Byu Honor Code Matches New Handbook

[smac97]

Further, we have Matthew 5:27-28 :

Quote

27 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

In your view, is looking "on a woman to lust after her," which the Lord declares to be "adultery ... in {the person's} heart" - a violation of the Law of Chastity?

Quote

But, I do consider using pornography to be an unholy and impure practice.

Hmm.  That's an interesting response.  I'll think on it.  What is the definition of "unholy and impure practice" that you rely on?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You are correct that BYU officials have not said that they would allow gay romantic dating.  But there is now nothing that prohibits it either.

I'm not sure that's correct.

On the "Church Educational System Honor Code Related Policies" portion of the policies page, we find this:

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 consider these remarks by BYU:

Quote

University Spokesperson Carri Jenkins responded late Wednesday to questions clarifying what the Honor Code adjustments mean for BYU and its students:

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.”

Q. “What implications do these changes have for students at BYU?”

A. “The principles of the Honor Code remain the same. As we have said so often in the past, we will handle questions that arise on an individual, case-by-case basis.”

Q. “Was there any motivation behind these changes besides the release of the new church handbook?”

A. “To align the Honor Code with the doctrine and policies of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

The principles "have not changed."

So what were those "principles" prior to February 19, 2020 relative to homosexual "penumbra" behaviors?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Sunslight]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Please provide a reference for your interpretation of activity to include holding hands and kissing.

"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."

What part of this applies to same sex holding hands and kissing? Does it distort loving relationships between man and woman? Yes.

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  That being the case, I am curious what you think of the Church's inclusion of pornography in its Gospel Topics entry on "Chastity":

I think that using pornography is an unholy and impure practice.  I also think that it's use causes others (those who produce pornography) to violate the law of chastity and that viewing pornography encourages sinful thoughts and could lead one towards violating the law of chastity.  I certainly agree with the statement you quoted from the Gospel Topics entry.

[Scott Lloyd]

From the Church’s web site formerly titled mormonandgay.org and presumably considered up to date  concomitant with a very recent name change:

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:

This ought to give pause to those holding out hope that a recent change to the BYU honor code signals some sort of incremental acceptance by the Church of homosexual behavior as being compatible with the law of God. 

Furthermore, consider what Hamba and Miserere Nobis have each astutely observed on this thread: that with the continuous global expansion of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the campus life at BYU has increasingly less relevance and impact upon the Church as a whole. In short, BYU is a relatively small milieu that remains static in size and influence within an ever-growing Church. Only a tiny fraction of the worldwide membership of the Church will ever set foot on the campus, much less matriculate there. 

Edited March 4, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 And the Church's inclusion of pornography in Chapter 39 ("Law of Chastity") of the Gospel Principles manual:

 

I agree with what is written there.  I will also note that you used elipses to remove four paragraphs between the first and second paragraphs you quoted.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think that using pornography is an unholy and impure practice. 

You know, I think I can go along with that.  I'm not sure I can go along with the inferred "but it's definitely not a violation of the Law of Chastity" bit, though.

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I also think that it's use causes others (those who produce pornography) to violate the law of chastity and that viewing pornography encourages sinful thoughts and could lead one towards violating the law of chastity.  I certainly agree with the statement you quoted from the Gospel Topics entry.

So what about same-sex "penumbra" behaviors?  Do you categorize those as "unholy and impure practice{s}"?  Or are they acceptable behaviors for members of the Church?

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

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?

Firstly, I do think this represents a change of teachings.  I don't like to get into doctrine vs. policy discussions, because those are labels that aren't clearly defined.  One mans doctrine is another mans policy.  

I don't think same sex romantic behavior was ever sinful.  Just because the modern church labeled it as such.  I don't think there was any strong support for this idea in the scriptures, so the very basis of this idea was built upon a sandy foundation at best.  At least with respect to sexual activity, there are some readings of scripture that people can point to that discouraged this behavior or that people in times past saw this as immoral.  I personally would argue that closer readings of scripture show a more complex scenario than the typical surface level readings on this topic.  

How did we get here?  I think BYU has been getting a lot of pressure and attention in recent years for its discriminatory policy towards LGBTQ individuals.  The bad press they got when there was football conference expansion efforts a few years back, specifically around this topic is one example, but there have been many.  The recent signals coming from BYU, allowing for discussions and on-campus participation of LGBTQ friendly groups has increased in recent years.  The allowing of a same sex couple at the recent dancing competition.  Articles in the DNews with positive portrayals of LGBTQ individuals, like Cosmo the Cougar, or people at graduation ceremonies talking about how they are gay  All these little signals and events leading up to this change have shown a greater openness towards treating people as more equal.  I think the focus on actual sexual activity, rather than behaviors is the logical next step towards focusing on fidelity in marriage as the definition of chastity.  Its a natural and logical progression that lessens the stigmas around LGB individuals and treats them as more equal than in the past.  

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/1/21/21075477/byu-ballroom-dance-gay-lgbt-couples

https://www.deseret.com/2019/2/26/20666826/guest-opinion-everyone-loved-me-as-cosmo-the-cougar-but-would-they-love-who-i-was-behind-the-mask#byus-cosmo-the-cougar-performs-with-the-byu-cougarettes-during-the-2017-homecoming-football-game-against-boise-state-oct-6-2017

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/30/us/byu-gay-graduation.html

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And the Church's inclusion of pornography in chapter 17 ("The Law of Chastity") in the Spencer W. Kimball manual:

More in the next post.

Seems to support all that I've said thus far.

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Further, we have Matthew 5:27-28 :

In your view, is looking "on a woman to lust after her," which the Lord declares to be "adultery ... in {the person's} heart" - a violation of the Law of Chastity?

Yes, because that would violate the "fidelity within marriage" part of the definition of the law of chastity.

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  That's an interesting response.  I'll think on it.  What is the definition of "unholy and impure practice" that you rely on?

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not aware of a strict definition of unholy and impure practices, so I do my best to avoid anything that I feel might fall into that category.

[hope_for_things]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

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

 

Thanks for posting.  Did you see anything on the MormonandGay site that would support the idea that same sex romantic behaviors are considered immoral?  Everything that you've quoted here can be read as compatible with the new BYU honor code policy.  

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Quote

And the Church's inclusion of pornography in Chapter 39 ("Law of Chastity") of the Gospel Principles manual:

I agree with what is written there. 

Right.  But my question is not about whether you agree with it, but why do you think the Church includes pornography in Chapter 39 (and other materials about the "Law of Chastity")?

In legal parlance, you seem to view the Law of Chastity as a "Bright Line Rule" (as opposed to, say, a "Balancing Test").  Would that be a fair characterization of your position?

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I will also note that you used elipses to remove four paragraphs between the first and second paragraphs you quoted.

For the sake of brevity, yes.  Are you suggesting I altered the meaning or distorted the context?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 4, 2020 by smac97

[rockpond]

8 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."

What part of this applies to same sex holding hands and kissing? Does it distort loving relationships between man and woman? Yes.

That quote doesn't define what is meant by homosexual activity.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Quote

Further, we have Matthew 5:27-28 :

In your view, is looking "on a woman to lust after her," which the Lord declares to be "adultery ... in {the person's} heart" - a violation of the Law of Chastity?

Yes, because that would violate the "fidelity within marriage" part of the definition of the law of chastity.

Are you suggesting that Matthew 5 only applies to married men?  That a single guy is at liberty to look "on a woman to lust after her"?

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I'm not aware of a strict definition of unholy and impure practices, so I do my best to avoid anything that I feel might fall into that category.

Okay.

I'm not sure the Law of Chastity has a "strict definition" either.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So what about same-sex "penumbra" behaviors?  Do you categorize those as "unholy and impure practice{s}"?  Or are they acceptable behaviors for members of the Church?

"Penumbra behaviors" and "acceptable" leaves this as a pretty broad question.  I think that individual members have to answer that for themselves in prayerful consideration with the Lord.  My position is that they aren't defined as violations of the law of chastity, under the Church's definition.

[Sunslight]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That quote doesn't define what is meant by homosexual activity.

What do you think heterosexual activity would entail?

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Right.  But my question is not about whether you agree with it, but why do you think the Church includes pornography in Chapter 39 (and other materials about the "Law of Chastity")?

Asked and answered.  See my previous response.

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In legal parlance, you seem to view the Law of Chastity as a "Bright Line Rule" (as opposed to, say, a "Balancing Test").  Would that be a fair characterization of your position?

Interesting.  Yes, that's probably a fair characterization.  I feel that the Church has defined the law of chastity in that "Bright Line" fashion.  Whereas I consider myself to have covenanted to avoid unholy and impure practices which would be more of the "Balancing Test" (if I am understanding that correctly, it's new to me).

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Are you suggesting that Matthew 5 only applies to married men?  That a single guy is at liberty to look "on a woman to lust after her"?

No and no.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

What do you think heterosexual activity would entail?

Not sure, you'd have to put it in context.

In the context of the quote you provided, I see homosexual activity as meaning sexual intercourse.

[Sunslight]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Not sure, you'd have to put it in context.

In the context of the quote you provided, I see homosexual activity as meaning sexual intercourse.

So, anything less than actual sexual intercourse by homosexuals isn't defined as homosexual activity eh? That's ridiculous!

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Firstly, I do think this represents a change of teachings.  I don't like to get into doctrine vs. policy discussions, because those are labels that aren't clearly defined.  One mans doctrine is another mans policy.  

I don't think same sex romantic behavior was ever sinful.  Just because the modern church labeled it as such.  I don't think there was any strong support for this idea in the scriptures, so the very basis of this idea was built upon a sandy foundation at best.  At least with respect to sexual activity, there are some readings of scripture that people can point to that discouraged this behavior or that people in times past saw this as immoral.  I personally would argue that closer readings of scripture show a more complex scenario than the typical surface level readings on this topic.  

How did we get here?  I think BYU has been getting a lot of pressure and attention in recent years for its discriminatory policy towards LGBTQ individuals.  The bad press they got when there was football conference expansion efforts a few years back, specifically around this topic is one example, but there have been many.  The recent signals coming from BYU, allowing for discussions and on-campus participation of LGBTQ friendly groups has increased in recent years.  The allowing of a same sex couple at the recent dancing competition.  Articles in the DNews with positive portrayals of LGBTQ individuals, like Cosmo the Cougar, or people at graduation ceremonies talking about how they are gay  All these little signals and events leading up to this change have shown a greater openness towards treating people as more equal.  I think the focus on actual sexual activity, rather than behaviors is the logical next step towards focusing on fidelity in marriage as the definition of chastity.  Its a natural and logical progression that lessens the stigmas around LGB individuals and treats them as more equal than in the past.  

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/1/21/21075477/byu-ballroom-dance-gay-lgbt-couples

https://www.deseret.com/2019/2/26/20666826/guest-opinion-everyone-loved-me-as-cosmo-the-cougar-but-would-they-love-who-i-was-behind-the-mask#byus-cosmo-the-cougar-performs-with-the-byu-cougarettes-during-the-2017-homecoming-football-game-against-boise-state-oct-6-2017

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/30/us/byu-gay-graduation.html

All of the things you cite here are consistent with the Church’s clearly and frequently expressed teaching that persons with homosexual orientation ought to be treated with kindness and respect but that homosexual behavior is nonetheless sinful, a doctrine that the Church has declared “will not change.”

Individuals fundamentally err when they misinterpret adherence to the kindness-and-respect portion of the teaching as evidence that the Church is caving in on the immutable position that homosexual behavior is sinful. 

Edited March 4, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

.

Edited March 4, 2020 by smac97

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

So, anything less than actual sexual intercourse by homosexuals isn't defined as homosexual activity eh? That's ridiculous!

Maybe use the same words that the BYU Honor Code used (Homosexual Behavior) rather than "homosexual activity"?

Here's the section that was removed:

Quote

 

Homosexual Behavior

Brigham Young University will respond to homosexual behavior rather than to feelings or attraction and welcomes as full members of the university community all whose behavior meets university standards. Members of the university community can remain in good Honor Code standing if they conduct their lives in a manner consistent with gospel principles and the Honor Code.

One's stated same-gender attraction is not an Honor Code issue. However, the Honor Code requires all members of the university community to manifest a strict commitment to the law of chastity. Homosexual behavior is inappropriate and violates the Honor Code. Homosexual behavior includes not only sexual relations between members of the same sex, but all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings.

 

Smac (and maybe others including the honor code section above) have used "homosexual relations" or "same-sex relations" to mean sexual intercourse.

 

Edited March 4, 2020 by ALarson

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Quote

In legal parlance, you seem to view the Law of Chastity as a "Bright Line Rule" (as opposed to, say, a "Balancing Test").  Would that be a fair characterization of your position?

Interesting.  Yes, that's probably a fair characterization.  I feel that the Church has defined the law of chastity in that "Bright Line" fashion.  Whereas I consider myself to have covenanted to avoid unholy and impure practices which would be more of the "Balancing Test" (if I am understanding that correctly, it's new to me).

Yes, I think you are understanding it correctly.

The Word of Wisdom has some "bright line" elements, but in the main it is a "balancing test."  Would you agree with that?  For example, tobacco is specifically prohibited in the Word of Wisdom ("bright line rule"), whereas heroin and cocaine are prohibited by construing it ("balancing test").

I guess my question is whether the Law of Chastity operates in the same way.  It has some "bright line" elements, but in the main it is a "balancing test."  For example, adultery, fornication, and same-sex relations are clearly prohibited in the Law of Chastity ("bright line rule"), whereas inappropriate touching, etc. are prohibited by construing it ("balancing test").

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 4, 2020 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

All of the things you cite here are consistent with the Church’s clearly and frequently expressed teaching that persons with homosexual orientation ought to be treated with kindness and respect but that homosexual behavior is nonetheless sinful, a doctrine that the Church has declared “will not change.”

Individuals fundamentally err when they misinterpret adherence to the kindness-and-respect portion of the teaching as evidence that the Church is caving in on the immutable position that homosexual behavior is sinful. 

Not consistent considering that going back to President Kimball, the very identity of someone being Gay was considered a sin, not just the acting on it component.  There has been a lot of evolution on this topic in recent years.  Having positive articles about LGBTQ individuals published by the church's newspaper is another recent evolution.  If you refuse to see the evolution out of a kind of bias against the idea that change has occurred on this issue, I can't help you.  

Edited March 4, 2020 by hope_for_things