Letter Clarifies Intent of Byu Honor Code Change

[california boy]

4 hours ago, SteveO said:

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

Sure. I know God wants the best of me.  I know that I can do better.  I can treat others more kindly. I can be of service to others more than I give.  Often I fall short of what I expect from myself and what God expects of me.  But I also know that this is a process and if I can look back and see progress, then that is enough to push me forward, strive to be a better person.

If you are talking about my relationship with my partner, then no.  He is an amazing guy.  We are like two peas in a pod.  I often say that the only way I couldn't like him is if I also didn't like myself.  I would literally do anything I could for him.  And I know he would do the same for me.  We have been together for 10 years, and it still feels like we are still on our honeymoon.  I know how lucky I am to have found such a wonderful person to share this life with.  I know without a shadow of a doubt that this is the person God wants me to be with.  

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

For anyone not being brought up in the Churchlfor 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.

That may be true.  But not everyone who goes to BYU comes to the school with that life experience.  My room mate my freshman year was not a member of the Church.  He had a girlfriend that was a member and wanted to be baptized.  His parents were against it.  Sometimes he was totally surprised about things that just seemed normal to me growing up in the Church.  I had never known differently.  He had never thought about some things that were core beliefs for me.

I was in the arts program at BYU.  One of the instructors decided to organize a trip to of all places, the Bay Area.  Since my family was there, I decided to sign up for the trip.  We visited different ad agencies and design firms in San Francisco.  It actually helped solidify exactly what I wanted to do professionally.            One of the things we also did was visit the Berkeley campus.  This was in the early 70's. It couldn't have been a bigger difference than what BYU was like.  I mean there were all these dogs around for one thing.  People dressed totally differently.  And I mean totally differently.  Whether you were clean shaven or not was up to each person.  People actually sat on the grass, and there was litter all over the campus.  I still remember how shocking it was especially for the kids from Idaho and Utah.  They had literally never seen anything like it in their lives.  I had been on the Berkeley campus before, so none of it surprised me.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

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...

Yeah you get it.  Maybe people need these kinds of experiences to understand that we are all different and the decisions we make come from different places and lead to different results.  And thank goodness, this is how the world works.  

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

I just reviewed the Q and A. They will make exceptions where knowledge of the identity would endanger members of the campus community. 

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

That may be true.  But not everyone who goes to BYU comes to the school with that life experience

I wonder if you read my post as the reverse of what I said, as I was saying what you said after the "but"...those people not brought up in the Church or having heard stories could be unprepared.  

I worked down at the Stanford shopping mall and so wanted to go there, but was too shy to go out and compete for scholarships.  BYU was good for me from that angle.  Sister got her doctorate at Berkeley, but I was married and very poor by then, so no traveling to visit where she studied, so never been there...as far as I remember.  May have driven by it when young, but think we probably never went past Oakland or Walnut Creek.

Quote

there was litter all over the campus. 

I am grateful for all things clean and orderly, but the landscaping and architecture was so boring to me at BYU when I was there.  Iirc they were just starting to put in some little hills and get creative with plantings.  I enjoyed the buildings around the campuses my husband has worked at more, but seeing chewing gum pushed into cement walls, graffiti and split drinks dried on sidewalks kind of ruins it.  Calgary was a very clean city too, but still BYU was shinier.  Thank goodness for all those BYU student grounds keeping jobs.  Me, I scraped gum off of theatre seats and mopped sticky pop remains off of the floor of the Varsity Theater.  Which was gross but somehow satisfying.  No library jobs available.

Edited March 6, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I just reviewed the Q and A. They will make exceptions where knowledge of the identity would endanger members of the campus community. 

Thanks for checking.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Young twenty-somethings being [imprudent] 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 [imprudence] is likely partly a result of that given all the complaining through history about the younger generation.

Edited:  not correcting for my misreading of imprudence because I probably would have said the same thing.

So if I understand you correctly, you are not disagreeing with me that it was imprudent for these students to rush out and begin staging deliberate in-your-face homosexual PDAs (public displays of affection). But you allow that this is to be expected, if not excused, because they are, after all, in their early 20s and, as such, probably subject to not-yet-fully-developed brain capacity. 
 

This idea of behavior in young adults being influenced by their underdeveloped brains has some interesting implications. It is practically axiomatic that in any given society, liberal/progressive ideologies are most readily embraced by young 20-somethings. I wonder now if this is due in some measure to impaired judgment stemming from immature brain development. 

If that be the case, I take some comfort in it. It mitigates to some degree the alarm I feel when I’m informed of polls showing a startlingly high proportion of college-age people embracing the socialism of Bernie Sanders, AOC and others. I can dare hope most will get wiser as they grow older and that maybe our republic is not so speedily bound for hell in a hand basket after all. 
 

In light of all this, I wonder if a case could be made for raising the minimum voting age to 25 (I’m only half-joking here). 
 

Finally, it helps explain the inordinately high traffic accidents among this segment of the population. As the father in a household of teens and young adults, I’m acutely aware that car insurance premiums skyrocket when offspring begin driving and don’t diminish until they begin to move past their mid-20s.  

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

wonder now if this is due in some measure to impaired judgment stemming from immature brain development. 

It would not be impaired judgment, but processing thought differently.  

A child reasoning like a child who values and attends to the world around them as a child has a healthy brain with healthy judgment...of a child.

Children have more flexible thinking in some ways allowing them to be more creative in problem solving. 

Edited March 6, 2020 by Calm

[smac97]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

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.'"

They are not included in any way comparable to heterosexuals.

They are included in every way.  It is simply false to say otherwise.

Look, I get that you disagree with the Church's teachings on some things.  I respect that.  But misrepresenting those teachings is not acceptable.

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

They cannot participate as homosexuals the way heterosexuals can participate as heterosexuals.

The falseshood to which I objected was the assertion that "{homosexuals} are just not included in the 'Plan of Salvation.'"

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

They have to suppress, ignore, or diminish that characteristic in order to enjoy the blessings of the gospel.

Everyone has to "suppress, ignore, or diminish" feelings and impulses of some form.  

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

They are required to disparage their homosexuality in order to fully participate.

"Disparage?"  I don't know what that means in this context.

Per Elder Ballard: "We follow Jesus Christ by living the law of chastity. God gave this commandment, and He has never revoked it nor changed it. This law is clear and simple. No one is to engage in sexual relationships out of the bounds the Lord has set. This applies to homosexual behavior of any kind and to heterosexual relationships outside of marriage. It is a sin to violate the law of chastity."

Those "bounds" apply to everyone equally.  However, the boundaries prohibiting same-sex relations have, in legal parlance, a "disparate impact" on people with same-sex attraction.  I acknowledge that.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Amulek]

16 hours 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 think that's the right way to go about handling things.

Still, if I were a student ward bishop, I can imagine situations where it would be very difficult for me to not bring someone in for a discussion. 

 

[mgy401]

What would we say to a woman who is asexual and is physically, viscerally repulsed at the prospect of marrying someone of any gender?  Does the plan of salvation apply to her?

What about someone who is horrified to find that he is only attracted to pubescent children?  Does the plan of salvation apply to him?

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

What would we say to a woman who is asexual and is physically, viscerally repulsed at the prospect of marrying someone of any gender?  Does the plan of salvation apply to her?

Yes.  It applies to everyone.

11 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

What about someone who is horrified to find that he is only attracted to pubescent children?  Does the plan of salvation apply to him?

Same as above.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mgy401]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  It applies to everyone.

Same as above.

Thanks,

-Smac

I know you’d say that, smac; and I actually agree with you.   My question was directed more towards those progressives who seem to be taking the view that the plan of salvation can’t possibly apply to people who don’t find sexual fulfillment in this life.

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

I know you’d say that, smac; and I actually agree with you.   My question was directed more towards those progressives who seem to be taking the view that the plan of salvation can’t possibly apply to people who don’t find sexual fulfillment in this life.

Sounds good.

CB's claim is simply false.  Factually false.  It is an emotion-based assertion, not an argument, and not one that is rational or reasoned or based on evidence.

-Smac

[Sunslight]

Just because those who came out openly gay and did things such as kissing and posting it all over social media during that two week period, they still shouldn't be exempt from church discipline. 

I though a lot about this and if I was a Bishop of one of those students I would call them in for repentance. Since when should we look the other way when someone sins?

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

They are included in every way.  It is simply false to say otherwise.

Look, I get that you disagree with the Church's teachings on some things.  I respect that.  But misrepresenting those teachings is not acceptable.

The falseshood to which I objected was the assertion that "{homosexuals} are just not included in the 'Plan of Salvation.'"

Everyone has to "suppress, ignore, or diminish" feelings and impulses of some form.  

"Disparage?"  I don't know what that means in this context.

Per Elder Ballard: "We follow Jesus Christ by living the law of chastity. God gave this commandment, and He has never revoked it nor changed it. This law is clear and simple. No one is to engage in sexual relationships out of the bounds the Lord has set. This applies to homosexual behavior of any kind and to heterosexual relationships outside of marriage. It is a sin to violate the law of chastity."

Those "bounds" apply to everyone equally.  However, the boundaries prohibiting same-sex relations have, in legal parlance, a "disparate impact" on people with same-sex attraction.  I acknowledge that.  

Thanks,

-Smac

The Plan of Salvation does not apply to gays insomuch that it only ostensibly works by erasing that about them. Heterosexuals can be exalted without their heterosexuality being called unacceptable, while according to current LDS teachings, homosexuals cannot be exalted without their homosexuality being called unacceptable. 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Sunslight said:

Just because those who came out openly gay and did things such as kissing and posting it all over social media during that two week period, they still shouldn't be exempt from church discipline. 

I think they should.  It was a unique circumstance.

1 minute ago, Sunslight said:

I though a lot about this and if I was a Bishop of one of those students I would call them in for repentance. Since when should we look the other way when someone sins?

If I was a bishop I could call them in and look to their welfare.  They have in-born desires, and then thought for a while that the Honor Code had changed such as to allow expression of those desires, and then expressed those desires during the time they thought such expressions were allowed.

I don't think there was malice or ill intent (well, there were some perhaps exuberant-but-still-inappropriate pictures posted online).  

Now is the time for calm, reconciliation, reasoned discussion, and seeking guidance from the Lord.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Sunslight]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I think they should.  It was a unique circumstance.

If I was a bishop I could call them in and look to their welfare.  They have in-born desires, and then thought for a while that the Honor Code had changed such as to allow expression of those desires, and then expressed those desires during the time they thought such expressions were allowed.

I don't think there was malice or ill intent (well, there were some perhaps exuberant-but-still-inappropriate pictures posted online).  

Now is the time for calm, reconciliation, reasoned discussion, and seeking guidance from the Lord.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I disagree. I think it would be generous for the University to look the other way on the one hand but on the other a sin is a sin and their church leadership should bring them in. We need to stop pandering to the LGBT movement. We can see that it has infiltrated our own church universities and that's sad. We need to create an environment where lgbt activism can't gain strength. There really isn't any room in our universities for those who openly defy the law of chastity and protest against the leadership of both the University and church.

[mgy401]

4 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

I disagree. I think it would be generous for the University to look the other way on the one hand but on the other a sin is a sin and their church leadership should bring them in. We need to stop pandering to the LGBT movement. We can see that it has infiltrated our own church universities and that's sad. We need to create an environment where lgbt activism can't gain strength. There really isn't any room in our universities for those who openly defy the law of chastity and protest against the leadership of both the University and church.

Bishops may well choose to act, but IMHO the Honor Code Office should not.  They (unlike the church or its bishops) seem to have expressly green-lit the behavior.  That’s the bed BYUHCO made for themselves, and now they’ve got to lie in it.  

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The Plan of Salvation does not apply to gays insomuch that it only ostensibly works by erasing that about them.

Everyone has something "about them" that must be governed through obedience to God.  "Appetites and passions," as they are commonly described.

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Heterosexuals can be exalted without their heterosexuality being called unacceptable, while according to current LDS teachings, homosexuals cannot be exalted without their homosexuality being called unacceptable. 

And again, the falseshood to which I objected was the assertion that "{homosexuals} are just not included in the 'Plan of Salvation.'"

Everyone can be exalted, the process for which involves coming to earty and learning to constrain our "appetites and passions" so as to keep them within boundaries set by God.  As Elder Francisco Viñas put it in 2015 (emphasis added):

Quote

In the book of Isaiah, we can find an answer that, though related to the Sabbath, also applies to other commandments that we must keep: “Turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day” (Isaiah 58:13).

The key words are “turn away … from doing thy pleasure,” or in other words, doing God’s will. Oftentimes, our will—shaped by the desires, appetites, and passions of the natural man—conflicts with the will of God. The prophet Brigham Young taught that “when the will, passions, and feelings of a person are perfectly submissive to God and his requirements, that person is sanctified.—It is, for my will to be swallowed up in the will of God, that will lead me into all good, and crown me ultimately with immortality and eternal lives” (Deseret News, Sept. 7, 1854, 1).

And Elder Christofferson, also in 2015 (emphasis added):

Quote

Thanks to our Heavenly Father, we had already become spirit beings. Now He was offering us a path to complete or perfect that being. The addition of the physical element is essential to the fulness of being and glory that God Himself enjoys. If, while with God in the premortal spirit world, we would agree to participate in His plan—or in other words “keep [our] first estate”—we would “be added upon” with a physical body as we came to dwell on the earth that He created for us.

If, then in the course of our mortal experience, we chose to “do all things whatsoever the Lord {our} God {should} command {us},” we would have kept our “second estate.” This means that by our choices we would demonstrate to God (and to ourselves) our commitment and capacity to live His celestial law while outside His presence and in a physical body with all its powers, appetites, and passions. Could we bridle the flesh so that it became the instrument rather than the master of the spirit? Could we be trusted both in time and eternity with godly powers, including power to create life?

Sexual appetites are, for most of us, among the most difficult to govern.  I readily acknowledge that.

The extent of that difficulty varies widely.  The circumstances under which God's children can give expression to those appetites also varies.  Similarly, there are some who are healthy in body, and some who are not.  Some who are wealthy, some who are not.  Some who are born into good homes and loving parents, and some who are not.  Some who have more opportunities than others.  And on and on and on.

The Plan of Salvation, though, applies to all of us.  Each and every one.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sounds good.

CB's claim is simply false.  Factually false.  It is an emotion-based assertion, not an argument, and not one that is rational or reasoned or based on evidence.

-Smac

Sounds like your opinion, and a position which depends on separating an individual from their sexual orientation when they're not heterosexual. This position only works if homosexuals aren't "really" homosexual, only experiencing a "struggle with same-sex attraction." Will there be homosexuals in the eternities? 

[Sunslight]

7 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

Bishops may well choose to act, but IMHO the Honor Code Office should not.  They (unlike the church or its bishops) seem to have expressly green-lit the behavior.  That’s the bed BYUHCO made for themselves, and now they’ve got to lie in it.  

I agree. 

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

Quote

I think they should.  It was a unique circumstance.

If I was a bishop I could call them in and look to their welfare.  They have in-born desires, and then thought for a while that the Honor Code had changed such as to allow expression of those desires, and then expressed those desires during the time they thought such expressions were allowed.

I don't think there was malice or ill intent (well, there were some perhaps exuberant-but-still-inappropriate pictures posted online).  

Now is the time for calm, reconciliation, reasoned discussion, and seeking guidance from the Lord.  

I disagree. I think it would be generous for the University to look the other way on the one hand but on the other a sin is a sin and their church leadership should bring them in.

Well, it's not within our stewardship.  So...

12 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

We need to stop pandering to the LGBT movement.

I think we need to resist the bullying, coercive tactics of some in that movement.  

However, I also think we need to listen to our gay brothers and sisters.  They are still our brothers and sisters.  And we need to do so with respect and civility.

12 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

We can see that it has infiltrated our own church universities and that's sad. We need to create an environment where lgbt activism can't gain strength.

I think that's too broad a brush. 

12 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

There really isn't any room in our universities for those who openly defy the law of chastity and protest against the leadership of both the University and church.

Ultimately, yes.  But for the last two weeks, there was some substantive misunderstanding - attributable to errors made both by BYU (the HCO in particular) and some students - as to whether same-sex romantic behavior was a violation of the Honor Code.

I am also not opposed to students "protesting" against BYU, provided they do so lawfully (protesting on private property is not lawful).

I am also not entirely opposed to disagreeing with the Church.  Open, public protests by members is plainly inappropriate, but we still need to have means for expressing disagreement with the Church.  Elder Oaks addressed those means here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

Sounds good.

CB's claim is simply false.  Factually false.  It is an emotion-based assertion, not an argument, and not one that is rational or reasoned or based on evidence.

Sounds like your opinion,

No.  It's a fact.  The assertion that "{homosexuals} are just not included in the 'Plan of Salvation'" (that is, the "Plan of Salvation" taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints") is substantively false.  

I can present all sorts of evidence for the universal application of the Plan.  For example, Elder Oaks (emphasis added) :

Quote

I will conclude by discussing another important question members and leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are asked by others: “Why do you send missionaries to preach to other Christians?”
...
My most memorable experience with that question occurred some years ago in what we then called the Eastern Bloc. After many years of Communist hostility to religion, these countries were suddenly and miraculously given a measure of religious freedom. When that door opened, many Christian faiths sent missionaries. As part of our preparation to do so, the First Presidency sent members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to meet with government and church leaders in these countries. Our assignment was to introduce ourselves and to explain what our missionaries would be doing.

Elder Russell M. Nelson and I called on the leader of the Orthodox Church in one of these countries.
...
He asked, “Will your missionaries preach only to unbelievers, or will they also try to preach to believers?” We replied that our message was for everyone, believers as well as unbelievers.

And Elder Perry (emphasis added) :

Quote

Thus we see in the eternal plan of our Father that His love has no bounds. Every one of His children is included. All men have the same origin and equal possibility to fulfill their eternal destiny.

And here (Newsroom item) (emphasis added) :

Quote

Latter-day Saint scripture teaches that all human beings are children of God and lived with Him before this earth life. Out of love for us, as well as a desire to help us become more like Him, God presented a plan by which we could obtain physical bodies and a period of earthly experience. Central to this “plan of salvation” was the role of Jesus Christ. As the Savior, He would help mankind overcome the costs of our mortal learning — namely, sin, or separation from God — through repentance, forgiveness, ordinances, keeping covenants and following His teachings and example. Through Christ, all God’s children have the opportunity to ultimately return to His presence.

I could go on.  I could provide dozens and dozens more references and citations to refute the claim that "{homosexuals} are just not included in the 'Plan of Salvation.'"

If you disagree, then CFR.  References, please, chapter and verse, for statements made by leaders of the Church that categorically exclude homosexuals from the Plan of Salvation.

If you can provide such references, then I will reconsider my position.  But if, as I suspect, you can't, then what I have said is statement of fact, not opinion, and CB's assertion is false.  

Quote

and a position which depends on separating an individual from their sexual orientation when they're not heterosexual.

I don't know what this means.

Everyone is constrained by the Law of Chastity.  Everyone faces the same constraints, even though those constraints have disparate impact.

Quote

This position only works if homosexuals aren't "really" homosexual, only experiencing a "struggle with same-sex attraction." Will there be homosexuals in the eternities? 

And again, the falseshood to which I objected was the assertion that "{homosexuals} are just not included in the 'Plan of Salvation.'"

Ultimately, I don't define people by their sexual orientation.  The categorization of people in this way is actually a very new phenomenon.  So your question is a form of presentism, and is built on a premise I do not accept.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 6, 2020 by smac97

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

Bishops may well choose to act, but IMHO the Honor Code Office should not.  They (unlike the church or its bishops) seem to have expressly green-lit the behavior.  That’s the bed BYUHCO made for themselves, and now they’ve got to lie in it.  

I agree with this.  The HCO apparenty materially contributed to (as in, was apparently the primary source for) the "misunderstanding" that had to be corrected by the letter earlier this week.

But for the HCO purportedly giving out inaccurate information, most of this mess could have been averted.  Look how many people either contacted the HCO directly, or else reasonably relied on credible sources who claimed to have contacted the HCO.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 6, 2020 by smac97