Letter Clarifies Intent of Byu Honor Code Change

[hope_for_things]

LGBTQ Mormons are going to have PTSD from all the back and forth on these issues in recent years.  We are doing harm to an already vulnerable community.  I can't get over how disappointing this is.  I wish they'd never made any change to the honor code language and got so many hopes up for a more fair and thoughtful approach, only to be told a couple weeks later that nothing has changed, we still will punish your public displays of affection, we still consider you second class citizens in every way possible. 

Some of these poor kids are struggling with suicide and acceptance and this church treats them like garbage.  There is no excuse for this kind of mismanagement that directly harms such our marginalized brothers and sisters.  Shame on you to the church, shame on you to the CES office, shame on you to the BYU honor code department.  I'm done with the thread and done with this conversation for now, too upset about this and the people I love who've yet again been thrown under the bus.

[JulieM]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yeah....this is a mess and was handled so poorly.

I just got off the phone with my Bishop and he plans to call the honor code office again tomorrow....he's on the road right now.  But they need to get their act together and if the answer he got this morning is different from the one he gets tomorrow, that will be interesting.  They've had weeks to get clarification.

We both agreed that we will support whatever the leaders desire regarding this, but I hope they've learned from this confusing (and potentially very damaging to the image of the church) fiasco.  (Just my opinion....)

Well, it definitely shows that there is division and confusion behind the scenes with many involved here (at the school and our leaders).  
It will be interesting to watch how the students react and go back into hiding (those who are gay and dating) or if the honor code officers will continue to look the other way like they have these past weeks.

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree with this wholeheartedly. 
 

That said, those who are worried about pictures having been taken and so forth ought to have acted more wisely than to have rushed to engage immediately in such in-your-face behavior.
 

I can’t say that I’m altogether sympathetic for them. The letter from Elder Johnson seems self evident in retrospect: Same-sex romance cannot lead to eternal marriage, so how can it be compatible with honor code principles? 

If they hadn't sought clarification from the HCO that imo just added to the confusion, I might be approaching it as "what were you thinking" given the rest of what was going on (the changes of the MormonandGay site to what will likely be seen as a more conservative approach imo and apparently Affirmation's) as well as the consistent approach towards same sex conduct outside of the 'apostasy or not' question.  

But instead I am very sympathetic because students did do "due diligence" as mentioned above and consulted the HCO before letting the understandable given the circumstances frenzy take flight.  It would have been so simple to stop this, but it seems no one wanted to admit there was confusion that needed to be dealt with.  Perhaps they were nervous nothing was coming and that by admitting it was confusing, it would create more problems later on...but seriously it was confusing and it should have been recognized as such and clarification promised and then the HCO or administration go beating on the right doors until they got an answer.

Edited March 4, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

. And the professor who was in the video ought to be counseled. 

But not disciplined at all, imo.  Perhaps cautioned about making comments expecting changes in church doctrine and such.

[Meadowchik]

The letter is circular. If indeed only progress toward eternal marriage is valid, then how does gay marriage prevent that? 

Consider: if individuals will indeed be "healed" of any same-sex attraction in the eternities, then must they really marry someone of the opposite sex or be celibate for their entire mortal lives? Why not honor their mortal partnership insomuch that it is providing them companionship and all the life lessons of love and commitment? Why not have the faith that them loving another in legal commitment will contribute to their spiritual growth?

How is that different from heterosexual couple marrying for "time-only" in the temple? 

[provoman]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think there needs to be some serious in-house training for HCO staff. And the professor who was in the video ought to be counseled. 
 

In retrospect, though, I wonder how highly placed the workers were in the HCO who were giving out the bad information. We’re they merely students working part time in the office answering phones and what not? Where was the supervision?

IIRC, some of the statements attributed to the HCO were said to be from Kevin Utt - Director of HCO (will look for source, might be a while)

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

If they hadn't sought clarification from the HCO that imo just added to the confusion, I might be approaching it as "what were you thinking" given the rest of what was going on as well as the consistent approach towards same sex conduct outside of the apostasy or not question.  But I am very sympathetic because students did do "due diligence" as mentioned above and consulted the HCO before letting the understandable given the circumstances frenzy take flight.  It would have been so simple to stop this, but it seems no one wanted to admit there was confusion that needed to be dealt with.  Perhaps they were nervous nothing was coming and that by admitting it was confusing, it would create more problems later on...but seriously it was confusing and it should have been recognized as such and clarification promised and then the HCO or administration go beating on the right doors until they got an answer.

Sorry to say I see some dereliction in the HCO contributing to this whole sorry affair, especially with the report just now from ALarson that his bishop was given bad information as recently as this morning. 
 

Better to admit ignorance to inquiring callers than to give them inaccurate information. 
 

I’m reminded of a homey maxim: “‘Tain’t what a man knows that gets him into trouble. It’s what he thinks he knows that just ain’t so.”

 

Edited March 4, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

But not disciplined at all, imo.  Perhaps cautioned about making comments expecting changes in church doctrine and such.

I agree with that. I don’t want his head on a platter. 
 

But I think back on how Randy Bott was pilloried after he gave that interview about the priesthood ban. What this guy did was not much better, IMO. 

Edited March 4, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

LGBTQ Mormons are going to have PTSD from all the back and forth on these issues in recent years. 

Oh, get a grip.  You diminish the difficulties faced by those with actual PTSD by posting this sort of nonsense.

Quote

We are doing harm to an already vulnerable community.  I can't get over how disappointing this is.

I get that you are disappointed.  There was quite a bit of "Well, let's wait and see"-style input given, but wishful thinking carried the day.

Quote

I wish they'd never made any change to the honor code language and got so many hopes up for a more fair and thoughtful approach, only to be told a couple weeks later that nothing has changed, we still will punish your public displays of affection, we still consider you second class citizens in every way possible. 

Oh, baloney.

Quote

Some of these poor kids are struggling with suicide and acceptance and this church treats them like garbage. 

And you are making things worse by saying stuff like this.  When people like you step up and spew vitriol like this, you foment anger and alienation in the very moment these kids need support and assurances from their faith community.

Please stop it.

Quote

There is no excuse for this kind of mismanagement that directly harms such our marginalized brothers and sisters.

The ongoing campaign against the Church by people like you is, I think, harmful to the very teens about which the campaigners claim to be concerned.

This campaign is similar in design and tactics to those used to train Palestinian children to fear and loathe Jews.  That is, a Latter-day Saint teen or young adult who is struggling to address his religious beliefs and his same-sex attraction is all at once inundated with endless messages and declarations that the religion to which he belongs "hates" him.  That the General Authorities he has looked up to and admired "hate" him.  That some of his fellow Latter-day Saints "hate" him.  

His worldview is upended.  All that he thought he knew was wrong.  Everyone, it seems, is telling him that his friends, his family, his church, "hate" him.  And let's keep in mind that these messages are not coming from his LDS friends and family and leaders, but from their enemies, people who are putting the vilest of words into the mouths of the Latter-day Saints.  "Your church, your leaders, and your fellow Mormons hate you" is the message being purveyed.  By enemies of the Latter-day Saints.  By people like you.  To the minds of impressionable and stressed-out LDS teenagers and young adults.

That is what you are doing.  It is toxic.  It is harmful to the very people about whom you profess concern.  Please stop it. 

Quote

Shame on you to the church, shame on you to the CES office, shame on you to the BYU honor code department.  I'm done with the thread and done with this conversation for now, too upset about this and the people I love who've yet again been thrown under the bus.

There is no excuse for the hateful rhetoric you are posting.

-Smac

Edited March 4, 2020 by smac97

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Sorry to say I see some dereliction in the HCO contributing to this whole sorry affair, especially with the report just now from ALsrson that his bishop was given bad information as recently as this morning. 
 

Better to admit ignorance to inquiring callers than to give them inaccurate information. 
 

I’m reminded of a homey maxim: “‘Tain’t what a man knows that gets him into trouble. It’s what he thinks he knows that just ain’t so.”

 

Who knows where the misinformation came from? It's quite possible that HCO people were being exactly compliant with instructions given to them.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Who knows where the misinformation came from? It's quite possible that HCO people were being exactly compliant with instructions given to them.

Could be. 
 

But somebody somewhere behaved recklessly. 

[Meadowchik]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree with that. I don’t want his head on a platter. 
 

But I think back on how Randy Bott was pilloried after he gave that interview about the priesthood ban. What this guy did was not much better, IMO. 

Randy Bott was teaching "fence-sitters in the pre-xistence" for years to BYU students, and doing so from an informed LDS perspective. The interview brought broader negative attention to him.

Why did the professor say these things? Was he only speaking out of turn, or had he been advised by the school to speak?

Edited March 4, 2020 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Could be. 
 

But somebody somewhere behaved recklessly. 

Yes, someone representing the school, and therefore the church.

[Scott Lloyd]

40 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Randy Bott was teaching "fence-sitters in the pre-xistence" for years to BYU students, and doing so from an informed LDS perspective. The interview brought broader negative attention to him.

Why did the professor say these things? Was he only speaking out of turn, or had he been advised by the school?

My impression is that he was indulging his own wishful thinking and jumping to a conclusion. Unscholarly behavior, say I. 
 

ETA: Was Bott propounding the fence-sitter theory? That doesn’t square with my recollection. I thought he got in Dutch for giving some other theory of his In an interview with a journalist. The Church didn’t like it, so they publicly discredited him. 

Edited March 4, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My impression is that he was indulging his own wishful thinking and jumping to a conclusion. Unscholarly behavior, say I. 

Did he say he was only expressing his personal views?

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m still not altogether clear on the reason for the removal of the wording in the first place, especially considering the confusion and misinterpretation that resulted as a consequence. It seems to me the university and the Church could have adopted “a more ministerial approach” while leaving the wording in place. It wasn’t hurting anything that I can see. 
 

But I do greatly appreciate having this clarification. Coupled with the talk that President Ballard gave yesterday at BYU, it should give us valuable guidance. 

To not appear homophobic perhaps?

[JulieM]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My impression is that he was indulging his own wishful thinking and jumping to a conclusion. Unscholarly behavior, say I. 

I thought he had spoken to an officer at BYU (honor code office)?  Do you believe he was lying about what he told the students that he’d been told?  He added some reasons for why he agreed with the change, but should he hide his opinion from his students?  

Edited March 4, 2020 by JulieM

[CV75]

53 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But clearly it didn’t work in this instance. There was widespread misunderstanding, misinterpretation, even misdirection from people in the HCO (who should have known better) and at least one faculty member. And there is already resentment surfacing from individuals who are finding out they jumped to the wrong conclusion.

Well intended though it may have been, removal of the wording was clearly a misstep. 

I didn't see any shaming before the clarification (Elder Johnson's explanation of principle), nor after -- so I think subsequent communications were also worded and conveyed without shaming and ostracizing the faithful.

I see misunderstanding, misinterpretation, misdirection and even resentment (also suffered by the faithful) as far less spiritually-destructive reactions than shame.

[Teancum]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Oh, get a grip.  You diminish the difficulties faced by those with actual PTSD by posting this sort of nonsense.

I get that you are disappointed.  There was quite a bit of "Well, let's wait and see"-style input given, but wishful thinking carried the day.

Oh, baloney.

And you are making things worse by saying stuff like this.  When people like you step up and spew vitriol like this, you foment anger and alienation in the very moment these kids need support and assurances from their faith community.

Please stop it.

The ongoing campaign against the Church by people like you is, I think, harmful to the very teens about which the campaigners claim to be concerned.

This campaign is similar in design and tactics to those used to train Palestinian children to fear and loathe Jews.  That is, a Latter-day Saint teen or young adult who is struggling to address his religious beliefs and his same-sex attraction is all at once inundated with endless messages and declarations that the religion to which he belongs "hates" him.  That the General Authorities he has looked up to and admired "hate" him.  That some of his fellow Latter-day Saints "hate" him.  

His worldview is upended.  All that he thought he knew was wrong.  Everyone, it seems, is telling him that his friends, his family, his church, "hate" him.  And let's keep in mind that these messages are not coming from his LDS friends and family and leaders, but from their enemies, people who are putting the vilest of words into the mouths of the Latter-day Saints.  "Your church, your leaders, and your fellow Mormons hate you" is the message being purveyed.  By enemies of the Latter-day Saints.  By people like you.  To the minds of impressionable and stressed-out LDS teenagers and young adults.

That is what you are doing.  It is toxic.  It is harmful to the very people about whom you profess concern.  Please stop it. 

There is no excuse for the hateful rhetoric you are posting.

-Smac

I dunno Smac.  If someone tells me they love me and care for me but put artificial rules in place that are hurtful to me I can pretty well conclude on my own, without someone telling me that that someone really does not love me, that they really don't love me. All a gay person has to do is look at the pattern of the LDS Church's behavior towards them to figure out they really aren't loved all that much. The knee jerk November 2015 policy that came on the heel of the SC legalizing same sex marriage was clearly to make sure the main stream members did not come to tolerate it. It was elevated to revelation by the then president of the 12 and now president of the church.  As was the retraction.  

I think perhaps it is you who needs to get a grip.

[Meadowchik]

34 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Did he say he was only expressing his personal views?

 

30 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I thought he had spoken to an officer at BYU (honor code office)?  Do you believe he was lying about what he told the student that he’d been told?  He added some reasons for why he agreed with the change, but should he hide his opinion from his students?  

I just read the transcript of Brau's remarks. He specifically consulted a full-time counselor at the Honor Code office to have clarity before conveying the remarks very precisely to his students.

If the HCO was at fault, then all indications are that all communicants from it spoke a consistent message, one reasonably based on the handbook changes. It appears more likely to me that the confusion happened above their level of authority.

Here's a couple excerpts from the transcript:

 

 

 

Edited March 4, 2020 by Meadowchik

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

 

I just read the transcript of Beau's remarks. He specifically consulted a full-time counselor at the Honor Code office to have clarity before conveying the remarks very precisely to his students.

If the HCO was at fault, then all indications are that all communicants from it spoke a consistent message, one reasonably based on the handbook changes. It appears more likely to me that the confusion happened above their level of authority.

Here's a couple excerpts from the transcript:

 

Thanks for posting that, Meadowchik!  It’s how I remembered.  This professor was not the only one to get this same information right from the honor code office.  One has to wonder what the heck was going on?  Why such a complete disaster and lack of instructions or communication?

[Meadowchik]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Thanks for posting that, Meadowchik!  It’s how I remembered.  This professor was not the only one to get this same information right from the honor code office.  One has to wonder what the heck was going on?  Why such a complete disaster and lack of instructions or communication?

Well it would appear that, based on their consistent messaging, it's quite possible the HCO was following instructions, in my opinion. Maybe at some point someone will explain.

[Scott Lloyd]

40 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Did he say he was only expressing his personal views?

I don’t know. I don’t think it would have made much difference. Apparently he got a lot of people exercised for naught. 

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I dunno Smac.  If someone tells me they love me and care for me but put artificial rules in place

The Law of Chastity is not an "artificial" rule.  

And it's an entirely voluntary one.

22 minutes ago, Teancum said:

that are hurtful to me I can pretty well conclude on my own, without someone telling me that that someone really does not love me, that they really don't love me.

Nonsense.  Membership in the Church is a voluntary thing.  Attending BYU, which is conditioned on agreement to follow the Honor Code, is a voluntary thing.

22 minutes ago, Teancum said:

All a gay person has to do is look at the pattern of the LDS Church's behavior towards them to figure out they really aren't loved all that much.

Now you're doing it.

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

Well it would appear that, based on their consistent messaging, it's quite possible the HCO was following instructions, in my opinion. Maybe at some point someone will explain.

I don’t think you can say with any degree of certainty this is what happened. In discussing irresponsible messaging, best not to commit a similar error by spreading unfounded conjecture.