Byu Honor Code Matches New Handbook

[Amulek]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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

Infidelity can occur without sexual relations.

 

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

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.

 

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.

This is an example of the kind of knee jerk, unthoughtful, appeal to authority approach  I was talking about.  

[CV75]

12 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

This is an example of the kind of knee jerk, unthoughtful, appeal to authority approach  I was talking about.  

Some snippets from this article on CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/21/us/brigham-young-homosexual-behavior-honor-code-trnd/index.html

"Kitchen [president of Affirmation] said he spoke to the Honor Code Office on Thursday morning, and officers told him that they'll allow same-sex student couples to kiss, hold hands and date. They'll also no longer accept tips from other students or ecclesiastical leaders about "homosexual behavior" on campus, Kitchen said -- it'll all be self-reported.

"The office used to investigate violations of its code -- including "homosexual behavior" -- using tips from students, faculty and local church leaders. They'd interview witnesses and place students on probation or expel them, in some cases.

"Now, Kitchen said, same-sex student couples can "date for fun or companionship," but if it's with the goal of marrying, they can report themselves to the Honor Code Office -- because that would mean they're breaking church doctrine, which forbids same-sex marriage."

This way, students have the Church to minister to their moral issues, discipline, spiritual counseling, etc. and the Honor Code Office simply determines compliance with matriculation and attendance requirements.

This way, people who differ with the doctrine (Church and covenants) yet wish to dwell within the culture (University and honor code) can fully exercise their integrity.

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Some snippets from this article on CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/21/us/brigham-young-homosexual-behavior-honor-code-trnd/index.html

"Kitchen [president of Affirmation] said he spoke to the Honor Code Office on Thursday morning, and officers told him that they'll allow same-sex student couples to kiss, hold hands and date. They'll also no longer accept tips from other students or ecclesiastical leaders about "homosexual behavior" on campus, Kitchen said -- it'll all be self-reported.

"The office used to investigate violations of its code -- including "homosexual behavior" -- using tips from students, faculty and local church leaders. They'd interview witnesses and place students on probation or expel them, in some cases.

"Now, Kitchen said, same-sex student couples can "date for fun or companionship," but if it's with the goal of marrying, they can report themselves to the Honor Code Office -- because that would mean they're breaking church doctrine, which forbids same-sex marriage."

This way, students have the Church to minister to their moral issues, discipline, spiritual counseling, etc. and the Honor Code Office simply determines compliance with matriculation and attendance requirements.

This way, people who differ with the doctrine (Church and covenants) yet wish to dwell within the culture (University and honor code) can fully exercise their integrity.

Thanks for posting, this is a very encouraging step forwards.  I was hopeful that this would be the approach, but with some of the blow back after the social media posts earlier in the week, I was worried they were back tracking.  I find it interesting that Kitchen says if they are dating with the goal of marrying, then they can report themselves to the HC office.  So just having the goal of marrying is an Honor Code violation?  I thought the HC was just about behavior, not about ideas for the future.  So if someone has the goal of growing a beard, but doesn't grow one while at BYU, would they be in violation of the code?  

At any rate, this is a very good step in a more egalitarian direction, and I'm glad for it!  

[smac97]

15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

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.

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.

This is an example of the kind of knee jerk, unthoughtful, appeal to authority approach  I was talking about.  

An "appeal to authority" is only fallacious if the source being cited does not actually have authority, or if that authority is disconnected from the subject matter.

Here, the subject matter is the Law of Chastity.  The scriptures and modern prophets and apostles are in authority.  And their cumulative prophetic counsel about the Law of Chastity is derived from that authority.

And there's nothing "knee jerk" or "unthoughtful" about AM's remarks.  To the contrary, AM provides a reasoned explanation for his position.  You, on the other handed, responded with a one-sentence insult.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 21, 2020 by smac97

[ALarson]

29 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Some snippets from this article on CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/21/us/brigham-young-homosexual-behavior-honor-code-trnd/index.html

"Kitchen [president of Affirmation] said he spoke to the Honor Code Office on Thursday morning, and officers told him that they'll allow same-sex student couples to kiss, hold hands and date. They'll also no longer accept tips from other students or ecclesiastical leaders about "homosexual behavior" on campus, Kitchen said -- it'll all be self-reported.

I hope that this clarification is accurate.  That's good news, if true.

Thanks for posting this article!

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

So if someone has the goal of growing a beard, but doesn't grow one while at BYU...

BLASPHEME!!!

[hope_for_things]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

An "appeal to authority" is only fallacious if the source being cited does not actually authority, or if that authority is disconnected from the subject matter.

Here, the subject matter is the Law of Chastity.  The scriptures and modern prophets and apostles are in authority.  And their cumulative prophetic counsel about the Law of Chastity is derived from that authority.

And there's nothing "knee jerk" or "unthoughtful" about AM's remarks.  To the contrary, AM provides a reasoned explanation for his position.  You, on the other handed, responded with a one-sentence insult.

Thanks,

-Smac

An appeal to authority is the opposite of a thoughtful and well reasoned approach that takes into consideration tradition, scripture and experience.  That is what I'm calling for, so by definition an appeal to authority is a knee jerk response.  Its outsourcing your intelligent reasoning and discussion for an I know you are but what am I kind of argument.  I believe appeals to authority are antithetical not only to reason and logic, but to spiritual ways of knowing which Mormonism encourages to look at the heart and mind and study things out and embrace all truth that is always relative to the sphere it resides.  

 

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

An appeal to authority is the opposite of a thoughtful and well reasoned approach that takes into consideration tradition, scripture and experience. 

A fallacious appeal to authority, perhaps.

But AM's post was not that.

22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

That is what I'm calling for, so by definition an appeal to authority is a knee jerk response. 

By your definition.

AM laid out his reasoning and his argument, so it's not "knee jerk" at all.  And to the extent he cited authority to support his position, he did so properly.  The Law of Chastity is, well, the law.

As an attorney, if someone asks me to present analysis pertaining to, say, the statute of limitations for a nonjudicial foreclosure in Utah, I would respond by setting forth the legal authorities which govern that issue.  This would include statutory authorities, such as Utah Code Ann. §§ 57-1-24, 70A-3-118, 78B-2-112, and 78B-2-113.  I would also cite applicable decisional authorities, such as Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Temple View Investments, 2003 UT App 441, 82 P.3d 655, Beck v. Dutchman Coalition Mines Co., 2 Utah 2d 104, 269 P.2d 867, 869–70 (1954), Commonwealth Property Advocates, LLC v. Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc., 2011 UT App, 263 P.3d 397, Christensen v. Am. Heritage Title Agency, Inc., 2016 UT App 36, 368 P.3d 125, Deleeuw v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, 2018 UP App 59, 424 P.3d 1075, DiMeo v. Nupetco Assocs., 2013 UT App 188, 2013 UT App 188, Jeppesen v. Bank of Utah, 2018 UT App 234, 438 P.3d 81, and Timm v. Dewsnup, 2003 UT 47, 86 P.3d 699.

In doing so, am I appealing to authority?  Yes.  Is that appeal fallacious?  Decidedly not.  Legislatively-enacted statutes, and decisions from the Utah Supreme Court and Utah Court of Appeals, are the law of the land.  The legislature and the courts are situated to state what the law is.  Citation and deference to them is therefore entirely appropriate.

As pertaining to the Church, its doctrines and laws are found in the scriptures and in the cumulative writings/statements by its leaders acting in their official capacities.  Prophets and aposts are situated to state what the doctrines and laws of the Church are.  Citation and deference to them is therefore entirely appropriate.

Thanks,

-Smac

22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its outsourcing your intelligent reasoning and discussion for an I know you are but what am I kind of argument.  I believe appeals to authority are antithetical not only to reason and logic, but to spiritual ways of knowing which Mormonism encourages to look at the heart and mind and study things out and embrace all truth that is always relative to the sphere it resides.  

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for posting, this is a very encouraging step forwards.  I was hopeful that this would be the approach, but with some of the blow back after the social media posts earlier in the week, I was worried they were back tracking.  I find it interesting that Kitchen says if they are dating with the goal of marrying, then they can report themselves to the HC office.  So just having the goal of marrying is an Honor Code violation?  I thought the HC was just about behavior, not about ideas for the future.  So if someone has the goal of growing a beard, but doesn't grow one while at BYU, would they be in violation of the code?  

At any rate, this is a very good step in a more egalitarian direction, and I'm glad for it!  

This how I've been looking at it (and posting accordingly on this thread). Instead of focusing on preemptively defining exactly what constitutes a code violation, students decide when to see their bishop about what they see as a moral dilemma (struggling with the growing desire or intention to have sex, to marry their dating partner of the same gender, etc. -- law of chastity issues) and then report it as an honor code violation themselves if they have determined it is warranted. The bishop can also decide what to do with ecclesiastical endorsement. The morality (doctrine) comes first, the application (code and endorsement) comes second. The honor code is not about intent but action and ecclesiastical counseling often addresses intent.

Beards? For a gay man to marry a woman for appearances would be quite disingenuous. Oh you man that kind of beard... A fuzzy face is not a moral issue requiring counsel from a judge in Israel.

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I hope that this clarification is accurate.  That's good news, if true.

Thanks for posting this article!

I think the part you bolded is Kitchen's "half glass full" interpretation (he used "allowed" vs. "not mentioned" -- leaving it up to the students to use wisdom in deciding where to draw the line on according to their moral convictions and how much of a dilemma they create for themselves in approaching the edge of their covenants). See comments above.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think the part you bolded is Kitchen's "half glass full" interpretation (he used "allowed" vs. "not mentioned" -- leaving it up to the students to use wisdom in deciding where to draw the line on according to their moral convictions and how much of a dilemma they create for themselves in approaching the edge of their covenants). See comments above.

He stated that he actually spoke to officers from the BYU Honor Code Office:

Quote

he spoke to the Honor Code Office on Thursday morning, and officers told him that they'll allow same-sex student couples to kiss, hold hands and date. 

Unless he's not telling the truth, that does not sound like just an interpretation.  

Maybe more will come out regarding this and possibly more clarification.  But reading what he stated it appears he's quoting what he was told by the officers.

[hope_for_things]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A fallacious appeal to authority, perhaps.

But AM's post was not that.

By your definition.

AM laid out his reasoning and his argument, so it's not "knee jerk" at all.  And to the extent he cited authority to support his position, he did so properly.  The Law of Chastity is, well, the law.

As an attorney, if someone asks me to present analysis pertaining to, say, the statute of limitations for a nonjudicial foreclosure in Utah, I would respond by setting forth the legal authorities which govern that issue.  This would include statutory authorities, such as Utah Code Ann. §§ 57-1-24, 70A-3-118, 78B-2-112, and 78B-2-113.  I would also cite applicable decisional authorities, such as Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Temple View Investments, 2003 UT App 441, 82 P.3d 655, Beck v. Dutchman Coalition Mines Co., 2 Utah 2d 104, 269 P.2d 867, 869–70 (1954), Commonwealth Property Advocates, LLC v. Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc., 2011 UT App, 263 P.3d 397, Christensen v. Am. Heritage Title Agency, Inc., 2016 UT App 36, 368 P.3d 125, Deleeuw v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, 2018 UP App 59, 424 P.3d 1075, DiMeo v. Nupetco Assocs., 2013 UT App 188, 2013 UT App 188, Jeppesen v. Bank of Utah, 2018 UT App 234, 438 P.3d 81, and Timm v. Dewsnup, 2003 UT 47, 86 P.3d 699.

In doing so, am I appealing to authority?  Yes.  Is that appeal fallacious?  Decidedly not.  Legislatively-enacted statutes, and decisions from the Utah Supreme Court and Utah Court of Appeals, are the law of the land.  The legislature and the courts are situated to state what the law is.  Citation and deference to them is therefore entirely appropriate.

As pertaining to the Church, its doctrines and laws are found in the scriptures and in the cumulative writings/statements by its leaders acting in their official capacities.  Prophets and aposts are situated to state what the doctrines and laws of the Church are.  Citation and deference to them is therefore entirely appropriate.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Makes sense coming from a legal perspective, but I don't view the gospel in legal terms.  

There is no interpretation of authority that can separate itself from context & culture.  That is why I'm asking for a blending of scriptural interpretation, tradition and experience.  This is a Richard Rohr type approach in case you are familiar with him.  

No human is capable of defining God's laws in legalese.  Those who claim to do so are suspect in my opinion and we should be skeptical of them.  

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Makes sense coming from a legal perspective, but I don't view the gospel in legal terms.  

Nor in logical terms, it seems.

"Appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy.  You aren't using it correctly.

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

There is no interpretation of authority that can separate itself from context & culture.  That is why I'm asking for a blending of scriptural interpretation, tradition and experience.  This is a Richard Rohr type approach in case you are familiar with him.  

Interesting, but not really relevant to your false characterization of AM's post, which was not a fallacious appeal to authority, nor was it "knee jerk" or "unthoughtful."

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

No human is capable of defining God's laws in legalese. 

Nobody here is attempting to do that.  

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Those who claim to do so are suspect in my opinion and we should be skeptical of them.  

"Argument from analogy."  Give it some thought.

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

45 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This how I've been looking at it (and posting accordingly on this thread). Instead of focusing on preemptively defining exactly what constitutes a code violation, students decide when to see their bishop about what they see as a moral dilemma (struggling with the growing desire or intention to have sex, to marry their dating partner of the same gender, etc. -- law of chastity issues) and then report it as an honor code violation themselves if they have determined it is warranted. The bishop can also decide what to do with ecclesiastical endorsement. The morality (doctrine) comes first, the application (code and endorsement) comes second. The honor code is not about intent but action and ecclesiastical counseling often addresses intent.

Beards? For a gay man to marry a woman for appearances would be quite disingenuous. Oh you man that kind of beard... A fuzzy face is not a moral issue requiring counsel from a judge in Israel.

I think the part you bolded is Kitchen's "half glass full" interpretation (he used "allowed" vs. "not mentioned" -- leaving it up to the students to use wisdom in deciding where to draw the line on according to their moral convictions and how much of a dilemma they create for themselves in approaching the edge of their covenants). See comments above.

Thanks, I appreciate your comments and I agree with most everything you’ve stated here.  I do want to see a cultural shift away from students reporting on others and towards people discussing these things themselves with their leaders if they feel so inspired to do so.  I would also like to see ecclesiastical leaders do the heavy lifting rather than an honor code office.  I don’t think students should be kicked out of school or suspended very often if ever.  I think if a person is demonstrating that they want to live by the standards and they care about making changes to behaviors when they mess up, I think that is the most important thing, with some rare exceptions.  

I do want to ask a question about the bolded part.  There are clearly some participants on this message board who view physical affection (kissing and holding hands) between two members of the same sex to be immoral.  This bolded segment looks to be assuming that there is a universally accepted definition of what is moral (doctrine) on these topics.  I wanted to ask if you could expound on this because I think it gets to the heart of the conflict on this topic.  

I talked earlier in the thread about how I don’t want to dismantle the law of chastity, but that my perspectives on it have changed over the years.  Some people clearly see my interpretation of chastity to be very different than theirs.  With various differing opinions on the matter, how does one appeal to what is moral, when the very definition of what is moral varies from person to person.  
 

[Analytics]

43 minutes ago, ALarson said:

He stated that he actually spoke to officers from the BYU Honor Code Office:

Unless he's not telling the truth, that does not sound like just an interpretation.  

Maybe more will come out regarding this and possibly more clarification.  But reading what he stated it appears he's quoting what he was told by the officers.

I agree. It appears that to its credit, BYU is taking a big step towards internal consistency and treating non-marital displays of affection consistently, regardless of the sex of the parties involved. 

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Makes sense coming from a legal perspective, but I don't view the gospel in legal terms.  

Nor in logical terms, it seems.

"Appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy.  You aren't using it correctly.

I think I understand fairly well what an appeal to authority is and why its a logical fallacy.  If you think I'm using it incorrectly, you'll have to be more specific.  An appeal to authority like you and others have made, no matter how detailed that appeal is, citing multiple points in a document or multiple precedents from a historical perspective, does not make that appeal to authority logical.  Logic is about reasoning and deduction from carefully constructed descriptions of why, not just what happened in the past.  Why should we define chastity in a particular way, not just who defined chastity in the past a certain way.  There is a big difference.  

I'm suggesting that we need to look at multiple view points that would include history and tradition, as well as scripture, knowledge about the human experience, science, culture and together all of these different components we could come up with a balanced and comprehensive sexual ethic that is reasonable, logical and in harmony our best understanding of what is key to the gospel core.  This is what I'm getting at.  I see this approach as very different than quoting some scriptures or other church leaders and saying, see this is how it should be defined, so and so said this, and I interpret what they said this way and we can't budge from my interpretation.  This is not at all the same kind of approach that I think is very much needed on this important topic.  

[CV75]

40 minutes ago, ALarson said:

He stated that he actually spoke to officers from the BYU Honor Code Office:

Unless he's not telling the truth, that does not sound like just an interpretation.  

Maybe more will come out regarding this and possibly more clarification.  But reading what he stated it appears he's quoting what he was told by the officers.

Looking at it closely, it's actually the reporter's interpretation of whatever Kitchen shared. Kitchen does put forth a win ("1/2 full") and not-win ("1/2 empty") attitude.

The University neither allows nor disallows same-sex couples to "kiss, hold hands and date" in the Honor Code, any more than the Church does in the Law of Chastity. When the student and bishop counsel together over moral concerns, the student determines whether to self-report and the bishop determines whether to endorse. The HCO reviews the student's self-report and would determine on a case-by-case basis whether the behavior and related events represent a violation. For a student to self-report, there must be some key important semantics, contexts and sub-contexts at play.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Looking at it closely, it's actually the reporter's interpretation of whatever Kitchen shared. Kitchen does put forth a win ("1/2 full") and not-win ("1/2 empty") attitude.

I disagree.  What he stated is very clear and specific:

Quote

Kitchen said he spoke to the Honor Code Office on Thursday morning, and officers told him that they'll allow same-sex student couples to kiss, hold hands and date. 

Unless Kitchen is not telling the truth here, there is no reporter's interpretation taking place.  You seem to be the only one trying to spin this into something that was not stated.

But once again, we will have to wait and see if there is more clarification (or if what the officers of the Honor Code Office stated is correct).

[CV75]

21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I do want to ask a question about the bolded part.  There are clearly some participants on this message board who view physical affection (kissing and holding hands) between two members of the same sex to be immoral.  This bolded segment looks to be assuming that there is a universally accepted definition of what is moral (doctrine) on these topics.  I wanted to ask if you could expound on this because I think it gets to the heart of the conflict on this topic. 

The Church's doctrine is stated in general terms because there are always context, sub-context and semantics to consider on a case by case basis. In this topic of discussion, the Law of Chastity, The Golden Rule and the Great Commandment are straightforwardly and consistently published. I'm not sure what you mean by "universal," but clearly not everyone accepts these.

[provoman]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I disagree.  What he stated is very clear and specific:

Unless Kitchen is not telling the truth here, there is no reporter's interpretation taking place.  You seem to be the only one trying to spin this into something that was not stated.

But once again, we will have to wait and see if there is more clarification (or if what the officers of the Honor Code Office stated is correct).

Kitchen is not quoted in the CNN article regarding what is claimed to have been told to him.

As for more clarification...I am beginning to think BYU should just leave it were it is. People will date, people may approach the HCO office....each will be a case by case basis. We will hear/read unattributed anonymous statements about "Unnamed person at HCO said...."

With it case by case basis similar cases will, I suspect, be addressed differently and outcomes will be different. So while we are confused in terms of our discussions online, those affected can always approach the HCO.

[smac97]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

I think I understand fairly well what an appeal to authority is and why its a logical fallacy. 

Apparently not, since AM's post is not an example of it.

Here is what he said:

Quote

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. 

I don't seen any appeal to authority here, let along a fallacious one.

Quote

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.

This includes a citation to an authority (the Church, which defines the Law of Chastity).  But I don't see how this is a fallacious "appeal to authority."

Quote

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.

No appeal to authority here, fallacious or otherwise.  

Quote

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.

No appeal to authority here, fallacious or otherwise.  

Just now, hope_for_things said:

If you think I'm using it incorrectly, you'll have to be more specific. 

See above.

Just now, hope_for_things said:

An appeal to authority like you and others have made, no matter how detailed that appeal is, citing multiple points in a document or multiple precedents from a historical perspective, does not make that appeal to authority logical. 

Again, you aren't using the term correctly.

Just now, hope_for_things said:

Logic is about reasoning and deduction from carefully constructed descriptions of why, not just what happened in the past.  Why should we define chastity in a particular way, not just who defined chastity in the past a certain way.  There is a big difference.  

Not really responsive to the problems with your characterization of AM's post.

Just now, hope_for_things said:

I'm suggesting that we need to look at multiple view points that would include history and tradition, as well as scripture, knowledge about the human experience, science, culture and together all of these different components we could come up with a balanced and comprehensive sexual ethic that is reasonable, logical and in harmony our best understanding of what is key to the gospel core. 

The scriptures of the Church and the living prophets and apostles have authority to define the Law of Chastity, and to refine that definition where necessary (such as in response to the innovation of same-sex marriage).

"History and tradition" are decidedly secondary and subordinate.  So too is "knowledge about the human experience, science, culture."  The origins of the Law of Chastity are principally revelatory.

And none of this is particularly relevant to your improper characterization of AM's post.

Just now, hope_for_things said:

This is what I'm getting at.  I see this approach as very different than quoting some scriptures or other church leaders and saying, see this is how it should be defined, so and so said this, and I interpret what they said this way and we can't budge from my interpretation. 

I don't think you are accurately stating AM's approach.  Or mine.  Or anyone else's, really.

The Law of Chastity is found in the scriptures.  How the law is specifically defined is determined by the leaders of the Church, not by ad hoc, ideosyncratic meanings fabricated by those not in authority (like you and me).  How the law is applied is also determined by the leaders of the Church.  This is not a fallacious appeal to authority.  It's an accurate summary of how the Church operates.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I disagree.  What he stated is very clear and specific:

Unless Kitchen is not telling the truth here, there is no reporter's interpretation taking place.  You seem to be the only one trying to spin this into something that was not stated.

But once again, we will have to wait and see if there is more clarification (or if what the officers of the Honor Code Office stated is correct).

It's not in quotes, so it is the reporter's report of what Kitchen reported to him. I'm sure more reports will come out and more statements will be quoted and fully quoted. I'm not so much interested in quibbling over that as in dispelling the suggestion that the Honor Code as written either allows or disallows same-sex couples from kissing, holding hands and dating [period] without any other context.

Edited February 21, 2020 by CV75

[lostindc]

Boy, did many of us call this one.  We said gay couples would be able to openly date in the next few years without discipline.  One can infer why this is now incorporated.  Garments are next on the chopping block.  Temple ordinances will follow within the next 5 years.  

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, provoman said:

Kitchen is not quoted in the CNN article regarding what is claimed to have been told to him.

He is quoted in the CNN article.  I hope if the statement in question regarding what the Honor Code Officers stated when he spoke to them is inaccurate, he will correct it (or the officers will).

That's why I have posted repeatedly, that more clarification may be coming.

Everyone can read the article for themselves.  I see no reason to call Kitchen a liar.....but I also know that people can be misquoted at times and I have allowed for that.  For now, I will take it on face value regarding what was actually stated in the article.

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The Church's doctrine is stated in general terms because there are always context, sub-context and semantics to consider on a case by case basis. In this topic of discussion, the Law of Chastity, The Golden Rule and the Great Commandment are straightforwardly and consistently published. I'm not sure what you mean by "universal," but clearly not everyone accepts these.

Its mixed messages because the Law of Chastity sometimes is somewhat generally described, but manuals are written that tell people they can't kiss or hold hands.  You said that the moral (doctrine) comes first, so you're implying that this doctrine is something we could all clearly agree upon.  I'm pointing out that there are very different opinions about what is doctrinal as evidenced in this thread.  If the doctrine comes first how do you propose this is defined when we're clearly seeing very different interpretations about doctrine.