Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Byu Honor Code Matches New Handbook


Calm

Recommended Posts

34 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.

This would have excluded polygamy.

However, just having the condition as "marriage recognized by the laws of the Church" fits the historical conditions as well as the current ones, .I believe.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

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

Fidelity within marriage applies to married. An act of infidelity within marriage violates the Law of Chastity, an unmarried person could commit the same act as the married person but the unmarried person would not have committed infidelity with marriage and thus did not violate the Law of Chastity.

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

The Law of Chastity defines two distinct violations - sexual relations outside of marriage; infidelity within marriage - so what you had listed may be an act of infedility within marriage and thus violate the Law of Chastity and the same act outside of marriage would not be a violation of the Law of Chastity.

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.  

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

If the Law of Chastity is the letters of itself, then it is not hard to justify same-sex dating, kissing, hugging. If the Law of Chastity encompasses more than it plain reading of the letters of itself, then depending on how the Church defined the law, it could be hard to justify same-sex dating, kissing, hugging, etc.

Is BYU adopting a stance that the Law of Chastity means only what the letters of itself mean...I do not know, I agree with others here that something additional is may be forthcoming. Does BYU's statement that is will do a case by case evaluation suggest that ALL same sex dating does not violate the Law of Chastity, I think it does. 

Is BYU adopting an everything-right-up-to-but-not-quite-including-penetrative-sex-is-okay approach to the Honor Code?  I doubt it. I can tell you a friend told me during his time at BYU his ward got a very graphic and specific "lecture" from the Bishop about what "is" is regarding sexual activity, that was about 20 years ago.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Past and present.  In wording and in practice.

That's not true.  Members were allowed to have sexual relations without being legally married.  "In practice", it very definitely was different than it is today.

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But the substance has remained the same.

No, it has not "remained the same".  Can members still have sexual intercourse with someone they are not legally married to and be obedient to the current Law of Chastity?

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

Is kissing and holding hands sexual relations?  

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Members were allowed to have sexual relations without being legally married.

The law doesn't matter unless the law is in agreement with God's direction. 

I mean, if there were a country which refused to recognize any marriages legally, do you honestly believe that sealed couples living there would be in violation of the law of chastity merely because their marriage is not "legally" recognized?

 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Expound on that comment.    

Think,it is self evident, so no, not going to expound.

Quote

Just saying God commanded something is not a well developed ethic, it’s just an appeal to authority.

Good thing we don't do that then.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Amulek said:

The law doesn't matter unless the law is in agreement with God's direction. 

The words are currently "legally and lawfully".....so yes, it does matter.  (It didn't always state that.)

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The words are currently "legally and lawfully".....so yes, it does matter.  (It didn't always state that.)

Again, the "lawfully" part only matters to the extent that it coincides with God's direction. 

If you are "lawfully" married to a second wife in another country, you are still violating the law of chastity because God has not sanctioned plural marriage to be practiced at this time.

The idea that the law of chastity is somehow predicated upon man's law is just plain ridiculous on it's face.

Adam and Eve were married by God, but they never received a marriage license, so I guess they were never able to live the law of chastity, right? :rolleyes:

 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Again, the "lawfully" part only matters to the extent that it coincides with God's direction. 

If you are "lawfully" married to a second wife in another country, you are still violating the law of chastity because God has not sanctioned plural marriage to be practiced at this time.

The idea that the law of chastity is somehow predicated upon man's law is just plain ridiculous on it's face.

Adam and Eve were married by God, but they never received a marriage license, so I guess they were never able to live the law of chastity, right? :rolleyes:

 

So the words in the current Law of Chastity don't matter or have meaning?  Why change them then or add new words?

What was the Law of Chastity back when Adam and Eve were married?  Can you quote it?

I wonder how many changes have been made since then?  😛

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, Amulek said:

The law doesn't matter unless the law is in agreement with God's direction. 

I mean, if there were a country which refused to recognize any marriages legally, do you honestly believe that sealed couples living there would be in violation of the law of chastity merely because their marriage is not "legally" recognized?

 

 

34 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The words are currently "legally and lawfully".....so yes, it does matter.  (It didn't always state that.)

As published in the General Handbook, 

38.6.5

Chastity and Fidelity

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.

Physical intimacy between husband and wife is intended to be beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love between husband and wife.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

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. 

This comment struck me as ironic. You say, "I don't want the law of chastity dismantled" and yet you completely dismantle it and then redefine it. 

The Law of Chastity by definition is no sex before marriage and only sex with your spouse after marriage. The church clarifies spouses should be opposite gender. You want to allow sex before marriage and define it as good sexual ethics between consenting adults. This is the world's view of sexuality - anything goes as long as it's two adults - either before marriage or with swinging partner after marriage - as long as everyone is good with it.

 

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

We need a thoughtful approach that looks at scripture, tradition and peoples experiences, and tries to balance those out in a reasonable ways.    

This is the epitome of taking God out of the equation. In summary it is the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture. This is the antithesis of the whole point of the Church of Jesus Christ, that Jesus Chris is at the head and has specific commandments that we accept (or not) by covenant. Getting together to do a balance of tradition and scripture, and people's experiences is the way of the worlds (the government, UN, businesses, etc.) not how God or his church should operate.

There is not point to the Church of Jesus Christ if we do it the way the world does. You have completely neutered God's law out of the equation and removed Christ from his church in doing it this way. It is a second great apostasy that you are hoping for.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

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

Right.

So kissing, holding hands, placing arms around each other is not against the law of chastity...even if the couple is gay.

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, provoman said:

 

As published in the General Handbook, 

38.6.5

Chastity and Fidelity

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.

Physical intimacy between husband and wife is intended to be beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love between husband and wife.

I think you know what I was referring to.  I don't want to go into temple information, but it is very specifically given in the temple (the Law of Chasity)....but I'm not going to quote it verbatim.    

But if you believe those specific words don't matter or have meaning or are not correct.....that's up to you.  However, if that's the case, then one would have to wonder why they were changed or added within the endowment then.

I do believe that the words above:  "according to God's law" is referring to the law specifically given in the temple (Law of Chastity).  Do you disagree?

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Is kissing and holding hands sexual relations?  

You should ask your wife and not Scott. 

I am not just being facetious. Honestly, please go ask your wife if you were kissing and holding hands with another woman would your wife consider this breaking the spirit of the Law of Chastity (i.e., no sexual relations except to your wife). Then report back and let us know if you now have a free pass to kiss and hold hands with other women.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

You should ask your wife and not Scott. 

I am not just being facetious. Honestly, please go ask your wife if you were kissing and holding hands with another woman would your wife consider this breaking the spirit of the Law of Chastity (i.e., no sexual relations except to your wife). Then report back and let us know if you now have a free pass to kiss and hold hands with other women.

Maybe you could go to BYU and find a unmarried heterosexual couple on a date who is kissing and holding hands and then inform them that they are breaking the law of chastity.

 

This conversation has gotten weird.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Right.

So kissing, holding hands, placing arms around each other is not against the law of chastity...even if the couple is gay.

Hopefully when unmarried members of the Church are engaged in this kind of affectionate activity they know where to draw the line given the revealed word on marriage.

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think you know what I was referring to.  I don't want to go into temple information, but it is very specifically given in the temple (the Law of Chasity)....but I'm not going to quote it verbatim.    

But if you believe those specific words don't matter or have meaning or are not correct.....that's up to you.  One would have to wonder why they were changed or added within the endowment though.

Given the change in marriage laws and regulations throughout the world in recent years, I think the wording clarifies and reaffirms for people who are "in the world but not of it" exactly what they are covenanting to do given the Church's definition of marriage.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think you know what I was referring to.  I don't want to go into temple information, but it is very specifically given in the temple (the Law of Chasity)....but I'm not going to quote it verbatim.    

But if you believe those specific words don't matter or have meaning or are not correct.....that's up to you.  However, if that's the case, then one would have to wonder why they were changed or added within the endowment then.

I do believe that the words above:  "according to God's law" is referring to the law specifically given in the temple (Law of Chastity).  Do you disagree?

I figured you and Amulek were referring to the Temple.

I posted the General Handbook definition because, I would say it supersedes. So while I acknowledge the presence of legal and lawful words as being what I have previously heard/agreed to, I suspect those words will not be presence anymore

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, provoman said:

I figured you and Amulek were referring to the Temple.

I posted the General Handbook definition because, I would say it supersedes. So while I acknowledge the presence of legal and lawful words as being what I have previously heard/agreed to, I suspect those words will not be presence anymore

Oh...ok.  Got ya!  Sorry that I misunderstood.

So, you think they will be changed in the temple endowment wording as well?   That will be interesting to see 👍

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Oh...ok.  Got ya!  Sorry that I misunderstood.

So, you think they will be changed in the temple endowment wording as well?   That will be interesting to see 👍

Yes I think endowment wording would change. As pointed out plural spouse is legal in some countries, same-sex marriage is legal in some countries, so for me it makes sense to reword to God's law.

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

You should ask your wife and not Scott. 

I am not just being facetious. Honestly, please go ask your wife if you were kissing and holding hands with another woman would your wife consider this breaking the spirit of the Law of Chastity (i.e., no sexual relations except to your wife). Then report back and let us know if you now have a free pass to kiss and hold hands with other women.

Ehh... what?  If it hurts my wife's feelings its sexual relations?  

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, provoman said:

I posted the General Handbook definition because, I would say it supersedes. So while I acknowledge the presence of legal and lawful words as being what I have previously heard/agreed to, I suspect those words will not be presence anymore

I agree. When God's law and the legal definition of marriage are in agreement with each other, then I don't see anything inherently wrong with communicating about the law of chastity in a way that makes reference to "legal and lawful" marriage, because everyone understands what is meant by that. But if the definition of "marriage" were to change, or if what is "legal and lawful" were to change, then it makes sense that the language used to talk about the law of chastity might need to change as well.

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...