Byu Honor Code Matches New Handbook

[Sunslight]

I wonder if a large part of this problem is due to the lack of teaching with frankness the law of chastity to our children and youth? If we are scared to bring it up or dismiss it outright then where else do our children and youth learn? Secular society likes that role. 

[Daniel2]

5 hours ago, Sunslight said:

How is this. 

"Homosexual and lesbian behavior is a serious sin." (For the Strength of Youth; Sexual Purity)

According to the LDS Faith, new revelation/policy supersedes previous/old revelation/policy.

"For the Strength of the Youth" was last revised in 2011.

Eighteen years later (and just last year), in April 2019, the church officially announced, by way of "continuing revelation," that "while Church leaders still consider a same-gender marriage by a member to be a serious transgression, it will not be treated as apostasy for purposes of Church discipline," and that "instead the 'immoral conduct in heterosexual and homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way'."

Edited March 9, 2020 by Daniel2

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

I wonder if a large part of this problem is due to the lack of teaching with frankness the law of chastity to our children and youth? If we are scared to bring it up or dismiss it outright then where else do our children and youth learn? Secular society likes that role. 

why do other people's sexuality bother you so much? One thing I learn in Church is 1 Peter 4:15 which is not to be a, "busybody in other men's matters"

[Daniel2]

The Tribune recently published the following from the leadership of Affirmation.  The money quote that hits the nail on the head, IMO, is "Unwritten rules mask prejudice... CES appears blatantly dishonest attempting to veil discriminatory policies from academic societies, professional associations or the NCAA by removing prescriptive anti-homosexual behavior from the stated Honor Code, only to enforce such as unwritten law reviewed beyond public view on a case-by-case basis regarding romantic intent.":

Quote

Commentary: Unwritten rules can cause a lot of harm at BYU

 

Students protest outside the student center at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, on Wednesday, March 4, 2020, after an official with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints school issued a clarification to the school's Honor Code, which said that same-sex romantic behavior is still "not compatible" with the rules at BYU. Brigham Young University in Utah says “same-sex romantic behavior” isn't allowed on campus, even under recent changes to its strict code of conduct. (Francisco Kjolseth/The Salt Lake Tribune via AP)

By Nathan Kitchen and Laurie Lee Hall | Special to The Tribune 

Policies are messaging tools that broadcast values and practices. Brigham Young University’s Honor Code is no exception.

For many years, the Honor Code has been broadcasting discriminatory values and practices that are harmful towards LGBTQ students.

Outside athletic and academic organizations have found these values and practices disturbing. Recently the Classical Association of the Middle West and South rescinded its offer to hold its 2023 meeting on the campus of BYU Provo because of the “impact of BYU’s policies on LGBTQ colleagues and the conflict between those policies and CAMWS’s own policies on diversity and inclusivity.”

The loss of academic inclusion for the university may concern some, but more devastating is the trauma caused to LGBTQ students who navigate a campus environment that is so unattractive to professional colleagues.

When the First Presidency announced the rescission of the November 2015 policy, it stated that “immoral conduct in heterosexual and homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way.” When the new honor code removed written restrictions on “all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings,” it appeared to implement this stated equalization.

Instead, we witnessed everything that could possibly go wrong when the policy arm of the Church Educational System and the enforcement arm of the Honor Code Office are not on the same page before a major policy change. The roll out and roll back of the updated Honor Code was not only unprofessional, but highly irresponsible and injurious.

For two weeks, the public infighting and power struggles at the highest levels of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint’s educational system over the Honor Code created a dangerous ambiguity. It placed vulnerable LGBTQ students squarely in harm’s way when the commissioner of the Church Educational System finally issued a jolting reversal, declaring “same-sex romantic behavior cannot lead to eternal marriage and is therefore not compatible with the principles included in the Honor Code.” The “homosexual behavior” clause, though removed from the Honor Code, remains in force as an unwritten rule.

Unwritten rules mask prejudice and cause real damage.

CES appears blatantly dishonest attempting to veil discriminatory policies from academic societies, professional associations or the NCAA by removing prescriptive anti-homosexual behavior from the stated Honor Code, only to enforce such as unwritten law reviewed beyond public view on a case-by-case basis regarding romantic intent. There is no required determination of romantic intent regarding heterosexual relationships.

Furthermore, CES does not define specific “forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings” that would be honor code violations. Such discrimination and ambiguity is harmful and gives the Honor Code Office undue power over LGB students, stoking fear over violating a set of unwritten rules as compared to their heterosexual peers.

This must stop.

All students have the right, regardless of sexual orientation to enjoy chaste, affectionate public behavior without any fear of reprisal. LGB students are worthy of the same rights, protections, and freedom of loving expressions which are afforded their heterosexual peers.

LGB students are not seeking relief from the law of chastity. They are aware of the church’s teachings on marriage, including that the church does not “counsel that heterosexual marriage is a panacea.” They only seek the same opportunity to enjoy a fullness of joy and expression during their university years that their heterosexual peers are encouraged to have — not by way of exception, but by inclusion.

The church states that “it is unethical to focus professional treatment on an assumption that a change in sexual orientation will or must occur ... the individual has the right to define the desired outcome.” We believe that church education policies surrounding sexual minorities must be brought into alignment with these stated principles.

We recognize that gender identity is not addressed in the new Honor Code. Transgender students face higher ambiguity and greater safety concerns than their LGB cisgender peers. They must not be forgotten in this transitional moment.

We renounce any efforts that read into the stated Honor Code any restrictive elements based upon individual prejudice or bias that places one group of students above another in terms of right of expression.

To all our LGBTQ students, you are worthy and equal no matter where you choose to be, in your family, in worship, in school, in work, and in who you love.

Nathan Kitchen is the president, and Laurie Lee Hall is the senior vice president, of Affirmation, LGBTQ Mormon Families and Friends.

Edited March 9, 2020 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I still say it makes no sense that the Church would publish an official guide for youth with unauthoritative content — not in an age of priesthood correlation. And the Church is more consistent in its positions than you are willing to believe. 

Again... that publication is 18 years old and doesn’t account for last year’s change attributed to ongoing revelation.

Edited March 9, 2020 by Daniel2

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

The Tribune recently published the following from the leadership of Affirmation.  The money quote that hits the nail on the head, IMO, is "Unwritten rules mask prejudice... CES appears blatantly dishonest attempting to veil discriminatory policies from academic societies, professional associations or the NCAA by removing prescriptive anti-homosexual behavior from the stated Honor Code, only to enforce such as unwritten law reviewed beyond public view on a case-by-case basis regarding romantic intent.":

I don't understand.  BYU’s Honor Code previously included a section that prohibited “all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings,” a provision that has been in place for, it seems a very long time.

How is this prohibition being "veiled" when it was a matter of public knowledge for years?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Daniel2]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.  BYU’s Honor Code previously included a section that prohibited “all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings,” a provision that has been in place for, it seems a very long time.

How is this prohibition being "veiled" when it was a matter of public knowledge for years?

Thanks,

-Smac

Come now.... it’s not hard to understand. Prohibitions of same-sex dating are now “veiled” because BYU removed the verbiage from the honor code, and HCO representatives have been telling people “its no longer prohibited,” leading the way for plausible deniability if the media or anyone else seeks to find discriminatory language at BYU.

But the recent letter suggests that despite its removal, the now “unwritten rule” is still in place. 

Edited March 9, 2020 by Daniel2

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You’re quibbling over venues. 
 

I just lost a fairly lengthy reply to a “401 error.” Before trying to recreate it, I’ll see if this one goes through. 
 

Trying again.
 

It makes no sense the Church would publish a guide as pervasive and important as For the Strength of Youth without scrutinizing it for consistency with doctrine and policy. Not with what I know about Church correlation. 
 

You seem inclined to marginalize official word from the Church based on venue. I don’t think that squares with reality. 
 

The recent clarification, for example, identifying green tea, cold coffee beverages, ice tea and e-cigarettes as contrary to the Word of Wisdom appeared initially in the New Era, the Church magazine for youth. Yet it is just as binding as anything else. 

I don't think the FTSOY pamphlet is anything more than guidelines.  It definitely doesn't raise to the status of scripture, or even general conference addresses.  This seems to be the official standard for how church teachings are ranked:

Quote

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

According to the above frequently quoted statement, the FTSOY pamphlet doesn't even register.  The fact that its explicitly for youth is another reason we shouldn't take it as a serious explication of core doctrines of the church.  Much like one could discount rules that apply to young people when it comes to taxes or voting, one should similarly expect that rules applicable to good guidelines for youth, definitely have a limited scope and shouldn't be universalized for everyone.  

[smac97]

Just now, Daniel2 said:

Quote

I don't understand.  BYU’s Honor Code previously included a section that prohibited “all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings,” a provision that has been in place for, it seems a very long time.

How is this prohibition being "veiled" when it was a matter of public knowledge for years?

Come now.... it’s not hard to understand.

Apparently not.  I'm not an idiot, and I don't understand.

Just now, Daniel2 said:

Prohibitions in same-sex dating is now “veiled” because they removed the verbiage from the honor code, and HCO representatives have been telling people “its no longer prohibited,” leaving the way for plausible deniability if the media or anyone else seeks to find discriminatory language at BYU.

I still don't understand.  The letter from the CES commissioner resolved the misunderstanding about the Honor Code.  Which misunderstanding was in place, at best, for only two weeks.  And the clarification, that nothing has changed at BYU vis-à-vis same-sex relations/behavior, has been widely reported in news media, on social media, and so on.

BYU has functioned in an academic setting for a long time without hiding ("veiling") the Honor Code.  

Just now, Daniel2 said:

 But the recent letter suggests that despite its removal, the “unwritten rule” is still in place. 

Um, what?  The Honor Code previously expressly prohibited “all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings."  How was this express provision of the Honor Code an "unwritten rule"?

Moreover, the recent letter specifically states that the status quo ante - under which BYU has operated for a very long time - has not changed.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Daniel2]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Apparently not.  I'm not an idiot, and I don't understand.

I still don't understand.  The letter from the CES commissioner resolved the misunderstanding about the Honor Code.  Which misunderstanding was in place, at best, for only two weeks.  And the clarification, that nothing has changed at BYU vis-à-vis same-sex relations/behavior, has been widely reported in news media, on social media, and so on.

BYU has functioned in an academic setting for a long time without hiding ("veiling") the Honor Code.  

Um, what?  The Honor Code previously expressly prohibited “all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings."  How was this express provision of the Honor Code an "unwritten rule"?

Moreover, the recent letter specifically states that the status quo ante - under which BYU has operated for a very long time - has not changed.

Thanks,

-Smac

Very well, I won’t try to re-explain it to you, when it’s clear you don’t want to understand the point. 

“Let he who has ears to hear, hear, and he who has eyes to see, see.”

You strike me as having neither, which I see as a lack of good faith to even try to understand my point, so I won’t bother. 

Edited March 9, 2020 by Daniel2

[Sunslight]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

why do other people's sexuality bother you so much? One thing I learn in Church is 1 Peter 4:15 which is not to be a, "busybody in other men's matters"

Because they persuade wickedness onto my children. That is my business.

[Duncan]

Just now, Sunslight said:

Because they persuade wickedness onto my children. That is my business.

right, because they can turn your children gay...

[Sunslight]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

According to the LDS Faith, new revelation/policy supersedes previous/old revelation/policy.

"For the Strength of the Youth" was last revised in 2011.

Eighteen years later (and just last year), in April 2019, the church officially announced, by way of "continuing revelation," that "while Church leaders still consider a same-gender marriage by a member to be a serious transgression, it will not be treated as apostasy for purposes of Church discipline," and that "instead the 'immoral conduct in heterosexual and homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way'."

So, you admit homosexual activity is a sin.

[Sunslight]

Just now, Duncan said:

right, because they can turn your children gay...

Because they try to justify immorality and teach others to justify theirs.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, yes.  FTSOY is authoritative for those who submit to the authority of the Church.

You're proving my earlier statement to be accurate when I said some more conservative types and even local leaders will consider it authoritative.  Thankfully your perspective represents merely your opinion.  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

There are plenty of things in the Restored Gospel about which reasonable minds can disagree.

However, there are also plenty of things which are important, which are clearly and repeatedly and emphatically taught, and which therefore are beyond the realm of reasonable dispute.

By way of example: A person purportedly "looking to grow as a person, to develop an inner authority, rather than rely external authority for strict moral guidance" may decide for himself that the prohibitions against adultery and fornication do not apply to him.  Do you think that is a justifiable, reasonable conclusion to be reached by a member of the Church?

I guess this is your attempt to imply that my perspective is unreasonable?  What you think is important clearly is different on this subject, than what I think is important.  I won't stoop to calling your perspective unreasonable though.  

As for your example of someone's behaviors violating the community norms, I don't see this as an internal vs. external authority issue.  There are plenty examples of people who place strict external authority in church leaders who commit adultery.  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  Why, then, is the clarity set forth in the FTSOY pamphlet incompatible with "looking to grow as a person, to develop an inner authority"?

If the "marketplace" can accommodate clear and concise instruction for youth, why is that a problem for you?

I don't have a problem with guidelines for youth.  I have guidelines for my kids as well.  I do have a problem with putting them on a pedestal and calling them the official doctrines of the church and turning them into something they aren't.  They are pamphlet guidelines, they shouldn't be look at as commandments or doctrine.  

[Daniel2]

14 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

So, you admit homosexual activity is a sin.

I don’t believe in or define “sin” in the same way that Mormonism and Christianity do.

But as I understand it, even in Mormonism, non-sexual premarital kissing, hugging, hand-holding, and spending time together eating dinner, watching theater or film, dancing, hiking the Y, or ice-blocking between couples (regardless of race, gender, religion, etc)  aren’t “sin.”

Edited March 9, 2020 by Daniel2

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Very well, I won’t try to re-explain it to you, when it’s clear you don’t want to understand the point. 

I do want to "understand the point."  I'm not being obtuse.  I don't understand the allegation being made here.

16 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

“Let he who has ears to hear, hear, and he who has eyes to see, see.”

You strike me as having neither, which I see as a lack of good faith to even try to understand my point, so I won’t bother. 

Well, that's your call.

-Smac

[Duncan]

12 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

Because they try to justify immorality and teach others to justify theirs.

I don't recall hand holding immoral. I think what you are really afraid of is if your children can turn gay , you can too

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

Well, yes.  FTSOY is authoritative for those who submit to the authority of the Church.

You're proving my earlier statement to be accurate when I said some more conservative types and even local leaders will consider it authoritative.  Thankfully your perspective represents merely your opinion.  

The FTSOY pamphlet accurately summarizes the Church's teachings on topics relevant to its youth.  The pamphlet is published by the Church, and is therefore intended to be "authoritative."

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

There are plenty of things in the Restored Gospel about which reasonable minds can disagree.

However, there are also plenty of things which are important, which are clearly and repeatedly and emphatically taught, and which therefore are beyond the realm of reasonable dispute.

By way of example: A person purportedly "looking to grow as a person, to develop an inner authority, rather than rely external authority for strict moral guidance" may decide for himself that the prohibitions against adultery and fornication do not apply to him.  Do you think that is a justifiable, reasonable conclusion to be reached by a member of the Church?

I guess this is your attempt to imply that my perspective is unreasonable? 

No.  I'm not sure what your "perspective" is.

Are you going to answer my question?  Here it is again: A person purportedly "looking to grow as a person, to develop an inner authority, rather than rely external authority for strict moral guidance" may decide for himself that the prohibitions against adultery and fornication do not apply to him.  Do you think that is a justifiable, reasonable conclusion to be reached by a member of the Church?

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

As for your example of someone's behaviors violating the community norms, I don't see this as an internal vs. external authority issue.  There are plenty examples of people who place strict external authority in church leaders who commit adultery.  

I don't know what this means.  And it's not responsive to my question.

The Restored Gospel is not infinitely malleable.  It has some boundaries.  Some clear and plain doctrines and commandments.  I think this is beyond reasonable dispute, but you seem to be . . . disputing it.

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

Okay.  Why, then, is the clarity set forth in the FTSOY pamphlet incompatible with "looking to grow as a person, to develop an inner authority"?

If the "marketplace" can accommodate clear and concise instruction for youth, why is that a problem for you?

I don't have a problem with guidelines for youth.  I have guidelines for my kids as well.  I do have a problem with putting them on a pedestal and calling them the official doctrines of the church and turning them into something they aren't. 

The principles set forth in the FTSOY pamphlet do not originate with the pamphlet.  It is a summary of the doctrines of the Church.  It's an accurate summary of the doctrines.  And since it's published by the Church, it's an accurate and authoritative summary of the doctrines.

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

They are pamphlet guidelines, they shouldn't be look at as commandments or doctrine.  

Sure they should.  As long as they accurately state "commandments or doctrine."

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The FTSOY pamphlet accurately summarizes the Church's teachings on topics relevant to its youth.  The pamphlet is published by the Church, and is therefore intended to be "authoritative."

I disagree, its only authoritative in as much as a local leader interprets it as such.  

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No.  I'm not sure what your "perspective" is.

Are you going to answer my question?  Here it is again: A person purportedly "looking to grow as a person, to develop an inner authority, rather than rely external authority for strict moral guidance" may decide for himself that the prohibitions against adultery and fornication do not apply to him.  Do you think that is a justifiable, reasonable conclusion to be reached by a member of the Church?

Its interesting that you want a yes or no answer on this, and kind of shows the difference in how we approach things.  I don't think this is a matter of external vs. internal authority. People rely on authority, whether internal or external or some degree along a spectrum, and all of that influences someone's behavioral choices.  Its not a binary.  

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Restored Gospel is not infinitely malleable.  It has some boundaries.  Some clear and plain doctrines and commandments.  I think this is beyond reasonable dispute, but you seem to be . . . disputing it.

Not sure where you got the idea that I think the gospel is infinitely malleable.  I've never said anything of the sort before.  We clearly have different opinions on what is official doctrine and how to prioritize it.  

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The principles set forth in the FTSOY pamphlet do not originate with the pamphlet.  It is a summary of the doctrines of the Church.  It's an accurate summary of the doctrines.  And since it's published by the Church, it's an accurate and authoritative summary of the doctrines.

Those aren't doctrines.  These are guidelines!!  ugh.......... apparently you just ignored the church's statement that I inserted that talks about what is doctrine and how it is ranked?  

We're operating through very different paradigms my friend.  Best of luck to you in your approach to the church, but it doesn't work for me.  

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

According to the LDS Faith, new revelation/policy supersedes previous/old revelation/policy.

"For the Strength of the Youth" was last revised in 2011.

Eighteen years later (and just last year), in April 2019, the church officially announced, by way of "continuing revelation," that "while Church leaders still consider a same-gender marriage by a member to be a serious transgression, it will not be treated as apostasy for purposes of Church discipline," and that "instead the 'immoral conduct in heterosexual and homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way'."

While I am sympathetic to that take it ignores that the change you cite is specific to ecclesiastical discipline (now membership councils). There are a lot of things that are sins or that we tell youth specifically not to do that will probably never come up in a membership council.

Then again FTSOY is intended for Youth so I guess you could argue rules for adult may vary. I would.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't think the FTSOY pamphlet is anything more than guidelines.  It definitely doesn't raise to the status of scripture, or even general conference addresses.  This seems to be the official standard for how church teachings are ranked:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

According to the above frequently quoted statement, the FTSOY pamphlet doesn't even register.  The fact that its explicitly for youth is another reason we shouldn't take it as a serious explication of core doctrines of the church.  Much like one could discount rules that apply to young people when it comes to taxes or voting, one should similarly expect that rules applicable to good guidelines for youth, definitely have a limited scope and shouldn't be universalized for everyone.  

Because it is cited by title several places in the Church Handbook (as Calm has pointed out) “For the Strength of Youth” is incorporated by reference in the Handbook. 
 

 

[california boy]

I really don't care what the rules are at BYU.  If they want to prohibit LGBT students from holding hands, kissing, or dating, which goes against the official statement of the Prophet, then they should put that BACK in the honor code. If it is no longer prohibited, then they shouldn't state that nothing has changed.  

This is the latest official doctrine from the First Presidency.

Quote

while Church leaders still consider a same-gender marriage by a member to be a serious transgression, it will not be treated as apostasy for purposes of Church discipline," and that "instead the 'immoral conduct in heterosexual and homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way'."

It seems like BYU should comply with current revelation on this subject.  How can they justify not following the counsel of the Church leaders?  Does the president of CES have authority over the Prophet?  Does a pamphlet written for the youth almost a decade ago have authority over current revelation from the Prophet?  Oddly, some of the most adamant defenders of the Church think it does. 

WHAT A MESS.  

 

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Because it is cited by title several places in the Church Handbook (as Calm has pointed out) “For the Strength of Youth” is incorporated by reference in the Handbook. 
 

 

I would argue that the handbook just contains guidelines as well, but that they are more applicable to the general population as they aren't focused on just teenagers.  Thank goodness we don't have a 100+ page document that we have to read to know church doctrine!  

Quote

The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven;  and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Again... that publication is 18 years old and doesn’t account for last year’s change attributed to ongoing revelation.

Can you explain specifically how “last year’s change” negates anything currently in “For the Strength of Youth”? 

For that matter, has there been anything that has transpired in the Church in the last 18 years that substantively invalidates any content currently in For the Strength of Youth (specifics, please)?