Byu Honor Code Matches New Handbook

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I imagine in 1962 there were plenty of members who were shouting out things like "piffle!" at the notion that the leaders were all wrong about the curse and it's various reasons.  But as we have today, the Church disavows those previously described God-inspired notions.  If in the end, for you to stay consistent, we have to say "Piffle!" to Church teaching generally, well, then I suppose we'll come full circle.  

No, I'll stick using "Piffle" to respond to your unsubstantiated and silly statements about the Church and its members.

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

With what, specifically? 

 

I never said that BYU hasn't looked to move into a major conference - just that money isn't the driving reason. BYU has got a sweet contract with ESPN for both broadcasts and bowl games. As I said before, the desire to move to a bigger conference is more about scheduling than it is about money. 

 

Big whoop. I still think it strains credulity to believe that a change to the Honor Code was made to pave the way for BYU Football - especially when we literally just negotiated a seven year extension to our contract with ESPN through 2026. Sorry, BYU is planning on staying independent for the foreseeable future. Which is why seeing articles trying to link the current HCO kerfuffle with anything currently going on with the athletic department are ridiculous. 

 

BYU would very much prefer to be in a P5 conference to staying independent.  While the details of the ESPN contracts aren't available for the public, the speculation based on some statements made in the past is that the ESPN deal gets them somewhere between $10M - $15M per year.  P5 conferences like the B12 are getting in the range of $35M - $40M per year.  So the amount of money is significantly more.  

I don't think its fair to say that this was the primary driving factor for the recent HC changes.  I would agree with you there.  However, I think it is one of many symptoms that are being felt by BYU due to their punitive policy.  Its all part of the puzzle.  

[hope_for_things]

Looks like the BYU professor in the video after the initial change to the HC policy has been receiving death threats.  Yikes, scary! 

https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2020/03/10/byu-professor-receives

 

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Looks like the BYU professor in the video after the initial change to the HC policy has been receiving death threats.  Yikes, scary! 

https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2020/03/10/byu-professor-receives

Very disconcerting.  Threats of violence have no place in these discussions.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

This statement by Nathan Kitchen (Affirmation President and same author of the editorial I posted previously) just came across my FB feed. Interesting...

 

 

Good to know, watched a former employee that is gay, last night on the news.. .I'm thinking that people like her on the ground are seeing the need to be more inclusive.

https://www.abc4.com/news/former-byu-assistant-dean-speaks-out-against-honor-code/

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I imagine in 1962 there were plenty of members who were shouting out things like "piffle!" at the notion that the leaders were all wrong about the curse and it's various reasons.  But as we have today, the Church disavows those previously described God-inspired notions.  If in the end, for you to stay consistent, we have to say "Piffle!" to Church teaching generally, well, then I suppose we'll come full circle.  

Almost every anecdote I have heard about the 1978 revelation is that the members embraced it with joy. There were a few exceptions. One older friend of mine talked about his mission companion, described as a “good old southern boy”, laid in bed depressed lightly pounding the wall moaning about not believing they were “giving the ******** the Priesthood.” I do not think a similar revelation about homosexual relationships would be greeted that enthusiastically. Another obstacle is that it would require some kind of revealed doctrinal explanation. I would be glad if it can happen but I do not believe it will.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Looks like the BYU professor in the video after the initial change to the HC policy has been receiving death threats.  Yikes, scary! 

https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2020/03/10/byu-professor-receives

 

It looks like most have come from alt-right hate groups. Good, I prefer that to it being our membership except of course for the few tares amongst us who belong to or would fit right in with said hate groups.

Edited March 10, 2020 by The Nehor

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Almost every anecdote I have heard about the 1978 revelation is that the members embraced it with joy. There were a few exceptions. One older friend of mine talked about his mission companion, described as a “good old southern boy”, laid in bed depressed lightly pounding the wall moaning about not believing they were “giving the ******** the Priesthood.” I do not think a similar revelation about homosexual relationships would be greeted that enthusiastically. Another obstacle is that it would require some kind of revealed doctrinal explanation. I would be glad if it can happen but I do not believe it will.

I know a few holdouts that think the Priesthood should not have not gone to everyone, I feel sick when I see them at Church functions

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Almost every anecdote I have heard about the 1978 revelation is that the members embraced it with joy. There were a few exceptions. One older friend of mine talked about his mission companion, described as a “good old southern boy”, laid in bed depressed lightly pounding the wall moaning about not believing they were “giving the ******** the Priesthood.” I do not think a similar revelation about homosexual relationships would be greeted that enthusiastically. Another obstacle is that it would require some kind of revealed doctrinal explanation. I would be glad if it can happen but I do not believe it will.

Perhaps you misunderstood the point I raised.  I'm not suggesting much about 1978, as the elements all played a roll in changing Church sentiment on members widely in the years previous.  I think I've heard a bit differently about the announcement, some reacted strongly against it while many others did not.   But I'd agree, if the Church just announced a revelation today or tomorrow allowing same sex couples to be sealed in the temple, many would loudly object.  Perhaps in years to come, though, as generations of old pass and new ones come in, as the largely culture that drives Church attitude changes, as science has it's say, member attitudes will change drastically.  

 

in 1947 the 1st presidency in responding to Lowry Nelson on the topic of race:

Quote

Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs till now. 

That attitude likely held sway in the Church for a long time afterward.  It is no longer in any sense repugnant, though.  Homosexual activity may have replaced it as a more repugnant thing to the leaders...but that, no doubt, will have to change.  

Edited March 10, 2020 by stemelbow

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It looks like most have come from alt-right hate groups. Good, I prefer that to it being our membership except of course for the tares amongst us who belong to or would fit right in with said hate groups.

I'm assuming these are members of the church with their alt-right hate.  Do you think they are non-members?  DezNat short for Deseret Nation, has developed quite the reputation on twitter.  

Reminds me of the white culture advocate lady from a couple years back and when the church news room had to basically make multiple statements condemning her rhetoric.  We have LGBTQ bigots and racists in our church as well, just like we have them in the broader culture.  

[hope_for_things]

On 3/9/2020 at 10:57 AM, Daniel2 said:

Thankfully, that all changed in 1978, as memorialized by McConkie's now-famous talk:

I meant to thank you for your well written post, but was busy the other day.  One thing that I would find very interesting is if any scholars have done a deep dive review of all the times the church has discouraged interracial marriage after the 1978 revelation, kind of like Quinn's post manifesto polygamy essay.  I found this on wikipedia, which is interesting, but not exhaustive by any means.  The church's history on race unfortunately doesn't show a dramatic reversal over night after the 1978 change.  I also think the McConkie talk, given to a small audience at BYU, is unfortunately touted as evidence for the church quickly moving forward on this issue, condemning past statements of racism.  But that just isn't true.  Even Elder Oaks made such an assertion in his talk at the 40 year celebration of the 1978 event, which I found laughably dishonest.  Church leaders want to sweep our history under the rug, and ignore past racism and that's not how we heal and repent.  They aren't even aware of the present racism either.  The track record on this topic is embarrassing and tragic.  

Teachings from 1978–present[edit]

Church publications have also contained statements discouraging interracial marriage. In the same June 1978 issue announcing that black members were now eligible for temple rites, missionary service, and priesthood ordination, the official newspaper of the LDS Church^[78] also printed an article entitled "Interracial marriage discouraged".^[79] The same day a church spokesman stated "interracial marriages generally have been discouraged in the past, ... that remains our position" and that "the Church does not prohibit ... interracial marriages but it does discourage them."^[4]:5

In 2003 author Jon Krakauer stated that "official LDS policy has continued to strongly admonish white saints not to marry blacks" in his "Under the Banner of Heaven". In response the church newsroom released a statement from BYU Dean of Religious Education Robert L. Millet that "There is, in fact, no mention whatsoever in [the church] handbook concerning interracial marriages. In addition, having served as a Church leader for almost 30 years, I can also certify that I have never received official verbal instructions condemning marriages between black and white members."^[80] Though, denying any condemnation of interracial marriage, there was no comment on whether it was still discouraged, however. The most recent statement came in 2008 when spokesperson Mark Tuttle stated that the church has no policy against interracial marriage.^[81]:200[82]

The discouragement of marriage between those of different ethnicities by church leaders continued being taught to youth during Sunday meetings until 2013 when the use of the 1996 version of the church Sunday meeting manual for adolescent boys was discontinued.^[83] The manual had used a 1976 quote from past church president Spencer W. Kimball that said, "We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally".^[84]:169[85] The quote is still in use, however, in the 2003 institute Eternal Marriage Student Manual.^[5] Additionally, a footnote to a 1995 conference talk by the apostle Russell M. Nelson notes that loving without racial discrimination is a general commandment, but not one to apply to specific marriage partner criteria since it states that being united in ethnic background increases the probability of a successful marriage.^[86]

In 2013 the LDS Church published an essay entitled Race and the Priesthood on its official website. The essay disavowed teachings in the past that interracial marriage was a sin, indicating that it was influenced by the racism of the era.^[8][9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Teachings_from_1978–present

[The Nehor]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Perhaps you misunderstood the point I raised.  I'm not suggesting much about 1978, as the elements all played a roll in changing Church sentiment on members widely in the years previous.  I think I've heard a bit differently about the announcement, some reacted strongly against it while many others did not.   But I'd agree, if the Church just announced a revelation today or tomorrow allowing same sex couples to be sealed in the temple, many would loudly object.  Perhaps in years to come, though, as generations of old pass and new ones come in, as the largely culture that drives Church attitude changes, as science has it's say, member attitudes will change drastically.  

I would argue there is very little science to it. At best it is a soft science. You also seem to imply that the current course we appear to be on will inevitably win out. I am not so sure. I am not super aware or a big follower so I could be wrong but I am seeing what I suspect to be cracks in the current social movement. It is not wishful thinking either. If there is a shift I am by no means convinced that it will be to a better course. I am a cynic so I suspect a worse one.

[Daniel2]

Further actions attempting to pressure change.... one BYU alumnus has started a petition on change.org:

Ban BYU from NCAA for Sexual Orientation Discrimination

913 have signed. Let’s get to 1,000!

 

 

Alma Smit signed this petition

---

Guy Williams started this petition to NCAA

Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah has recently updated its "Honor Code" (school rules) to remove any language that can be seen as discriminatory against sexual orientations other than the traditional binary heterosexual male and female. It is a farce to maintain their eligibility in NCAA (as well as to gain entrance into other organizations such as Big-12) and their prominence in the academic world. 

"As a core value, the NCAA believes in and is committed to an inclusive culture that fosters equitable participation for student-athletes and career opportunities for coaches and administrators from diverse backgrounds." This is a direct quote from the NCAA Nondiscrimination Policy Guide Published in August of 2018. 

"Support LGBTQ events on your campus (for example, National Coming Out Day; Day of Silence, LGBTQ Pride Week) by encouraging student-athletes and athletics personnel to attend the events. Just standing in solidarity alongside LGBTQ students and allies will speak volumes with regard to your support and may encourage them to attend more athletics events. If your institution has an LGBT Resource Center, they can provide a calendar of events." Another Direct Quote from an NCAA website;

http://www.ncaa.org/sport-science-institute/mind-body-and-sport-harassment-and-discrimination-lgbtq-student-athletes 

It has been made undoubtedly clear by Paul V. Johnson, Commissioner of the Church Education System that this is not the stance at Brigham Young University, or, any of the mormon church's schools, in a statement released on March 4, 2020. "Same-sex romantic behavior cannot lead to eternal marriage and is therefore not compatible with the principles included in the Honor Code". To read his entire letter, go to;

https://universe.byu.edu/2020/03/04/ces-letter-addresses-byu-honor-code-updates/ 

I am a BYU Provo Alumni. I am embarrassed that I have a degree from them and am saddened by their consistent discriminatory policies. This is not new at BYU or church schools. BYU needs to change their policies or be removed from not only NCAA but other organizations that set themselves apart as non-discriminatory.

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Further actions attempting to pressure change.... one BYU alumnus has started a petition on change.org:

 

 

It is interesting that all the pushback and protests are coming from members of the Church.  It seems they are the ones that want the change and are trying to build a groundswell of support against Church policies the most.  

Thanks for posting this.  How did you hear about the petition?

Edited March 11, 2020 by california boy

[Daniel2]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

It is interesting that all the pushback and protests are coming from members of the Church.  It seems they are the ones that want the change and are trying to build a groundswell of support against Church policies the most.  

Thanks for posting this.  How did you hear about the petition?

It came up on my Facebook feed...

One point of correction: though the author of the petition is a BYU alumnus, he appears to have left the Church based on his change.org profile.

Edited March 11, 2020 by Daniel2

[Scott Lloyd]

On 3/10/2020 at 3:15 PM, Duncan said:

I know a few holdouts that think the Priesthood should not have not gone to everyone, I feel sick when I see them at Church functions

I’ve never met a Church member who harbors that sentiment, or who would admit it to me if he or she does. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 3/11/2020 at 7:20 AM, Daniel2 said:

It came up on my Facebook feed...

One point of correction: though the author of the petition is a BYU alumnus, he appears to have left the Church based on his change.org profile.

Scarcely a surprise, that. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 3/10/2020 at 3:34 PM, hope_for_things said:

I'm assuming these are members of the church with their alt-right hate.  Do you think they are non-members?  DezNat short for Deseret Nation, has developed quite the reputation on twitter.  

Reminds me of the white culture advocate lady from a couple years back and when the church news room had to basically make multiple statements condemning her rhetoric.  We have LGBTQ bigots and racists in our church as well, just like we have them in the broader culture.  

There are extremists on both sides of the issue who hold Church membership. That’s why it’s best to look to anointed servants of God for direction. 

Edited March 12, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

On 3/10/2020 at 11:50 AM, smac97 said:

Very disconcerting.  Threats of violence have no place in these discussions.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree and denounce those who would engage in such a thing. 
 

I had never heard of this extremist group Deseret Nation before I read the Tribune article. The impression I get from the article is that all those who disagree with or oppose the student revolt against the Church’s clarification of the intent of the honor code change belong to this extremist group. I highly doubt that’s true. It’s like using the term “alt-right” as a broad brush to tar all those with whom one disagrees.

 

For example, were all those who were reading the family proclamation on campus actually members of the extremist group? Did they self-identify as such, or is that just an assumption?

Edited March 12, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Amulek]

On 3/10/2020 at 7:32 PM, Daniel2 said:

Further actions attempting to pressure change.... one BYU alumnus has started a petition on change.org:

Wait a second - somebody has started a change.org petition. Oh my, now it's getting serious. 

Incidentally, if this person is so ashamed of his degree from BYU, I wonder if he has considered asking the university to revoke it. Because I've got a sneaking suspicion he isn't so embarrassed that he's actually leaving it off his CV. 

 

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Quote

Very disconcerting.  Threats of violence have no place in these discussions.

I agree and denounce those who would engage in such a thing. 

I had never heard of this extremist group Deseret Nation before I read the Tribune article. The impression I get from the article is that all those who disagree with or oppose the student revolt against the Church’s clarification of the intent of the honor code change belong to this extremist group. I highly doubt that’s true. It’s like using the term “alt-right” as a broad brush to tar all those with whom one disagrees.

Yep.  I previously addressed the "#DezNat" issue last fall: DezNat (Deseret Nation) = White Nationalism?

An excerpt:

Quote

The Daily Chronicle piece {quoted previously} is entitled "The LDS Church has a White Nationalist Problem."  I question that.  I have a hard time conceptualizing the members of the Church as sliding backwards in terms of race relations.  I am not saying that racism doesn't exist in the Church, but I am suggesting that we have made significant progress in such matters.  One of the better ways we have come to overcome race-based animus is sending out young men and young women to serve in cultures other than their own, often amongst persons of different races.  My father served in Argentina as a young man, and he and my mother later served missions in Samoa, Fabens, TX, and Zimbabwe.  My siblings and siblings-in-law have served missions in Brasil, the Philippines, Romania, Iowa, Taiwan, Vanuatu, Alaska, Florida, Venezuela, among the Navajo, and Samoa.  I have a Hawaiian sister, a Tahitian brother, and a Samoan sister-in-law.  My (biological) brother is raising two refugee boys, both Muslim, from Afghanistan.  I have friends and acquaintances who have served in missions all over the world.  My sister and her husband (an MD) recently moved to Vanuatu (where my sister had previously served as a missionary) to provide medical services and training for a few years. 

This makes racism hard to maintain.  For example, it's hard for a person who goes on a mission to Taiwan (peopled mostly ethnic Han, or what we generally call "Chinese"), who spends two years learning their language and about their culture, who knocks on their doors, invites them to church, worships with them, serves alongside them, participates in service projects for them, to then return home with a dislike of Chinese people.  To the contrary, missionary work almost always fosters a love and respect for different races and cultures.

The Church also works very hard to teach its members against racism, sexism, violence, etc.  Taken together, these efforts, both in teaching and in practice, provide a substantial bulwark against encroaching racism, etc. 

I think missionary work is one of the best ways to foster mutual understanding and respect, and to reduce inclinations toward racial divisiveness.

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

For example, were all those who were reading the family proclamation on campus members of the extremist group? Did they self-identify as such, or is that just an assumption?

Dunno.

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There are extremists on both sides of the issue who hold Church membership. That’s why it’s best to look to anointed servants of God for direction. 

Agreed that there are extremists everywhere these days, and we ought to be careful about avoiding them.  I look to critical thinking and my conscious for direction and I also listen to a number of sources, experts in their fields of expertise.  I know the general authorities aren't experts on the topics of racism or LGBTQ issues, so I don't consider their perspectives very strongly when it comes to these issues. 

[rongo]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Agreed that there are extremists everywhere these days, and we ought to be careful about avoiding them.  I look to critical thinking and my conscious for direction and I also listen to a number of sources, experts in their fields of expertise.  I know the general authorities aren't experts on the topics of racism or LGBTQ issues, so I don't consider their perspectives very strongly when it comes to these issues. 

Just curious what topics you do consider general authorities experts on? I don't think you care for their scriptural or doctrinal interpretation, either, so I'm wondering if you would admit that they are experts on anything. I will be pleasantly surprised if you do. 

Just curious! 

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ve never met a Church member who harbors that sentiment, or who would admit it to me if he or she does. 

i can give you some names! one is currently an EQ Pres. in our Stake, not me. The Bishop in the neighboring ward thinks that Naziism should be given the benefit of the doubt

[hope_for_things]

44 minutes ago, rongo said:

Just curious what topics you do consider general authorities experts on? I don't think you care for their scriptural or doctrinal interpretation, either, so I'm wondering if you would admit that they are experts on anything. I will be pleasantly surprised if you do. 

Just curious! 

I can’t remember who the leader was in recent years that made the comment that they are General Authorities, but that doesn’t make they authorities or experts on issues in general.  I think this was a rather frank and honest admission for someone that has throughout his church life likely been very acquainted with getting asked questions about numerous subjects that this person isn’t a trained expert on.  For most of these people, I imagine this experience of being asked questions and giving their opinions on all kinds of subjects gives them somewhat of an ego boost and a false sense that their opinions on these subjects are somehow more relevant than the average person’s opinion. 

Are you familiar with the Dunning Krueger effect?  If not, take a look at the attached link.  I think there may be some applicability with respect to leaders who think they know something that they are actually quite ill prepared to give an informative answer about, yet because of this effect they are even more confident in their perceived knowledge about a topic.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

Not to get political, but President Trump did this just the other day on the COVID-19 topic where he seems to have a false sense of his own understanding on the subject.  He clearly is not an expert on this issue and his numerous missteps on the topic should be a warning to critical thinkers everywhere.  

Quote

I like this stuff.  I really get it.  People are surprised that I understand it.  Every one of these doctors said, “How do you know so much about this?”  Maybe I have a natural ability.  Maybe I should have done that instead of running for President.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-tour-centers-disease-control-prevention-atlanta-ga/

So back to your question, what do I consider the GAs to be experts on?  Well, I think that varies from person to person.  Every one of the GAs has a different background, some may have excellent legal knowledge, while others may be medically trained in a particular field.  By virtue of their callings, I don’t think that makes them an expert on things.  Traditionally by virtue of their callings the membership in general grants them authoritative status which allows for them to guide the church from an theological perspective.  That doesn’t instantly make all their arguments well-reasoned, or as evidenced by history, it doesn’t mean their statements end up lasting for very long, just look at many of Brigham Youngs teachings as an example of things that have fallen out of favor with the dominant teachings today.  

As a matter of personal practice, I try to listen to the things they teach and try to understand where they are coming from.  If its something that I have a negative initial reaction to I try to wrestle with it and square it against my experiences, values and conscience (spirit).  If its something intuitively agree with, I typically find myself happy and supportive, but later I try to revisit those things as well to see if perhaps there is something else that I’m missing.  I try to challenge my own confirmation bias as I recognize that my privileges ought to be examined more critically.  It helps when I hear how other people interpret their messages, so I can see different perspectives.  

One thing I don’t do, is I don’t privilege their statements as being somehow more in tune with the divine will than my own spiritual understanding.  I used to do this earlier in life, but I’ve learned better.