Byu Honor Code Matches New Handbook

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Just as I stated above to Smac (and no "dismantling" needed, IMO). 

I get that (I think  ) I am curious as to what you would see as actual dismantling...perhaps the removal of marriage as a condition?  What for you is the brightline that would mean the Law of Chastity was no longer a modification, but a new creation from scratch so to speak?

Edited February 20, 2020 by Calm

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

It used to be that members could live the law of chastity and not be legally married (polygamy).  The wording was changed.

But not the substance.  The Church's recognition of a marriage has always been predicated on recognition of the union by God and His church.  

There are plenty of jurisdictions in the world where the Church has members, and where polygamy is legal.  And yet members are prohibited from entering into that legal union.

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Here is the wording that is on the church website:

That very well could easily include those entering a SSM.

No, it couldn't.  No way.  At all.

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No mention of sexual relations ONLY between "a man and a woman".   

C'mon.  Let's not play dumb on this.

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm not saying this will happen, but when there has been changes made in the past, there may very will be more changes in the future.   

I agree.  But in terms of the substance of the Law of Chastity, I think adultery is a permanent no-go.  Same with fornication.  Same with same-sex relations.  

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

One may not believe that it was ever ok to have sex with a partner who you were not legally married to and still be obedient to the Law of Chastity.  

The Church unequivocally prohibits same-sex relations by its members, regardless of marital status.

This is not a point about which reasonable disagreement exists.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

 

That manual was written in 2003 iirc, significantly before the time of legal gay marriage statewide.  

Had any states legalized gay marriage by then?  What about countries?

That's why I added "this wording".  Yes, I realize there would have to be a slight change in the current wording and I stated that as well above.  (Sexual relations only "between a man and a woman" removed....or as worded in the manual quoted and still on the website).

 

[provoman]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think that's sort of akin to asking "Is fidelity to one's spouse limited to sexual relations?  Or is kissing/hugging/dating/handholding with another woman appropriate?"

Ok, if we accept that kissing and hugging are "sexual relations" and sexual relations outside of marriage violate the Law of Chastity, then how many heterosexual oriented teenagers violate the law of chastity via kissing  sexual relations on probably a near daily if not weekly basis? 

The Law of Chastity is defined in the General Handbook, again

Quote

 

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.

 

So yeah, as clearly defined in the General Handbook, a married person violating fidelity within marriage is violating the Law of Chastity.  The is two parts, unmarried must remain abstinent, married must maintain fidelity within marriage.

 

Quote

 

How about pornography?  Is that a violation of the Law of Chastity?

Masturbation?  Groping?  "Petting?"  

 

As the Law of Chastity creates two distinct categories, the married and unmarried, so to would what you listed apply differently to the married and unmarried. And it would be for the appropriate Priesthood Leader to discern it. 

Concerning the Mosiah quote, good quote, and I would respond that some one can sin without also violating the Law of Chastity.

Quote

 

It seems like the Church is trying to get away from checklists, and more toward a principles-based approach to matters of self-governance.  I think that is admirable, but I think this is where boundary-pushing/destroying transgressivists will attempt to parse out the Law of Chastity in ways such as what you suggest above.  This process is how some BYU students end up rationalizing everything-right-up-to-but-not-quite-including-penetrative-sex sorts of behaviors.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

It would be nice if that is the direction. And I agree about "everything-right-up-to-but-not-quite" effect; but from a temporal perspective if all the elements of an offence are not proven is the accused legally guilty?

I only suggest that, until further notice, the Law of Chastity means what it means - abstinence until marriage, fidelity during marriage.

Edited February 20, 2020 by provoman

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

That manual was written in 2003 iirc, significantly before the time of legal gay marriage statewide.  

Had any states legalized gay marriage by then?  What about countries?

With the release of later handbooks, and with changes in society, the wording has been made more precise to reflect that the law of chastity contemplates marriage as authorized under the law of God. This has always been the case, but it has not been necessary to spell it out so explicitly until recently. 
 

Edited to add: I’m agreeing with you, in case that’s not clear. 

Edited February 20, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Church unequivocally prohibits same-sex relations by its members, regardless of marital status.

But isn't sexual intercourse between those not legally married prohibited today?  

And yet, that used to be allowed (and considered living the Law of Chastity during polygamy years in the church).  

 

Edited February 20, 2020 by ALarson

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

My too early prediction of the future (I'm very bad at predictions, I have no seer stone to help me unfortunately).  

I predict that BYU will slowly stop disciplining gay students for showing affection towards members of the same sex.  These behaviors will become normalized and accepted over the next few years.  I doubt that BYU leaders backtracking statements asserting that nothing has changed, will actually hold up on this subject.  Hallelujah!  

Yes, I agree....

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

My too early prediction of the future (I'm very bad at predictions, I have no seer stone to help me unfortunately).  

I predict that BYU will slowly stop disciplining gay students for showing affection towards members of the same sex.  These behaviors will become normalized and accepted over the next few years.  I doubt that BYU leaders backtracking statements asserting that nothing has changed, will actually hold up on this subject.  Hallelujah!  

You just made a case for boundary maintenance. Thank you. 

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

The Church unequivocally prohibits same-sex relations by its members, regardless of marital status.

But isn't sexual intercourse between those not legally married prohibited today?  

Yes.  Depending on the circumstances, that would be adultery, fornication, and/or same-sex relations.

The Law of Chastity provides a "closed set" of circumstances in which sexual activity is authorized: Sex is permitted between a husband and wife whose marriage is recognized by both the laws of the land and the laws of the Church.  Everything else is prohibited.

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And yet, that used to be allowed (and considered living the Law of Chastity during polygamy years in the church).  

The commonality being that the marriage must be recognized by the laws of the Church.  Authorized polygamy fit into those parameters.  Same-sex marriage does not.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

So long as there are conceivably hundreds of Latter-Saint college-age students who would love to enroll at BYU and would cheerfully accept the honor code in spirit as well as letter, why should the university put up with those who insist on pushing the boundaries?

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Keep questioning.  But, in just the last year we've seen policy changes removing the baptismal ban for children of same-gender couples, same-gender marriage has been removed from the list of actions constituting apostasy, Church leaders began widely using the term "LGBT" in public discourse, and now BYU has removed the prescriptive prohibition against dating for same sex couples.

I don't believe and have never suggested that the law of chastity would be dismantled.  It won't. Ever. Happen.  But I contend that we, as a church, are on a long journey that seems to be heading toward a day when same gender marriage will be recognized within the law of chastity.  The last 10 months seem to have increased the pace.

Grateful for the progress we're making as a culture, thanks for listing some of these out.  

I personally don't want the law of chastity dismantled, I just don't want it defined in ways that aren't thoughtful, loving, harmonious with the gospel message.  Some people think that allowing same sex marriage is dismantling, I don't.  Some think that allowing polygamy is dismantling, I don't.  Some think that allowing premarital sex is dismantling, I don't. 

Personally, my perspectives have changed significantly on this issue over the years.  I'm for responsible, loving, healthy, consensual, informed, and lawful sexual relationships.  I also would like to see the church come up with a developed and thoughtful sexual ethic.  I wish leaders would talk about these things, instead of the constant knee jerk appeals to someone's interpretation of scripture.  Scripture can be used to support a whole lot of awful things throughout history.  We need a thoughtful approach that looks at scripture, tradition and peoples experiences, and tries to balance those out in a reasonable ways.    

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You just made a case for boundary maintenance. Thank you. 

How?  

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

How?  

By predicting what will happen if boundaries are not maintained. You might think that desirable; some of us don’t. 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So long as there are conceivably hundreds of Latter-Saint college-age students who would love to enroll at BYU and would cheerfully accept the honor code in spirit as well as letter, why should the university put up with those who insist on pushing the boundaries?

Probably thousands.

BYU doesn't need to put up with anyone pushing the boundaries.  In this case, it was BYU that changed the boundaries, not the students.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Probably thousands.

BYU doesn't need to put up with anyone pushing the boundaries.  In this case, it was BYU that changed the boundaries, not the students.

I don’t agree that BYU pushed boundaries. I think they were not as careful as they should have been in wording the revisions. 

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, provoman said:

Ok, if we accept that kissing and hugging are "sexual relations"

No, I don't think we need to do that.  Pornography and masturbation are also violative of the Law of Chastity, and yet are not properly characterized as "sexual relations."

14 minutes ago, provoman said:

and sexual relations outside of marriage violate the Law of Chastity, then how many heterosexual oriented teenagers violate the law of chastity via kissing  sexual relations on probably a near daily if not weekly basis? 

I reject the premise.

14 minutes ago, provoman said:

The Law of Chastity is defined in the General Handbook, again

So yeah, as clearly defined in the General Handbook, a married person violating fidelity within marriage is violating the Law of Chastity. 

Right.  But "fidelity" encompasses more than penetrative sex, right?

14 minutes ago, provoman said:

Quote

How about pornography?  Is that a violation of the Law of Chastity?

Masturbation?  Groping?  "Petting?"  

As the Law of Chastity creates two distinct categories, the married and unmarried, so to would what you listed apply differently to the married and unmarried. And it would be for the appropriate Priesthood Leader to discern it. 

Sorry, but I don't understand whatyou are saying here.

14 minutes ago, provoman said:

Concerning the Mosiah quote, good quote, and I would respond that some one can sin without also violating the Law of Chastity.

I agree.  

But relative to everything-right-up-to-but-not-quite-including-penetrative-sex sorts of behaviors, I think it's hard to justify same-sex dating, kissing, hugging, etc. 

14 minutes ago, provoman said:

Quote

It seems like the Church is trying to get away from checklists, and more toward a principles-based approach to matters of self-governance.  I think that is admirable, but I think this is where boundary-pushing/destroying transgressivists will attempt to parse out the Law of Chastity in ways such as what you suggest above.  This process is how some BYU students end up rationalizing everything-right-up-to-but-not-quite-including-penetrative-sex sorts of behaviors.

It would be nice if that is the direction. And I agree about "everything-right-up-to-but-not-quite" effect; but from a temporal perspective if all the elements of an offence are not proven is the accused legally guilty?

I don't think the Church is bound to a letter-of-the-law approach to God's commandments.

Heroin and cocaine are not referenced in the Word of Wisdom, but nobody seriously suggests that the recreational use of these substances is compatible with the Word of Wisdom.

14 minutes ago, provoman said:

I only suggest that, until further notice, the Law of Chastity means what it means - abstinence until marriage, fidelity during marriage.

And abstention from same-sex relations.  

Is BYU adopting an everything-right-up-to-but-not-quite-including-penetrative-sex-is-okay approach to the Honor Code?  I doubt it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

By predicting what will happen if boundaries are not maintained. You might think that desirable; some of us don’t. 

But boundaries are constantly changing whether we like it or not, that is the reality of the human experience.  Many of these are undesirable depending on your perspective, thats to be expected as well.  My approach is to hope for changes in what I see as the right direction, and to try and communicate and influence those around me in ways that I find inspirational.  Thats about all I can control.  

[Scott Lloyd]

48 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You can incrementally dismantle a thing or you can, by degrees, “change” it out of existence. Two ways of saying the same thing, as I see it. 

Once your long-hoped-for day has come and same-sex marriage is no longer prohibited under the law of chastity, what then? Will heterosexual couples, citing sincere and earnest love within their unmarried partnerships, push to have the Church drop the requirement of marriage as essential for obeying the law of chastity? 

 

46 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You ought to be able to see the difference in those two things.

 

36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Suppose, for the sake of discussion, you explain it to me. Why do you privilege the one over the other? 

 

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Grateful for the progress we're making as a culture, thanks for listing some of these out.  

I personally don't want the law of chastity dismantled, I just don't want it defined in ways that aren't thoughtful, loving, harmonious with the gospel message.  Some people think that allowing same sex marriage is dismantling, I don't.  Some think that allowing polygamy is dismantling, I don't.  Some think that allowing premarital sex is dismantling, I don't. 

Personally, my perspectives have changed significantly on this issue over the years.  I'm for responsible, loving, healthy, consensual, informed, and lawful sexual relationships.  I also would like to see the church come up with a developed and thoughtful sexual ethic.  I wish leaders would talk about these things, instead of the constant knee jerk appeals to someone's interpretation of scripture.  Scripture can be used to support a whole lot of awful things throughout history.  We need a thoughtful approach that looks at scripture, tradition and peoples experiences, and tries to balance those out in a reasonable ways.    

Hey rockpond, read the post from Hope for Things and see if it doesn’t amount to Exhibit A for my argument. 

Edited February 20, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Law of Chastity provides a "closed set" of circumstances in which sexual activity is authorized: Sex is permitted between a husband and wife whose marriage is recognized by both the laws of the land and the laws of the Church.  Everything else is prohibited.

Yes, as it is currently worded.  But those words have been changed (and what was actually allowed previously has changed).

Words have also been added at times (such as what is being discussed in the manual).  So, I guess I'm puzzled that you are so adamant that there may not be other changes made in the future.  I understand you disagree with the change being discussed, but many disagree that the living of polygamy (sex between men and women not legally married) was moral.  

I think we at least need to recognize that more change is very likely in the future.  What those changes may be (or may NOT be) are only opinions and speculations at this point.

Edited February 20, 2020 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

But boundaries are constantly changing whether we like it or not, that is the reality of the human experience.  Many of these are undesirable depending on your perspective, thats to be expected as well.  My approach is to hope for changes in what I see as the right direction, and to try and communicate and influence those around me in ways that I find inspirational.  Thats about all I can control.  

Correction: Left untouched boundaries are constantly changing. If they are maintained they don’t change. 
 

it’s like saying your house is always growing messier. That’s only true if you never bother to tidy it. 

[stemelbow]

THis is all very interesting.  APparenlty a number of students at BYU who are gay misunderstood the changes and thought it was ok to kiss, hold hands with someone of the same sex.  

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/byu-honor-code-mormon-lgbtq-homosexual-behavior_n_5e4e2839c5b630e74c50576c

 

It appears the Church is struggling with this issue.  They seem to want to say things that don't sound bigoted or difficult, so they are just trying not to say it.  But when that happens it changes what was directed in the past.  The Church seems to have done this with the new handbook.  I still don't see why a bishop couldn't just give same-sex couples callings--there's nothing in the handbook, defining why they could not.  

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t agree that BYU pushed boundaries. I think they were not as careful as they should have been in wording the revisions. 

If that's true, it should be an easy fix for them.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

THis is all very interesting.  APparenlty a number of students at BYU who are gay misunderstood the changes and thought it was ok to kiss, hold hands with someone of the same sex.  

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/byu-honor-code-mormon-lgbtq-homosexual-behavior_n_5e4e2839c5b630e74c50576c

 

It appears the Church is struggling with this issue.  They seem to want to say things that don't sound bigoted or difficult, so they are just trying not to say it.  But when that happens it changes what was directed in the past.  The Church seems to have done this with the new handbook.  I still don't see why a bishop couldn't just give same-sex couples callings--there's nothing in the handbook, defining why they could not.  

If they are engaging in sexual relations, they are in violation of the law of chastity. Obedience to God’s law is requisite for at least some Church callings, just as it is for admission to the temple. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If that's true, it should be an easy fix for them.

One would hope so. We’ll see. 

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes, as it is currently worded. 

Past and present.  In wording and in practice.

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But those words have been changed (and what was actually allowed previously has changed).

But the substance has remained the same.

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Words have also been added at times (such as what is being discussed in the manual).  So, I guess I'm puzzled that you are so adamant that there may not be other changes made in the future. 

I think the Law of Chastity's prohibitions against same-sex relations are about as susceptible to substantive change as are its prohibitions against adultery or fornication.

Again, we're a half century into the widespread liberalization of sexual mores.  Extra-marital sex is accepted all over the place.  But it is still strictly prohibited by the Church.

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I understand you disagree with the change being discussed, but many disagree that the living of polygamy (sex between men and women not legally married) was moral.  

I think we at least need to recognize that more change is very likely in the future. 

I agree.  But I those changes will not, I think, extend to the Church accepting/endorsing/celebrating adultery.  Or fornication.  Or same-sex relations.

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

What those changes may be (or may NOT be) are only opinions and speculations at this point.

Not really.

Thanks,

-Smac