered current.  This might be considered in the discussion.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay/leaders?lang=eng

Quote

Will the Church ever change its doctrine and sanction same-sex marriage?

Doctrine of marriage is eternal

Central to God’s plan, the doctrine of marriage between a man and woman is an integral teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and will not change:

As a doctrinal principle, based on the scriptures, the Church affirms that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. The Church also affirms that God’s law defines marriage as the legal and lawful union between a man and a woman.

Only a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife should have sexual relations. Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same sex, are sinful and undermine the divinely created institution of the family.

(General Handbook: Policies on Moral Issues: 38.6.13)

Communicate doctrine with love

“There is no change in the Church’s position of what is morally right. But what is changing—and what needs to change—is helping Church members respond sensitively and thoughtfully when they encounter same-sex attraction in their own families, among other Church members, or elsewhere.” —President Dallin H. Oaks

Marriage is an important part of God’s plan for our happiness. Eternal marriage between a man and a woman is essential (at some point) in our progression to reach exaltation, a state defined as living the kind of life our Heavenly Parents currently enjoy.

“In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase”(Doctrine and Covenants 131:1–4).

 

 

Edited March 4, 2020 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The Mormon and Gay website has links and quotes from the new handbook, so I assume it is considered current.  This might be considered in the discussion.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay/leaders?lang=eng

 

Thanks for this, Calm. 
 

It has been a while since I’ve viewed this site. I need to go back and look at it.  I’m thinking some of the content may have changed or been added. 
 

I heard that the name has been changed in keeping with the new naming convention in the Church with regard to use of the nickname “Mormon.” I think the new name is “Same-Sex Attraction.”

Edited March 4, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Nope.  If you sense anger, you are reading that into my comments.

Isn't your position that gay dating is still prohibited by the honor code?

I'm seeking for the plausible portion of the reason you are suggesting.

I'm not spoiling for a fight.  I've said repeatedly that I am trying to understand the logic behind your position.

I think you’re more interested in trying to best me in an argument than trying to grasp my position. But I’m done now. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thanks for this, Calm. 
 

It has been a while since I’ve viewed this site. I need to go back and look at it.  I’m thinking some of the content may have changed or been added. 
 

I heard that the name has been changed in keeping with the new naming convention in the Church with regard to use of the nickname “Mormon.” I think the new name is “Same-Sex Attraction.”

Yeah, when I came back and reread it, I realized the URL had been changed.  I edited the name.  It's getting late even for me so I may wait till later to compare to the original assuming webarchive has screenshots of it.

added:  nope, obsession rules...

http://web.archive.org/web/20171208174816/https://mormonandgay.lds.org/

http://web.archive.org/web/20171116225622/https://mormonandgay.lds.org/beliefs

Hmm....given that some take offense at the use of "same sex attraction", losing the header of "Mormon and Gay" to "Same Sex Attraction" and folding it back into the church's main website rather than having an independent one comes across as a pulling back, though otherwise it appears content is likely same.  Videos with stories.

Updated Feb 19 according to affirmation.

Edited March 4, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

Can anyone see pictures on this site?

https://mormonandgay.churchofjesuschrist.org/

[Calm]

Quote

The new handbook makes no mention of the words “gay,” “lesbian,” or “bisexual”; the Church choosing instead to use the term “same-sex attraction.” While this is not a major shift from past practice, it does appear that the Church may be refocusing to use the term more often and consistently.

In 2012, the Church launched a website at mormonsandgays.org, leading with an article titled Love One Another: A Discussion on Same-Sex Attraction. Over the years, this website has evolved, the address for the site changed to mormonandgay.org, denoting that once could indeed be both Mormon and gay. Until this morning, the title for the site was Mormon and Gay. As of this morning, the title is “Same-Sex Attraction.”

https://affirmation.org/new-church-handbook-clarity-minimizes-lgbtq-identities

So if this has changed as the same time as the Handbook and HC, comparison should be noted imo to see a more complete context of what the Church is attempting to create.  I would say this website, which is globally available and does not have the rules of other organizations like accreditation committees or government to balance, should be weighted higher in demonstrating leadership's POV.

And Affirmation doesn't see the change as positive.

I found "same sex activity", "same sex attraction", and "same sex relations".  Seems very conscious choice to be consistent and technical as they see it ( explanation of use of "same sex attraction" on the Topics/Gay//Same Sex Attraction pages)

I find it practically impossible that after years of public complaining about the Church using "same sex attraction", the ones who chose the title were not aware it would be seen as a step back from having "gay" in the title even if it remains in the URL.  So I see this as a very conscious choice.

Edited March 4, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

The new church handbook is digital-only. It includes new links to allow church leaders and members “to better understand and support people whose lives are affected by same-sex attraction.”

For example, the church included a link to a relevant Gospel Topics page on the church’s official website.

The official website also has an additional webpage on the site titled “Same-Sex Attraction” that formerly was known as mormonandgay.lds.org.

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2020/2/19/21144529/byu-honor-code-mormon-church-lds-updates-honor-code-homosexual-behavior-lgbtq

[Calm]

When the website was updated apparently in Sept 2019, only faithful stories were allowed (all celibate from what I can tell):

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/09/28/lgbtq-mormons-stories/

Quote

“Immediately we got the instruction that we could not include the stories of anyone who was not living (according to) doctrine.” Randall took down the photos of couples, including two men in their engagement portrait.....

When he assembled a more diverse collection of stories for the church’s own website, only to eliminate most of them, the “acceptable” pool continued to get smaller.

“We had to contact the bishop of their ward and make sure they were worthy. And if they weren’t, if they had ‘acted on it,’ they were taken out,” he said. “We whittled 140 stories down to 16.”

Of those 16 stories that first appeared on the website, only four remain, he said — and two of them are not LGBTQ+ people, but parents of children who are.

There were four stories I saw on the latest version.  The stories did have a parent as the focus of the story in one case I saw, but they included comments from the LGBT son as well as in another story the friends, spouse of the LGBT member who was the focus, and bishop.  There were two more I have not looked at.

Okay...now I am going to sleep, three hours later....

Edited March 4, 2020 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

You'll note when looking at the section in its entirety, it still does not include same-sex dating, kissing, hand-holding etc as a violation of the law of chastity. 

This is true. In your opinion, does this mean that I can kiss, hold hands with, and go ten-pin bowling with my boss without violating the law of chastity?

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This is true. In your opinion, does this mean that I can kiss, hold hands with, and go ten-pin bowling with my boss without violating the law of chastity?

If neither of you are married, I’d say yes. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If neither of you are married, I’d say yes. 

Why would that matter? It doesn't involve sexual relations, so it can't be defined as adulterous, right?

[rockpond]

27 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Why would that matter? It doesn't involve sexual relations, so it can't be defined as adulterous, right?

Second bullet of the handbook’s law of chastity definition:  Fidelity within marriage.