Byu Honor Code Matches New Handbook

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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!  

 

Smac correctly noted that For the Strength of Youth is a summary of doctrines and principles in the Church as they apply to youth. 

[california boy]

34 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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.

I think you will have to admit that a policy on how to treat sin coming from the First Presidency should have more weight than a pamphlet written to the youth almost a decade ago.

It seems to me that the Church is trying to play it both ways.  State that the church treats homosexual and heterosexual behavior the same, but enforce two different standards. (for the public and press appearance). But punish BYU students for disobeying something that was once in the Honor Code, but now is not there.  If you are going to enforce it, then put the darn thing back in the Honor Code.  There is NO reason to take it out if it is still part of the Honor Code and still part of Church policy as stated in the FTSOY pamphlet.

Edited March 9, 2020 by california boy

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Smac correctly noted that For the Strength of Youth is a summary of doctrines and principles in the Church as they apply to youth. 

I really don't see it, sorry.  The doctrine is Chastity defined as fidelity in marriage.  The guidelines are all the recommendations around it.  Think of it similar to how we view keeping the sabbath day holy.  Some people think that also means not watching TV or dressing a certain way or refraining from going to a retail establishment.  Those are guidelines that vary throughout time and by person, but the doctrine, keeping the sabbath holy, is the constant. 

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think you will have to admit that a policy on how to treat sin coming from the First Presidency should have more weight than a pamphlet written to the youth almost a decade ago.

It seems to me that the Church is trying to play it both ways.  State that the church treats homosexual and heterosexual behavior the same, but enforce two different standards. (for the public and press appearance). But punish BYU students for disobeying something that was once in the Honor Code, but now is not there.  If you are going to enforce it, then put the darn thing back in the Honor Code.  There is NO reason to take it out if it is still part of the Honor Code and still part of Church policy as stated in the FTSOY pamphlet.

Yes, I would but only within the realm of what it is talking about. The passage you are citing is about when it is appropriate to hold a Membership Council. Trying to draw general doctrine out of those sections is unwise. For example a council should not be held because someone is consuming pornography, not paying their tithing, smoking tobacco, or failing in their calling as 2nd counselor to the Assistant Hymnbook Coordinator but I do not believe you could argue from that these are not seen by the church as sins (of varying severity).

You could say from that statement that romantic hand holding, hugging, and kissing are not a reason to call a council but the BYU Honor Code has always been stricter than the standards for Councils.

That being said I think whoever is revising the BYU Honor Code is more than a little ignorant or naive to not expect this to blow up in their face as it predictably did and agree with you that they should spell it out or reword it. The Honor Code is not a good place for part of the “unwritten order of things”.

[Sunslight]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

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

I'm afraid of people losing the blessings of eternity because they choose to be immoral.

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, Sunslight said:

I'm afraid of people losing the blessings of eternity because they choose to be immoral.

isn't it great that it isn't up to you?

[Sunslight]

7 minutes ago, Duncan said:

isn't it great that it isn't up to you?

I can choose to be moral and I can teach my children and youth to be moral. I can teach them the gross immoralities of homosexual behavior. Whenever I'm watching a show and they show a gay couple I teach my children it's wrong and we don't support that and change the channel. I also won't support a certain restaurant because in one of their commercials they show a gay couple kissing. We're living in a modern day Sodom and Gamorah. 

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

I can choose to be moral and I can teach my children and youth to be moral. I can teach them the gross immoralities of homosexual behavior. Whenever I'm watching a show and they show a gay couple I teach my children it's wrong and we don't support that and change the channel. I also won't support a certain restaurant because in one of their commercials they show a gay couple kissing. We're living in a modern day Sodom and Gamorah. 

First, homosexual was added to the bible later like in the 1980's. Second, Sodom and Gomorrah was a male with a young boy, so pedophilia. Third, you are setting your children up for failure. If they grow up and get a job and say anything derogatory towards gays, they may be out of a job. Fourth, I hope your child isn't gay.

ETA: https://www.forgeonline.org/blog/2019/3/8/what-about-romans-124-27

It was rape, not homosexuality.

https://www.news24.com/xArchive/Voices/the-story-of-sodom-and-gomorrah-was-not-about-homosexuality-20180719

Edited March 10, 2020 by Tacenda

[Sunslight]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

First, homosexual was added to the bible later like in the 1980's. Second, Sodom and Gomorrah was a male with a young boy, so pedophilia. Third, you are setting your children up for failure. If they grow up and get a job and say anything derogatory towards gays, they may be out of a job. Fourth, I hope your child isn't gay.

ETA: https://www.forgeonline.org/blog/2019/3/8/what-about-romans-124-27

Thanks for your opinion but I will raise my own kids the right way.

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, Sunslight said:

I can choose to be moral and I can teach my children and youth to be moral. I can teach them the gross immoralities of homosexual behavior. Whenever I'm watching a show and they show a gay couple I teach my children it's wrong and we don't support that and change the channel. I also won't support a certain restaurant because in one of their commercials they show a gay couple kissing. We're living in a modern day Sodom and Gamorah. 

You aren't answering my questions,  I also take you aren't a priesthood holder, this flies in the face of DC 121. What about real problems in society like murder, self righteousness, drug abuse, controlling attitudes, obesity, laziness, hatred of others, spelling problems (gamorah?) Do you ever get tired of controlling your kids every single move?

You seem to think that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed simply because of homosexuality, well if you ever bother to read the scriptures you'll find the actual  reason  read Ezekiel 16:49, maybe add those to your list of reasons i'm glad you are not in charge of all this

 

You remind me of a Bishop I had years ago, they had 7 kids, beat them, controlled them, commanded them in all things. Someone said they were raised to be missionaries and mothers. Well, 6/7 kids are still alive, the 4 boys all served missions, only 1 is active, the other 3 one is homeless, one is an alcoholic and 1 is not active and is like his Dad-thinks the Government is after him-paranoid delusional. The 3 girls, one died, one is active and the other is inactive and a millionaire in California and wants nothing to do with the Church or portions of her family, can't says I blame her.

Edited March 10, 2020 by Duncan

[Daniel2]

As expected, more are speaking out on the expected problems in BYU's future, just as it has in the past.

Is there really any doubt as to why BYU made the changes to it's Honor Code...?:

Gordon Monson: What happens if BYU and its Honor Code are rejected? What happens if schools refuse to play the Cougars?

(Francisco Kjolseth | The Salt Lake Tribune) 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 says “same-sex romantic behavior” isn't allowed on campus, even under recent changes to its strict code of conduct.

By Gordon Monson 

BYU is in trouble.

It has set itself up for trouble, outside and inside of sports, making a difficult situation worse with its sponsoring church’s stumbling and fumbling this week of recently updated policies regarding “same-sex romantic behavior.”

That bumbling might as well have pushed the burning heap of a future of BYU sports off a cliff.

I don’t know it for a fact because I’m not a prophet.

But it’s easy to speculate about a fire raging when you see more than smoke, you see the flames themselves. There are students, athletes, too, at the school who are confused and righteously bothered by the so-called clarification coming from the commissioner of the Church Educational System, the man who leads all of the schools owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, about honor codes and the prohibiting of demonstrations of that same-sex romantic behavior among students.

That behavior, Paul V. Johnson wrote, “cannot lead to eternal marriage and is therefore not compatible with the principles included in the Honor Code.”

There had been a whole lot of “misinterpretation” about those demonstrations after an earlier section of BYU’s code had been deleted, the part that disallowed “all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings.” Students had said Honor Code office folks had told those inquiring about that deletion that students would not be disciplined for dating, kissing, holding hands with others of the same sex, as long as they upheld the faith’s existing expectations about remaining chaste before marriage, marriage between a man and a woman.

What…does this have to do with sports?

BYU had seemingly made some inroads to making itself more acceptable to other schools, other associations of schools, in the weeks since the original adjustment to its Honor Code. It’s no secret that BYU wants to be invited into a P5 conference, and the last time it made a pitch to the Big 12, back when it thought it was all but in, LGBTQ groups lobbied heavily against an invitation that never came.

Meanwhile, schools such as Notre Dame and Baylor, sponsored by religions — the Catholic and Baptist faiths, respectively — with similar doctrinal stances on homosexuality skate without much of a problem. Why? Because those schools, with their own honor codes, had adapted language that provided more inclusion for LGBTQ students, language that provided a greater sense of safety for them.

On account of this latest mix-up/mess-up, BYU, no matter how much love and charity, respect for and service to others is preached within the LDS Church’s teachings, will be seen as a place where harsh discipline is not only thrown down, but it trumps all.

If BYU is the “Lord’s university,” as the school’s patrons like to believe, would Christ himself toss the hammer at students who feel the inclination to hold one another’s hands, to hug and kiss, to demonstrate their heart-felt affection, even as they remained chaste?

Answer that any which way you see fit.

The way other schools and associations of schools answer it is a bigger deal. BYU’s chances of getting into a power league with this policy in place is next to none. And it’s not out of the question that, at some point, other schools will refuse to schedule and play BYU.

Already, there have been demonstrations among students enrolled at the school, and the concern goes past just the student body. Faculty members are troubled, too. Many of them want to see an increase of compassion toward those who are adversely affected by harmful phraseology, not an increase of rejection.

The LDS Church plainly can espouse any doctrine it finds correct, and it should, but the way that doctrine is enforced, if that’s the right word, at a university or anywhere else, certainly can be managed to conjure a feeling of love, not negative aggression, and of inclusivity, not exclusivity.

The whole notion of, “Hey, if you don’t like it, go someplace else,” is as lame as it is weak. And what if huge numbers of students and parents and faculty of the future decide they don’t like it?

As it pertains to sports, if harsh enforcement and intolerance remain, it might be BYU that finds itself rejected, to the point where it no longer will be tolerated, it no longer will be welcome to compete.

Gordon Monson hosts “The Big Show” with Jake Scott weekdays from 3-7 p.m. on 97.5 FM and 1280 AM The Zone.

[The Nehor]

56 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

First, homosexual was added to the bible later like in the 1980's. Second, Sodom and Gomorrah was a male with a young boy, so pedophilia. Third, you are setting your children up for failure. If they grow up and get a job and say anything derogatory towards gays, they may be out of a job. Fourth, I hope your child isn't gay.

ETA: https://www.forgeonline.org/blog/2019/3/8/what-about-romans-124-27

It was rape, not homosexuality.

https://www.news24.com/xArchive/Voices/the-story-of-sodom-and-gomorrah-was-not-about-homosexuality-20180719

What was added in the 1980s? No, not really. The shift of emphasis in translations from boy sodomizer to generalized homosexuality occurred way before the 80s.

We do not know what Sodom and Gomorrah were involved in specifically. Other scriptures can be taken to be referring to sodomy but nothing explicitly in the account. The Sodomites demanded the visitors be turned over for rape and then (depending on whether you go with JST or not) either also demanded or were offered Lot’s daughters so while it was attempted rape it was what we would call bisexual rape though they doubtless would not have thought of it that way.

You should be careful to be more precise.

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, Sunslight said:

Thanks for your opinion but I will raise my own kids the right way.

Not sure what this means, but families of many conservative Faiths that don't support same-sex relationships end up having gay children in their families.  It's not a matter of "how we're raised," at least in the sense that 'teaching children that same-sex behavior is wrong' certainly does not mean we'll all grow up to be  heterosexual.  My own devoutly-LDS parents' earnest as well as sincere efforts in teaching me that same-sex behaviors are wrong (including changing channels, et all) are evidence that is not the case. 

Edited March 10, 2020 by Daniel2

[Duncan]

10 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

As expected, more are speaking out on the expected problems in BYU's future, just as it has in the past.

Is there really any doubt as to why BYU made the changes to it's Honor Code...?:

 

 

 you have to hit them where it hurts🤑🤑

[Tacenda]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

What was added in the 1980s? No, not really. The shift of emphasis in translations from boy sodomizer to generalized homosexuality occurred way before the 80s.

We do not know what Sodom and Gomorrah were involved in specifically. Other scriptures can be taken to be referring to sodomy but nothing explicitly in the account. The Sodomites demanded the visitors be turned over for rape and then (depending on whether you go with JST or not) either also demanded or were offered Lot’s daughters so while it was attempted rape it was what we would call bisexual rape though they doubtless would not have thought of it that way.

You should be careful to be more precise.

The actual word "homosexual" was added in the 1980's in the bible. Please read the first article I shared to see it for yourself. 

Edited March 10, 2020 by Tacenda

[Sunslight]

26 minutes ago, Duncan said:

You aren't answering my questions,  I also take you aren't a priesthood holder, this flies in the face of DC 121. What about real problems in society like murder, self righteousness, drug abuse, controlling attitudes, obesity, laziness, hatred of others, spelling problems (gamorah?) Do you ever get tired of controlling your kids every single move?

You seem to think that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed simply because of homosexuality, well if you ever bother to read the scriptures you'll find the actual  reason  read Ezekiel 16:49, maybe add those to your list of reasons i'm glad you are not in charge of all this

 

You remind me of a Bishop I had years ago, they had 7 kids, beat them, controlled them, commanded them in all things. Someone said they were raised to be missionaries and mothers. Well, 6/7 kids are still alive, the 4 boys all served missions, only 1 is active, the other 3 one is homeless, one is an alcoholic and 1 is not active and is like his Dad-thinks the Government is after him-paranoid delusional. The 3 girls, one died, one is active and the other is inactive and a millionaire in California and wants nothing to do with the Church or portions of her family, can't says I blame her.

Well, you can live your dillusion, that's on you.

[Sunslight]

19 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Not sure what this means, but families of many conservative Faiths that don't support same-sex relationships end up having gay children in their families.  It's not a matter of "how we're raised," at least in the sense that 'teaching children that same-sex behavior is wrong' certainly does not mean we'll all grow up to be  heterosexual.  My own devoutly-LDS parents' earnest as well as sincere efforts in teaching me that same-sex behaviors are wrong (including changing channels, et all) are evidence that is not the case. 

The evidence is apparent that children raised correctly generally choose correctly.

[Duncan]

33 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

The evidence is apparent that children raised correctly generally choose correctly.

Mercifully you don't get to decide what "generally" means

Gerrit W. Gong has a gay son, Elder Christofferson has a gay brother, what went wrong? oh no

You know what I love, their was a Stake President who worked for the Church as an architect and later came out as trans.God knew he was trans BEFORE he was called as a Stake President and called him anyways. There is an interview with her, Laurie Lee Hall, I think her name is

There were two Apostles, one current and one died in the last ten years, 2 of their grandkids got excommunicated. Joseph Smith had a daughter who was baptized into the Catholic Church.

Edited March 10, 2020 by Duncan

[Duncan]

6 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

Well, you can live your dillusion, that's on you.

there's a lot of that going around, except it's spelled delusion

I hope your kids fare better

[MustardSeed]

13 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

The evidence is apparent that children raised correctly generally choose correctly.

Gods own Lucifer chose interestingly. As did Lehis boys.  
Nice try. 
Though I will agree that outstanding parenting has generally a positive outcome.  We just disagree on what constitutes as outstanding. 

[Sunslight]

49 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Mercifully you don't get to decide what "generally" means

Gerrit W. Gong has a gay son, Elder Christofferson has a gay brother, what went wrong? oh no

You know what I love, their was a Stake President who worked for the Church as an architect and later came out as trans.God knew he was trans BEFORE he was called as a Stake President and called him anyways. There is an interview with her, Laurie Lee Hall, I think her name is

There were two Apostles, one current and one died in the last ten years, 2 of their grandkids got excommunicated. Joseph Smith had a daughter who was baptized into the Catholic Church.

I may not spell straight but I know what straight means and so do my kids.

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

I may not spell straight but I know what straight means and so do my kids.

time will tell, as I say don't you ever get tired of controlling every friend, every TV show, commercial, restaurant etc. that your kids encounter? or ever will encounter? 

Edited March 10, 2020 by Duncan

[Sunslight]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

time will tell, as I say don't you ever get tired of controlling every friend, every TV show, commercial, restaurant etc. that your kids encounter? or ever will encounter? 

I don't control them. Im tired of the liberal agenda controlling us. We have to defend and remove this sickness from our society.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 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'."

I should have looked at your post when you referenced it before. I might have noticed your fuzzy math before now. You see, 2019 is not 18 years later than 2011, it is only eight years later. And thus, the copyright is not as long ago as you reckoned. It is shorter by a full decade. For the Strength of Youth is not nearly as ancient as you claimed it was. 
 

Furthermore, though the revision of last year provides that same-gender marriage will no longer be “treated as apostasy for purposes of discipline,” it is nonetheless still regarded “as serious transgression.” Moreover, misconduct in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships “will be treated in the same way.” Depending on the circumstances, either could result in a consequence of excommunication, now called  “membership withdrawal” under the new vernacular. 

[Daniel2]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I should have looked at your post when you referenced it before. I might have noticed your fuzzy math before now. You see, 2019 is not 18 years later than 2011, it is only eight years later. And thus, the copyright is not as long ago as you reckoned. It is shorter by a full decade. For the Strength of Youth is not nearly as ancient as you claimed it was. 
 

Furthermore, though the revision of last year provides that same-gender marriage will no longer be “treated as apostasy for purposes of discipline,” it is nonetheless still regarded “as serious transgression.” Moreover, misconduct in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships “will be treated in the same way.” Depending on the circumstances, either could result in a consequence of excommunication, now called  “membership withdrawal” under the new vernacular. 

Good catch; you're correct, I apologize, and I and my math were wrong... lol.  Eight years, not eighteen, so FTSOY isn't as old as I mentioned... but my point still remains the same.  In fact, a "revelation" from just 3 years ago has already been overturned, so as far as LGBT issues in the LDS church, 8 years ago isn't nearly as current as you imply it to be.

As for your second paragraph.... nice job re-quoting the church's new policy, which I posted previously in full.  Again, my point remains the same.

Any thoughts on my response to your CFR providing numerous additional LDS leaders who clearly "made a fuss" over interracial marriage...? 

Edited March 10, 2020 by Daniel2