Letter Clarifies Intent of Byu Honor Code Change

[Sunslight]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I find it very typical. Have you never been around college students?

I think there's a general bad disease in college life that breeds liberalism.

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

Young twenty-somethings being impudent should be expected, imo.  Even quiet ones are generally if you ask them what they are thinking.

It would seem God is okay with it given brains don't finish developing until 25 years for most.  And impudence is likely partly a result of that given all the complaining through history about the younger generation.

I didn’t say “impudent,” I said “imprudent.” A difference of one letter, I know, but quite a distinct difference in meaning. 
 

Although, maybe “impudent” is not an altogether inappropriate descriptor, given the subject matter. 

[Scott Lloyd]

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think there should be an apology (best from Worthen himself) for the confusion and pain as well as published amnesty for any behaviour that was assumed permissible during that time.  I think there should be many, many reassurances that knowledge that someone is LGBT+ will have no bearing on their treatment by the school and if students encounter such, they should report it and make reporting easily accessible if it isn't already.  That students should respect others' rights to privacy if they do not wish to discuss their sexuality or what happened during the controversy.  That bishops won't be calling in students if they learned of LGBT+ status during the past two weeks, but students are encouraged to talk with their bishops if they feel it would help.

And I think there should be repetition after repetition of Elder Ballard's talk and encouraging all students of all perspectives to try and be more understanding and respectful of those who think or act different.

I could go along with the above. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Just caught up on this thread. Virtually everyone involved was foolish. The school for changing the code and not expecting anyone into read into it (anyone naive enough to think there would be no reaction should probably be fired for fear they might send the school’s funds to help a displaced Nigerian prince), the students for leaping to conclusions, the professor for intentionally making a spectacle of himself, those demonstrating same sex behaviors for being almost willfully ignorant, that dork reading the Family Proclamation for wandering into an opposing protest with what amounts to mindless ranting intended to be provocative (I agree to some extent with him and I want to punch him for being a git), Smac for being angry that a punch in the arm (the kind my friends and I exchanged all the time in High School) is not being treated with sufficient gravitas by the news as a major assault on free speech, and Longview for bringing in a Trumpian conspiracy about out of town protestors showing up (presumably paid for by the Clintons and recruited by Antifa) specifically for this event to strike a blow by mildly striking a counter protestor.

I do feel empathy for those who thought this was a change even if it was naive. I feel empathy for the saps at the Honor Code Office who might get thrown under a bus for this.

This is my judgement. So let it be written. So let it be done.

I agree with most of the above. 
 

That said, I view quite differently a punch thrown by a chum in youthful playfulness and a similar punch thrown by a hostile stranger in the midst of an already tense situation. I think I’d have pressed an assault charge. 

[Scott Lloyd]

48 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Does Scott mean impudent or do you mean imprudent?  You guys are using two different words.  

 

46 minutes ago, Calm said:

Oops...well, it works either way in my experience.  

Please take this merely as good-natured teasing, Calm, but you just reminded me of Gilda Radner’s character Emily Latella in the early “Saturday Night Live” episodes.

 

Edited March 5, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree with most of the above. 
 

That said, I view quite differently a punch thrown by a chum in youthful playfulness and a similar punch thrown by a hostile stranger in the midst of an already tense situation. I think I’d have pressed an assault charge. 

I would not be opposed to such a charge if the victim chose to press for it. I was objecting more to complaints that it was newsworthy but was not getting coverage.

[Calm]

8 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm now so afraid when I wasn't a month ago when I knew the honor code didn't allow it

Because now they are out where they weren't before or at least much more public about it.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Sunslight said:

I think there's a general bad disease in college life that breeds liberalism.

I think there's a general bad disease in general United States life that breeds liberalism for those who hope it can be a cure. I have my doubts regarding the efficacy of the cure. Then again, I worry that anyone preaching the status quo prefers the disease.

[california boy]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

I tried messaging you but you don't have that option apparently so I'm just going to ask here:  

My friend, who is actually a professor for BYU, and I have a small blog (I don't want to link to it here as it seems too much like advertising, so I'm not sure exactly how best to get you that info) and we try to write a couple of articles a month on whatever happens to be relevant in our lives at the time.  This time it's my turn to lead and I want to write about the stuff happening on campus with the changes to the honor code.  Can I quote your response to me earlier on why so many people are struggling on campus right now?  I can attribute the quote to you with your full name, just your first name, or leave your name off of it completely.

If you can message me feel free to answer that way.  Otherwise, I hope the OP will pardon the small threadjack.  

You are welcome to use any of my posts.  I really appreciate you trying to understand better the issues that have been brought up.  It turns out that my message box was full so I had to delete some messages.  You should be able to send me a message now.  And if you want more complete answers or any clarification, please feel free.

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

I would change that to the school created the mess because from what I have been told by people I trust know there is a more hands off approach then I previously expected given it is a church school.  CES and BYU each sound to me like their own world inside the greater world of the Church.

However, in this case I think church leadership should have been more directly involved in ensuring standards expected were clear upfront since the change was a result of the change in the Handbook and given the timing it is likely someone from leadership or PR had let BYU know ahead of time what would be changed.  My opinion is instruction to make HC language consistent with the Handbook was given.

I think the change in the Handbook to more principle based language is good with minimal repetition of what the standards are by several references to use FTSOY (and maybe True to the Faith, I think I found a few references to that, but I may be thinking of the old handbook) for use by members in general worldwide.  I think a few concrete examples/standards to get a starting place and then focus on principles is best approach.  However, BYU students are in transition to adulthood and therefore more concrete direction is needed, imo.  It is the youth section of the Handbook on "Matters of Discussion" iirc that is the strongest reference to using FTSOY booklet as providing standards.  This is because imo youth are intended to be clearly taught the standards and then as adults they have learned to live by principles and seeking their own inspiration from God...or this is the ideal/hope of church leadership.  Between age and history of the HC, students deserved a more direct, concrete instruction, imo.

If BYU really expects gay students to not hug, kiss or hold hands, then it must put that information back into the Honor Code.  Because of this uproar, the now clarified intent seems pretty clear.  But if you are not at BYU, or have not heard about this whole mess and you are applying for admission, the way things are currently worded is very unclear.  It would put incoming students in a position of agreeing to something they may not understand or agree to.  

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

 I think there should be many, many reassurances that knowledge that someone is LGBT+ will have no bearing on their treatment by the school and if students encounter such, they should report it and make reporting easily accessible if it isn't already.  

One thing I learned from the Q and A is that if you report somebody to the Honor Code Office, you have to make your identity known. The office won’t even investigate anonymous reports. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 hours ago, bluebell said:

Promise of a homosexual marriage in the next life would not be something that I would at all look forward to.  It would not be compensation for anything for me in mortality.  I can see who gays view promises of hetrosexual marriage as not being a comfort.

I know I'm a cultural outlier on this board, but just to contribute to the full gamut of perspectives, I find these labels odd in this context. I honestly don't care what 'form' marriage might take in the next life. I just want a Celestial marriage.

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I know I'm a cultural outlier on this board, but just to contribute to the full gamut of perspectives, I find these labels odd in this context. I honestly don't care what 'form' marriage might take in the next life. I just want a Celestial marriage.

I think you missed the point.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I think it is more that they are allowed, but without a desire how could they realistically participate.

An analogy would be anyone can enroll in a class on Chinese Literature (in the original Chinese) at an open enrollment, free community college, but what value is that class to those who don't know Chinese?  How could they expect to get a passing grade if they couldn't read the texts?

One needs to desire eternal marriage in order to participate in it according to how Saints view heaven.  We don't just go through the motions or act 'as if' in eternity.  Our minds, hearts, and souls are fully given to that life.  Without that desire to live that type of life, one isn't going to be sealed.

You do realize that I so wanted to fit into this picture that the Church paints I followed the counsel of my Church leaders into a marriage that I was not really interested in, but wanted so badly to have.  Relying on their promise that things would change if I only had faith enough to enter into that marriage.

So I don't think it is easily dismissed as just not wanting to live that type of life. When you fully believe (at the time) that your relationship with God and eternal salvation depends on living a life that is expected of you by Church leaders you make choices that are false and in the long run unworkable for most gay members.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I think the goal would have to be "Thy Will, not mine, be done".  And a complete trust and sacrifice of turning even one's hopes over to God.  Huge leap of faith.

I think in the end all of us will be doing the same massive personal sacrifice (otherwise how else could we accept the Atonement for what it truly is), but it doesn't happen at the same time or in the same way because if we see everyone else having to do the same thing, it no longer becomes a sacrifice, but just something expected.

You are absolutely right.  100% right.And since I made the decision to put my faith and trust in God rather than Church leaders, so much peace has come into my life.  My relationship with God has grown beyond what I ever imagined.  When we start asking God rather than relying on others to speak for Him, we find that the path back to Him may very well be an individual path and not a cookie cutter route. I wish I had learned that lesson many years ago.

[SteveO]

14 minutes ago, california boy said:

You are absolutely right.  100% right.And since I made the decision to put my faith and trust in God rather than Church leaders, so much peace has come into my life.  My relationship with God has grown beyond what I ever imagined.  When we start asking God rather than relying on others to speak for Him, we find that the path back to Him may very well be an individual path and not a cookie cutter route. I wish I had learned that lesson many years ago.

Is there anything in your relationship with God that makes you uncomfortable though?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

If BYU really expects gay students to not hug, kiss or hold hands, then it must put that information back into the Honor Code.  Because of this uproar, the now clarified intent seems pretty clear.  But if you are not at BYU, or have not heard about this whole mess and you are applying for admission, the way things are currently worded is very unclear.  It would put incoming students in a position of agreeing to something they may not understand or agree to.  

For anyone not being brought up in the Church or having family or friends that went/go to BYU who tell stories about what it is like, it could be a shock if they expect BYU to be similar to other schools.

If BYU does continue to be different, I agree it needs to be in writing in very clear terms.

Edited March 6, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

One thing I learned from the Q and A is that if you report somebody to the Honor Code Office, you have to make your identity known. The office won’t even investigate anonymous reports. 

Which is as it should be, imo, for vast majority of cases.  I think in cases of reported violence, criminality, or unstable individuals, accusers should be kept confidential....but those reports should be forwarded to the police anyway.

Edited March 6, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

You do realize that I so wanted to fit into this picture that the Church paints I followed the counsel of my Church leaders into a marriage that I was not really interested in, but wanted so badly to have.  Relying on their promise that things would change if I only had faith enough to enter into that marriage.

So I don't think it is easily dismissed as just not wanting to live that type of life. When you fully believe (at the time) that your relationship with God and eternal salvation depends on living a life that is expected of you by Church leaders you make choices that are false and in the long run unworkable for most gay members.

Perhaps like an advisor assuring you that with enough effort you would have no problem with picking up how to read Chinese by observing how others did it....not going to happen, but you trust that they know what they are talking about because you lack experience to judge.  And you jump into the deep end fully expecting you will be swimming shortly only to find at best treading water...which is exhausting.

It may sound like that trivializes your experience, but I am not intending to with the analogy.  In fact, that analogy holds a lot of power for me as I listened to my dad and trusted his opinion I should not major in Physics and take Engineering instead...which I disliked and felt guilty I disliked and blamed myself for not understanding the basics that other students seemed to get and tried to study on my own and felt out of place in and not wanted as only one of four women in the program....and even though it turned out great in the sense that eventually led to me switching to Psychology and meeting my husband, I get sick at heart (literal pain even) when I think about it and have a bit of a hard time breathing because that was my Dream and it is still a traumatic loss 40 years later...but at the time I thought I was perfectly okay with it and only slightly disappointed and was excited to try out engineering (not a good fit at all even if I am mechanically inclined) and then satisfied with Psychology, which was a big interest of mine...but maybe not a passion.  Maybe if I had managed to go into research...still never felt the wonder and awe I got with Physics on occasion.  I am sure I have ranted about it on the board several times at least. 

I cannot imagine what trying to live an impossible dream which included assuming responsibility for others' dreams like your wife would have been like.  And to have that all attached to whether or not you were a moral, righteous person...

Edited March 6, 2020 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I think you missed the point.

I'm happy for you to clarify what you think I missed. Because if I missed something and no one clarifies, then I'll keep missing it.

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm happy for you to clarify what you think I missed. Because if I missed something and no one clarifies, then I'll keep missing it.

I'm sorry for not explaining my logic...C/P'd Bluebell here, she said: Promise of a homosexual marriage in the next life would not be something that I would at all look forward to.  It would not be compensation for anything for me in mortality.  I can see why gays view promises of heterosexual marriage as not being a comfort.

Me:  I took the liberty of correcting one spelling and a word that was probably meant to be "why" not "who", hope that's okay with bluebell. My laptop spell checks everything now. Which is really good for me, because I can't spell anymore.

You said this as you well know, but c/p'g because I need to explain it that way. Hamba Tuhan: I know I'm a cultural outlier on this board, but just to contribute to the full gamut of perspectives, I find these labels odd in this context. I honestly don't care what 'form' marriage might take in the next life. I just want a Celestial marriage.

Me: You seem to have missed her point, of her saying how difficult it would be if one were heterosexual and told they'll get to marry someone the same sex. She wouldn't want that, just like gays wouldn't be happy being told they'll be able to marry someone of the opposite sex. 

Now do you see why I said you missed the point? Or please correct me if I'm off course here. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

19 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Now do you see why I said you missed the point? Or please correct me if I'm off course here. 

Thanks, but I think you've missed my point. I genuinely don't care what form marriage takes. If God decides that a 'Celestial marriage' involves me and a tree, then I'm confident He will bless me with the best tree in the whole universe for my eternal growth and happiness.

I wasn't raised in a culture that socialises people into having fixed, gendered sexual orientations. I'm confident that late 19th-century Western social constructs of sexual identity -- whether homo or hetero -- are not going with us into eternal life with Heavenly Father anymore than pre-Christian Melanesian social constructs of sexuality will. Of course, people in pre-Christian Melanesian societies couldn't imagine life any other way, but I can assure you that you, in particular, wouldn't like how they did things, and you wouldn't tolerate how they did things being how it's done in the Celestial Kingdom!

I no longer expect most 21st-century Americans to grasp what I just wrote, but if we're genuinely trying to understand everyone, it's important to me to remind people that the Euro-American colonisation of the mind hasn't been absolute in this area by any stretch.

Quote

You seem to have missed her point, of her saying how difficult it would be if one were heterosexual and told they'll get to marry someone the same sex.

No, I get her point, and I agree with it. The creation in the West of sexual identities has created all kinds of problems for people on both sides of the 'divide'. But it's important for me to point out -- just for the sake of completeness -- that although this particular 'grand narrative' attempts to explain all human experience, it actually doesn't. It's an ascendant position, to be sure, moving towards hegemonic, but it's still alien to many contemporary human societies and, beyond that, to untold individuals who live subaltern existences in Western or Western-dominated cultures.

Even further beyond that, the whole point of Christianity is that what we want and what God wants often don't line up, and the Father sent us a Saviour to reconcile us to Him. This is the exact message that Christian missionaries took into Melanesia, and the acceptance of that message permanently altered how sex and sexuality were constructed.

On a personal level, this process can sound horrible ... right up until it works. Then it's the most wonderful thing I've ever experienced.

Edited March 7, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[Meadowchik]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nope.  There are plenty of non-members who "have an informed position."  And as long as they accurate state what we believe, what they have to say "about us" is up to them.

But when they resort to flagrantly misrepresenting what we believe, then I will take issue with that.

I don't.  The Church is the gatekeeper.

All the more objectionable, then, for them to misrepresent what we believe.  If they know what we believe, and then publicly misrepresent what we believe, then attributing that to ignorance doesn't work.  We're left, then, with malice.  Bad faith.  Intentional lies.

No, I won't try that.  It's not a reasonable hypothetical.

The Plan of Salvation is well and truly available to all, and made for all.  It is a rank falsehood, then, to assert that "{homosexuals} are just not included in the 'Plan of Salvation.'"

-Smac

They are not included in any way comparable to heterosexuals. They cannot participate as homosexuals the way heterosexuals can participate as heterosexuals. They have to suppress, ignore, or diminish that characteristic in order to enjoy the blessings of the gospel. They are required to disparage their homosexuality in order to fully participate.

 

[Meadowchik]

6 hours ago, Sunslight said:

I think there's a general bad disease in college life that breeds liberalism.

Thankfully.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I know I'm a cultural outlier on this board, but just to contribute to the full gamut of perspectives, I find these labels odd in this context. I honestly don't care what 'form' marriage might take in the next life. I just want a Celestial marriage.

If I was told I had to participate in a same sex marriage there would be some regret but I think I would roll with it. Might even try for it in this life. I have had three compliments from guys about how good I look in the last three months. I have had one from a woman in the last year and she was 30 years older than me. Would at least help with the loneliness. Le sigh.